Although livestock production accounts for a sizeable share of global greenhouse gas emissions, numerous technical options have been identified to mitigate these emissions. In this review, a subset of these options, which have proven to be effective, are discussed. These include measures to reduce CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation by ruminants, the largest single emission source from the global livestock sector, and for reducing CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from manure. A unique feature of this review is the high level of attention given to interactions between mitigation options and productivity. Among the feed supplement options for lowering enteric emissions, dietary lipids, nitrates and ionophores are identified as the most effective. Forage quality, feed processing and precision feeding have the best prospects among the various available feed and feed management measures. With regard to manure, dietary measures that reduce the amount of N excreted (e.g. better matching of dietary protein to animal needs), shift N excretion from urine to faeces (e.g. tannin inclusion at low levels) and reduce the amount of fermentable organic matter excreted are recommended. Among the many 'end-of-pipe' measures available for manure management, approaches that capture and/or process CH 4 emissions during storage (e.g. anaerobic digestion, biofiltration, composting), as well as subsurface injection of manure, are among the most encouraging options flagged in this section of the review. The importance of a multiple gas perspective is critical when assessing mitigation potentials, because most of the options reviewed show strong interactions among sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper reviews current knowledge on potential pollution swapping, whereby the reduction of one GHG or emission source leads to unintended increases in another.

This review analyzes published data on manure management practices used to mitigate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from animal operations. Reducing excreted nitrogen (N) and degradable organic carbon (C) by diet manipulation to improve the balance of nutrient inputs with production is an effective practice to reduce CH4 and N2O emissions. Most CH4 is produced during manure storage; therefore, reducing storage time, lowering manure temperature by storing it outside during colder seasons, and capturing and combusting the CH4 produced during storage are effective practices to reduce CH4 emission. Anaerobic digestion with combustion of the gas produced is effective in reducing CH4 emission and organic C content of manure; this increases readily available C and N for microbial processes creating little CH4 and increased N2O emissions following land application. Nitrous oxide emission occurs following land application as a byproduct of nitrification and dentrification processes in the soil, but these processes may also occur in compost, biofilter materials, and permeable storage covers. These microbial processes depend on temperature, moisture content, availability of easily degradable organic C, and oxidation status of the environment, which make N2O emissions and mitigation results highly variable. Managing the fate of ammoniacal N is essential to the success of N2O and CH4 mitigation because ammonia is an important component in the cycling of N through manure, soil, crops, and animal feeds. Manure application techniques such as subsurface injection reduce ammonia and CH4 emissions but can result in increased N2O emissions. Injection works well when combined with anaerobic digestion and solids separation by improving infiltration. Additives such as urease and nitrification inhibitors that inhibit microbial processes have mixed results but are generally effective in controlling N2O emission from intensive grazing systems. Matching plant nutrient requirements with manure fertilization, managing grazing intensity, and using cover crops are effective practices to increase plant N uptake and reduce N2O emissions. Due to system interactions, mitigation practices that reduce emissions in one stage of the manure management process may increase emissions elsewhere, so mitigation practices must be evaluated at the whole farm level.

No abstract

In this analysis we used a spatially explicit, simplified bottom-up approach, based on animal inventories, feed dry matter intake, and feed intake-based emission factors to estimate county-level enteric methane emissions for cattle and manure methane emissions for cattle, swine, and poultry for the contiguous United States. Overall, this analysis yielded total livestock methane emissions (8916 Gg/yr; lower and upper 95% confidence bounds of ±19.3%) for 2012 (last census of agriculture) that are comparable to the current USEPA estimates for 2012 and to estimates from the global gridded Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) inventory. However, the spatial distribution of emissions developed in this analysis differed significantly from that of EDGAR and a recent gridded inventory based on USEPA. Combined enteric and manure methane emissions from livestock in Texas and California (highest contributors to the national total) in this study were 36% lesser and 100% greater, respectively, than estimates by EDGAR. The spatial distribution of emissions in gridded inventories (e.g., EDGAR) likely strongly impacts the conclusions of top-down approaches that use them, especially in the source attribution of resulting (posterior) emissions, and hence conclusions from such studies should be interpreted with caution.

Manureshed management seeks to address systemic imbalances in nutrient distributions at scales beyond the farmgate and potentially across county and state boundaries. The U.S. poultry industry, which includes broilers, layers, pullets, and turkeys, has many characteristics that are compatible with achieving a vision of manureshed management, including a history of engaging in local and regional programs to better distribute manure resources. Despite widespread vertical integration that supports large‐scale strategic decision making and dry manures that favor off‐farm transport, there are still many challenges to poultry manureshed management that require engaging stakeholders other than just the poultry industry. Analysis of county‐level nutrient budgets highlights the industry's “mega‐manureshed,” extending from the Mid‐Atlantic, across the southeast, and into northwest Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The analysis also identifies areas with legacy nutrient build‐up that are still present today. Implementing manureshed management in the U.S. poultry industry requires comprehensive consideration of manure treatment technologies, alternative uses such as bioenergy production, market development for treated manure products, transport of manure nutrients from source to sink areas, and manure brokering programs that promote manure nutrient distribution. Fortunately, past and present evolution and innovation within the industry places it as a likely leader of the manureshed vision.