A review of emissions of methane, ammonia, and nitrous oxide from animal excreta deposition and farm effluent application in grazed pastures

Saggar, Surinder; Bolan, Nanthi; Bhandral, R.; Hedley, C. B.; Luo, Jiafa

doi:10.1080/00288233.2004.9513618

Cited by 204 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 137 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not statistically different, median CH 4 concentrations measured from the loafing pen and open-lot (11 and 13 ppm v , respectively) trended higher than those in manure lane, bedding area, and compost piles. This was likely due to fermentation induced by the anaerobic environment of the loafing pen and open-lot pen, and anaerobic soil layers produced immediately under the manure's top surface [5]. The average CH 4 concentration was 0.36 ppm v from compost piles, which was lower than other sources, likely because the manure was already partially degraded.…”

Section: Methane Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock vary by animal type and growth stage due to different diets, feed conversion mechanisms, and the manure management [3]. Methane is produced by the microbes in the rumen of ruminant animals due to enteric fermentation, from freshly deposited manure due to bacterial processes, and from storage lagoons and settling basins due to anaerobic degradation [4][5][6]. Methane, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 25, can affect climate directly through its interaction with long-wave infrared energy and indirectly through atmospheric oxidation reactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A protocol that consisted of an isolation flux chamber and a portable gas chromatograph was used to directly quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a dairy and a feedyard operation in the Texas Panhandle. Field sampling campaigns were performed 5 consecutive days only during daylight hours from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm each day. The objective of this research was to quantify and compare GHG emission rates (ERs) from ground level area sources (GLAS) at dairy and cattle feedyard operations during the summer. A total of 74 air samples using flux chamber were collected from the barn (manure lane and bedding area), loafing pen, open lot, settling basin, lagoons, and compost pile within the dairy operation. For the cattle feedyard, a total of 87 air samples were collected from four corner pens of a large feedlot, runoff holding pond, and compost pile. Three primary GHGs (methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide) were measured and quantified from both operations. The aggregate estimated ERs for CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O were 836, 5573, 3.4 g hd(collectively 27.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) hd), respectively, at the dairy operation. The aggregate ERs for CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O were 3.8, 1399, 0.68 g hd(1.7 kg CO 2 e hd), respectively, from the feedyard. The estimated USEPA GHG ERs were about 13.2 and 1.16 kg CO 2 e hd, respectively, for dairy and feedyard operations. Aggregate CH 4 , CO 2 and N 2 O ERs at the dairy facility were about 219, 4 and 5 times higher, respectively, than those at the feedyard. OPEN ACCESSAtmosphere 2011, 2 304At the dairy, average CH 4 ERs estimated from the settling basin, primary and secondary lagoons were significantly higher than those from the other GLAS, contributing about 98% of the aggregate CH 4 emission. The runoff holding pond and pen surface of the feedyard contributed about 99% of the aggregate CH 4 emission. Average CO 2 and N 2 O ERs estimated from the pen surface area were significantly higher than those estimated from the compost pile and runoff pond. The pen surface alone contributed about 93% and 84% of the aggregate CO 2 and N 2 O emission, respectively. Abatement and management practices that address GHG emissions from these sources will likely be most effective for reducing facility emissions.

show abstract

Section: Methane Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1) for the 'manure management' emission category. For example in NZ~1.3 of the 1.4 Mt of CO 2 -e/year of CH 4 from dairy farm manure comes from anaerobic ponds compared with just 0.1 Mt from manure deposited on pastures [determined from data in Saggar et al (2004)]. It is important to note that the term 'effluent pond' is used to encompass a wide range of systems from small (<100 m 3 ) pits with just a few weeks' effluent storage capacity to large (>2000 m 3 ) lagoons for up to 1 year's storage capacity.…”

Section: Ghg Emissions From Dairy Cattle 'Manure Management'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The knowledge of causes, magnitude, and mitigation potential of enteric CH 4 and soil N 2 O emissions is now well established for Australia, NZ, and overseas (de Klein et al 2001;Dalal et al 2003;Saggar et al 2004;Eckard et al 2010;Cottle et al 2011). By contrast, agricultural manure management emission estimates have not been verified by a rigorous review of the available literature since they were developed more than 15 years ago.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good science for improving policy: greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural manures

Pratt¹,

Redding²,

Hill³

et al. 2015

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Australia's and New Zealand's major agricultural manure management emission sources are reported to be, in descending order of magnitude: (1) methane (CH 4 ) from dairy farms in both countries; (2) CH 4 from pig farms in Australia; and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) from (3) beef feedlots and (4) poultry sheds in Australia. We used literature to critically review these inventory estimates. Alarmingly for dairy farm CH 4 (1), our review revealed assumptions and omissions that when addressed could dramatically increase this emission estimate. The estimate of CH 4 from Australian pig farms (2) appears to be accurate, according to industry data and field measurements. The N 2 O emission estimates for beef feedlots (3) and poultry sheds (4) are based on northern hemisphere default factors whose appropriateness for Australia is questionable and unverified. Therefore, most of Australasia's key livestock manure management greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profiles are either questionable or are unsubstantiated by region-specific research. Encouragingly, GHG from dairy shed manure are relatively easy to mitigate because they are a point source which can be managed by several 'close-to-market' abatement solutions. Reducing these manure emissions therefore constitutes an opportunity for meaningful action sooner compared with the more difficult-to-implement and long-term strategies that currently dominate agricultural GHG mitigation research. At an international level, our review highlights the critical need to carefully reassess GHG emission profiles, particularly if such assessments have not been made since the compilation of original inventories. Failure to act in this regard presents the very real risk of missing the 'low hanging fruit' in the rush towards a meaningful response to climate change.

show abstract

“…Although recent studies conducted at the animal husbandry level in Switzerland (Staerfl et al, 2012;Zeitz et al, 2012) showed that using countryspecific EFs would not substantially alter the total estimate of livestock CH 4 emissions, high uncertainty remains, as differing farming practices can have significant impacts on the EFs (Lowry et al, 2001;Saggar et al, 2004;Christie et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of farm-scale methane emissions using nocturnal boundary layer budgets

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study provides the first experimental validation of Swiss agricultural methane emission estimates at the farm scale. We measured CH 4 concentrations at a Swiss farmstead during two intensive field campaigns in August 2011 and July 2012 to (1) quantify the source strength of livestock methane emissions using a tethered balloon system and (2) to validate inventory emission estimates via nocturnal boundary layer (NBL) budgets. Field measurements were performed at a distance of 150 m from the nearest farm buildings with a tethered balloon system in combination with gradient measurements at eight heights on a 10 m tower to better resolve the near-surface concentrations. Vertical profiles of air temperature, relative humidity, CH 4 concentration, wind speed, and wind direction showed that the NBL was strongly influenced by local transport processes and by the valley wind system. Methane concentrations showed a pronounced time course, with highest concentrations in the second half of the night. NBL budget flux estimates were obtained via a time-space kriging approach. Main uncertainties of NBL budget flux estimates were associated with nonstationary atmospheric conditions and the estimate of the inversion height z i (top of volume integration). The mean NBL budget fluxes of 1.60±0.31 µg CH 4 m −2 s −1 (1.40±0.50 and 1.66 ± 0.20 µg CH 4 m −2 s −1 in 2011 and 2012 respectively) were in good agreement with local inventory estimates based on current livestock number and default emission factors, with 1.29 ± 0.47 and 1.74 ± 0.63 µg CH 4 m −2 s −1 for 2011 and 2012 respectively. This indicates that emission factors used for the national inventory reports are adequate, and we conclude that the NBL budget approach is a useful tool to validate emission inventory estimates.

show abstract

A review of emissions of methane, ammonia, and nitrous oxide from animal excreta deposition and farm effluent application in grazed pastures

Cited by 204 publications

References 137 publications

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

Good science for improving policy: greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural manures

Validation of farm-scale methane emissions using nocturnal boundary layer budgets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About