Feeding dicyandiamide (DCD) to cattle: An effective method to reduce N2O emissions from urine patches in a heavy-textured soil under temperate climatic conditions

The contribution of cattle urine and dung to nitrous oxide emissions: Quantification of country specific emission factors and implications for national inventories

“… Misselbrook et al (2014) reported a greater efficacy of DCD to reduce the urine N 2 O EF, by 70% on a sandy clay loam in SW England. Recently, Minet et al (2018) showed DCD, applied at 10 kg ha −1 , could reduce the urine N 2 O EF by 34% (from 0.80% to 0.52%), but that DCD applied at 30 kg ha −1 reduced the urine N 2 O EF further, by 64%. Note: efficacy of DCD is often reported for cumulative emissions, with reported values being much higher than the efficacy of reducing the EF itself (e.g.…”

“…A urine treatment containing DCD was added, with DCD applied at a rate of 10 kg ha −1 equivalent (supplying 6.5 kg N ha −1 equivalent), and was mixed with urine (only) just before application, to maximise initial co-location of DCD and NH 4 + in the soil profile. This approach also simulated the effect of delivering DCD via boluses ( Ledgard et al, 2008 ), feed ( Luo et al, 2015 ; Minet et al, 2016 , Minet et al, 2018 ) and via water troughs ( Welten et al, 2014 ). The following treatments were established: Urine (target 500 kg N ha −1 ) Urine + DCD (target 500 kg N ha −1 + 6.5 kg N ha −1 in DCD) Artificial urine (500 kg N ha −1 ; Kool et al, 2006 recipe) Dung (target 800 kg N ha −1 ) Control (no additions) …”

“…A meta-analysis by Selbie et al (2015) indicates average urine patch N loading rates of 613 kg N ha −1 and 345 kg N ha −1 for dairy cows and beef cattle, respectively. Clearly, N loading rates in urine patches are in excess of optimal plant use efficiency, increasing the risk of excess N being lost to the environment via nitrate (NO 3 − ) leaching ( de Klein and Ledgard, 2001 ; Di and Cameron, 2007 ), ammonia (NH 3 ) volatilization ( Lockyer and Whitehead, 1990 ; Laubach et al, 2013 ; Burchill et al, 2017 ), N 2 O ( Di and Cameron, 2008 ; Krol et al, 2016 ; Van der Weerden et al, 2017 ; Minet et al, 2018 ) and N 2 ( Clough et al, 1998 ) emissions. All of these N loss pathways (except N 2 O losses) typically represent a significant agronomic loss, and all but N 2 loss have detrimental effects on the environment.…”

“…New Zealand and Irish research groups have taken this a step further, in exploring how the nitrification inhibitor dycandiamide (DCD) can be delivered to urine patches to reduce N 2 O emissions, e.g. through boluses ( Ledgard et al, 2008 ), in drinking water ( Welten et al, 2014 ), and in feed ( Luo et al, 2015 ; Minet et al, 2016 , Minet et al, 2018 ). However, recent publicity and research has demonstrated that there are potential unintended consequences of using nitrification inhibitors, such as contamination of milk products, e.g.…”

Potentiële emissiereductie broeikasgassen Fries veenweidegebied : waterhuishoudkundige en bodembeheermaatregelen om broeikasemissies te beperken

“…bleek recentelijk toedienen van een relatief hoge hoeveelheid nitrificatieremmer aan het voer wel effectief (Minet et al, 2018), maar dat is alleen toepasbaar bij koeien die geen melk geven, omdat anders die stoffen in de melk komen. Effecten van verschillende typen voer op de lachgasemissies worden soms gemeten, maar hebben nog niet geleid tot een advies (Van Groenigen et al, 2005b Friesland (Pieters, 1961).…”