Gas Emissions from Straw Covered Liquid Dairy Manure During Summer Storage and Autumn Agitation

VanderZaag, Andrew; Jamieson, Rob; Burton, David L.; Stratton, Glenn W.

doi:10.13031/2013.26832

Cited by 51 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…N 2 O emissions from liquid manure are negligible during storage, unless a surface crust is present (e.g., VanderZaag et al, 2009). With a crust, potentials for nitrification and denitrification can develop and lead to N 2 O emissions, as the crust dries and oxygen enters the crust Petersen, Blanchard, Chadwick, Del Prado, Edouard, Mosquera and Sommer (Sommer et al, 2000;Petersen et al, 2013).…”

Section: Manure Handling and Treatment For Ghg Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Petersen

Blanchard

Chadwick

et al. 2013

Animal

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing intensification and specialisation of livestock production lead to increasing volumes of manure to be managed, which are a source of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). Net emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O result from a multitude of microbial activities in the manure environment. Their relative importance depends not only on manure composition and local management practices with respect to treatment, storage and field application, but also on ambient climatic conditions. The diversity of livestock production systems, and their associated manure management, is discussed on the basis of four regional cases (Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, China and Europe) with increasing levels of intensification and priorities with respect to nutrient management and environmental regulation. GHG mitigation options for production systems based on solid and liquid manure management are then presented, and potentials for positive and negative interactions between pollutants, and between management practices, are discussed. The diversity of manure properties and environmental conditions necessitate a modelling approach for improving estimates of GHG emissions, and for predicting effects of management changes for GHG mitigation, and requirements for such a model are discussed. Finally, we briefly discuss drivers for, and barriers against, introduction of GHG mitigation measures for livestock production. There is no conflict between efforts to improve food and feed production, and efforts to reduce GHG emissions from manure management. Growth in livestock populations are projected to occur mainly in intensive production systems where, for this and other reasons, the largest potentials for GHG mitigation may be found.Keywords: methane, nitrous oxide, storage, treatment, farm model ImplicationsLivestock manure is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly as methane and nitrous oxide. GHG emissions are biogenic and regulated by manure characteristics, and therefore emissions can be manipulated via handling, treatment and storage conditions. Globally, livestock production systems vary widely, and this is also true for GHG mitigation potentials, but generally efforts to conserve nutrients in manure for crop production will also reduce GHG emissions. Future growth in livestock production is projected to occur mainly in confined animal feeding operations, which also appear to have the greatest potential for GHG mitigation. IntroductionSince the mid 20th century, there has been a growing pressure on land resources for production of food and feed for livestock and, increasingly, crops for energy production (Hoogwijk et al., 2005). To fulfil the demand for meat, milk and eggs, livestock production in developing countries is expanding, especially in peri-urban areas (Gerber et al., 2005), and worldwide becomes more specialised (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In consequence of these trends, increasing volumes of livestock manure are produced, which are a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing t...

show abstract

Section: Manure Handling and Treatment For Ghg Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Petersen

Blanchard

Chadwick

et al. 2013

Animal

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the study by VanderZaag et al (2009), a higher reduction was found from 78% (for 15-cm straw layer) to 90% (for 30-cm straw layer). However, in our study, the thickness of straw cover was several times lower than that in the abovementioned study; this might have caused the difference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…However, the results of some other studies were also controversial. In the study by VanderZaag et al (2009), a reduction of CH4 emission from 24% to 28% was recorded after covering manure with straw. That could be the result of CH4 oxidation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Petersen et al (2009) also noticed that nitrous oxide (N2O) emission can increase as a consequence of oxidizing processes in the cover. VanderZaag et al (2009) found that the use of covers might not only increase N2O emission, but also CO2. Furthermore, the study by Amon et al (2006) demonstrated that the type of cover can highly influence emission.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, methods differ in effectiveness, cost, practicality, and expertise required to operate them efficiently. Good results were obtained with covers, at least to reduce NH3 emissions (Brink et al, 2005;Webb et al, 2006;Ndegwa et al, 2008;VanderZaag et al, 2009). Stationary (a 'tight' lid, roof or tent structure) or floating covers can be used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of floating covers on gas emissions from liquid pig manure

Matulaitis

Jukiené

Juka

2015

Chilean J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock manure is the source of different pollutant gases that can generate soil acidification, eutrophication, and contribute to global warming, or have a negative impact on health. Covers can control gas emissions from manure, but their impact is still under discussion. The aim of this experiment was to study the effect of different covers on methane (CH4), nitric oxide (NO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from liquid pig manure. Six types of floating covers were tested: light expanded clay aggregate (leca), peat, sunflower oil, sawdust, straw, and plastic film. Manure was stored at 5, 15, and 25 °C for 37 d. Gas emissions were measured from the headspaces of the dynamic chambers. The results of our study showed that both cover and temperature have a noticeable impact on gas emissions from liquid pig manure. The plastic film cover was the most efficient at all tested temperatures because it reduced emissions of all the measured gases. In this case, mean emission reductions were: CH4 91.5% (P < 0.01), NO 92.0% (P < 0.05), H2S 78.1% (P < 0.05), NH3 54.7% (P < 0.01), CO 98.4% (P < 0.01), and CO2 67.1% (P < 0.01). Other covers had an inconsistent impact on separate gas emissions. However, covers generally helped to decrease NH3, H2S, and CO2 emissions.

show abstract

Does overwintering change the inoculum effect on methane emissions from stored liquid manure?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially methane (CH4), from manure storage facilities can be substantial. Methane production requires adapted microbial communities (“inoculum”) to be present in the manure. Complete removal of liquid dairy manure (thus removing all inoculum) from storage tanks in the spring has been shown to significantly reduce CH4 emissions over the following warm season. This study examined whether the same mitigation effect would occur after fall removal of liquid dairy manure. Emissions of CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), ammonia (NH3), and CO2 were measured from six 11.88‐m3 tanks equipped with flow‐through chambers. There were three inoculated controls (20% inoculum) and three uninoculated treatments, where inoculum was completely removed in the fall/winter (0% inoculum). Direct N2O and NH3 (indirect N2O) were minor contributors to the total GHG budget, contributing <2% on a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) basis. Removal of inoculum led to a 34% decrease in total emissions on a CO2e basis and to a 29% decrease in the CH4 conversion factor compared with the inoculated control (0.37 vs. 0.52; p = .01). Overall, removing inoculum in the fall reduced CH4 emissions from manure storage tanks; however, fall inoculum removal was less effective than in a previous study where inoculum was removed in the spring. The timing of inoculum removal may affect the efficiency of this CH4 mitigation strategy. However, this method may be impractical for larger manure storage tanks. Further study is required to overcome challenges of time‐sensitive, complete inoculum removal from farm‐scale storage tanks.

show abstract

Gas Emissions from Straw Covered Liquid Dairy Manure During Summer Storage and Autumn Agitation

Cited by 51 publications

References 0 publications

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

The effect of floating covers on gas emissions from liquid pig manure

Does overwintering change the inoculum effect on methane emissions from stored liquid manure?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About