Methane and ammonia emissions from a beef feedlot in western Canada for a twelve-day period in the fall

Haarlem, Ronald P. van; Desjardins, R. L.; Gao, Zhiling; Flesch, Thomas K.; Li, X.

doi:10.4141/cjas08034

Cited by 72 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect is however, usually nullified from a carbon footprint perspective because their rate of weight gain is less than a grain-fed, feedlot finished animal, and they must spend more time on pasture, consuming feed and producing CH 4 in order to reach market weight [10]. The fact that the CH 4 emission factor per unit of feed consumed is substantially smaller for grain-finished cattle compounds this effect [11].…”

Section: Beef Cattle Population and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Desjardins

Worth

Vergé³

et al. 2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The carbon footprint of beef cattle is presented for Canada, The United States, The European Union, Australia and Brazil. The values ranged between 8 and 22 kg CO 2 e per kg of live weight (LW) depending on the type of farming system, the location, the year, the type of management practices, the allocation, as well as the boundaries of the study. Substantial reductions have been observed for most of these countries in the last thirty years. For instance, in Canada the mean carbon footprint of beef cattle at the exit gate of the farm decreased from 18.2 kg CO 2 e per kg LW in 1981 to 9.5 kg CO 2 e per kg LW in 2006 mainly because of improved genetics, better diets, and more sustainable land management practices. Cattle production results in products other than meat, such as hides, offal and products for rendering plants; hence the environmental burden must be distributed between these useful products. In order to do this, the cattle carbon footprint needs to be reported in kg of CO 2 e per kg of product. For example, in Canada in 2006, on a mass basis, the carbon footprint of cattle by-products at the exit gate of the slaughterhouse was 12.9 kg CO 2 e per kg of product. Based on an economic allocation, the carbon OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2012, 4 3280 footprints of meat (primal cuts), hide, offal and fat, bones and other products for rendering were 19.6, 12.3, 7 and 2 kg CO 2 e per kg of product, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Beef Cattle Population and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Desjardins

Worth

Vergé³

et al. 2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the published literature reporting CH 4 emissions from feedlot manure system used atmospheric dispersion modeling (inverse dispersion, backward lagrangian stochastic model, IPCC tiers I and II algorithm, and Blaxter and Clapperton algorithm) to estimate emissions from whole farm [19][20][21]. Zoe et al [19] estimated summer CH 4 ER data for two Australian feedyards using an open-path tunable near infrared diode laser and backward lagrangian stochastic model of atmospheric dispersion.…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…for a large beef feedlot in western Canada using inverse dispersion model [21]. Phetteplace et al [22] determined GHG emissions from simulated beef and dairy livestock systems in the United States using a computer spreadsheet program.…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas Inventorymentioning

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

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

“…While the bLS technique was developed for idealized situations where the wind is described by simple statistical relationships (e.g., flat homogeneous terrain), it has been shown to be robust even in non-ideal conditions [8][9][10][11]. It has even been used to measure gas emissions from farms [12], fields [11], feedlots [13], ponds [14], and pastures [15].…”

Section: It Requires Knowledge Of the Tracer Concentration And Wind Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Trace Gas Emission from Multi-Distributed Sources Using Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) and Backward Lagrangian Stochastic (bLS) Techniques

Ro¹,

Johnson²,

Hunt³

et al. 2011

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two micrometeorological techniques for measuring trace gas emission rates from distributed area sources were evaluated using a variety of synthetic area sources. The vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) and the backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS) techniques with an open-path optical spectroscopic sensor were evaluated for relative accuracy for multiple emission-source and sensor configurations. The relative accuracy was calculated by dividing the measured emission rate by the actual emission rate; thus, a relative accuracy of 1.0 represents a perfect measure. For a single area emission source, the VRPM technique yielded a somewhat high relative accuracy of 1.38 ± 0.28. The bLS technique resulted in a relative accuracy close to unity, 0.98 ± 0.24. Relative accuracies for dual source emissions for the VRPM and bLS techniques were somewhat similar to single source emissions, 1.23 ± 0.17 and 0.94 ± 0.24, respectively. When the bLS technique was used with vertical point concentrations, the relative accuracy was unacceptably low, <0.62. However, when using multiple point sensors in a horizontal line, the bLS technique yielded a relative accuracy of 1.08 ± 0.44. Altogether, these results suggest that the bLS technique has significant potential for measuring trace gas emissions from distributed agricultural systems.

show abstract

Methane and ammonia emissions from a beef feedlot in western Canada for a twelve-day period in the fall

Cited by 72 publications

References 35 publications

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

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

Measuring Trace Gas Emission from Multi-Distributed Sources Using Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) and Backward Lagrangian Stochastic (bLS) Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About