Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation in Agriculture

Abstract

This analysis presents cost estimates for mitigating nitrous oxide from cropland soils, and methane from livestock enteric fermentation, manure management and rice cultivation for major world regions. Total estimated global mitigation potential is approximately 64 MtCeq. in 2010 at negative or zero costs, 141 MtCeq. at $200/TCeq., and up to 168 MtCeq. at higher costs. Costs for individual options range from negative to positive in nearly every region, depending on emission, yield, input, labor, capital cost, and outside revenue effects. Future assessment requires improved accounting for multiple greenhouse gas effects, heterogeneity of emissions and yields, baseline management conditions, identification of options that generate farmer and societal benefits, adoption feasibility, and commodity market effects into mitigation decisions.

Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products – implications for long-term climate targets

“…But even if we optimistically assume that emissions of CO 2 from fossil fuels and CH 4 from manure management are reduced to zero in animal production in 2050, the life cycle emissions would only be lowered by 40% to 50% for pork and poultry and 20% to 25% for dairy and beef. The remaining biogenic emissions, those from enteric fermentation and N turnover in agricultural soils, are harder to reduce, and cuts are technologically more difficult (DeAngelo et al, 2006). We can thus conclude that the consumption of animal-based food at a level of that of Sweden in 2005, could, all on its own, jeopardise the climate target set by the EU.…”

Mitigation of Methane Emissions: A Rapid and Cost-Effective Response to Climate Change

“…Measures with very high costs do not substantially increase mitigation potentials. The absolute numbers provided by DeAngelo (2006) for the shorter time frame until 2010 are much lower than the ones provided by USEPA for 2020. However, since they also assume lower baseline emissions, the relative shares are comparable.…”

“…A major mitigation strategy is improving water management through ways such as draining wetlands during rice seasons, avoiding water logging in off-seasons, and shallow flooding. Additional measures include upland rice cultivation and future cultivars with lower exudation rates (DeAngelo et al 2006, USEPA 2006, IPCC 2007c, Smith et al 2008). …”

“…feeding concentrates), the use of specific agents or dietary additives (like antibiotics and antimethanogen that suppress methanogenesis), and long term management changes and animal breeding. All these measures aim for improving feed conversion efficiency, increasing animal productivity, and decreasing specific methane emissions (DeAngelo et al 2006, USEPA 2006, IPCC 2007c, Smith et al 2008). …”

“…More advanced technologies include frequent manure removal from animal housing into covered storage using scraping systems (Weiske et al 2006) as well as farm scale or centralized digesters for biogas generation and utilization (DeAngelo et al 2006, USEPA 2006. In small-scale farm digesters, biogas from local manure may be used for electricity and/or heat production.…”