Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry

Clemens, Joachim; Trimborn, Manfred; Weiland, Peter; Amon, Barbara

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.016

Cited by 362 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

261

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The same is true for slurry stored under warm conditions for a rather limited period of time. In addition, other studies agree that slurry stored below 158C does not constitute a significant CH 4 source (Steed and Hashimoto, 1994;Clemens et al, 2006;Sommer et al, 2007). However, longer storage periods at warm storage conditions resulted in substantial proportions of 20% to 30% of total CH 4 originating from slurry methanogenesis.…”

Section: --mentioning

confidence: 84%

Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay

Klevenhusen

Kreuzer

Soliva

2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ruminant husbandry constitutes the most important source of anthropogenic methane (CH 4 ). In addition to enteric (animal-derived) CH 4 , excreta are another source of CH 4 , especially when stored anaerobically. Increasing the proportion of dietary concentrate is often considered as the primary CH 4 mitigation option. However, it is unclear whether this is still valid when diets to be compared are energy-balanced. In addition, non-structural carbohydrates and side effects on nitrogen (N) emissions may be important. In this experiment, diet types representing either forage-only or mixed diets were examined for their effects on CH 4 and N emissions from animals and their slurries in 18 lactating cows. Apart from a hay-only diet, treatments included two mixed diets consisting of maize stover, pelleted whole maize plants and gluten or barley straw and grain and soy bean meal. The diets were balanced in crude protein and net energy for lactation. After adaptation, data and samples were collected for 8 days including a 2-day CH 4 measurement in respiratory chambers. Faeces and urine, combined proportionately according to excretion, were used to determine slurry-derived CH 4 and N emissions. Slurry was stored for 15 weeks at either 148C or 278C, and temperatures were classified as 'cool' and 'warm', respectively. The low-starch hay-only diet had high organic matter and fibre digestibility and proved to be equally effective on the cows' performance as mixed diets. The enteric CH 4 formation remained unaffected by the diet except when related to digested fibre. In this case emission was lowest with the hay-only diet (61 v. 88 to 101 g CH 4 /kg digested NDF). Feeding the hay diet resulted in the highest slurry-CH 4 production after 7 weeks of storage at 148C and 278C, and after 15 weeks at 148C. CH 4 emissions were, in general, about 10-fold higher at 278C compared with 148C but only after 15 weeks of storage. Urinary N losses were highest with the barley diet and lowest with the maize diet. There was a trend towards similar differences in N losses from the slurry of these cows (significant at 148C). However, contrary to CH 4 , slurry-N emissions seemed to be temperature-independent. In conclusion, energetically balanced diets proved to be widely equivalent in their emission potential when combining animal and their slurry, this even at a clearly differing forage : concentrate ratio. The variation in CH 4 emission from slurry stored shortly or at cold temperature for 15 weeks was of low importance as such conditions did not support methanogenesis in slurry anyway.

show abstract

Section: --mentioning

confidence: 84%

Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay

Klevenhusen

Kreuzer

Soliva

2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsurface injection of manure slurries into the soil can result in localized anaerobic conditions surrounding the buried liquid manure, which, together with an increased degradable C pool, may result in higher CH 4 emissions than with surface applied manure (Kü lling et al, 2003;Amon et al, 2006;Clemens et al, 2006). Diluting the manure or reducing the degradable C flux through solid separation or anaerobic degradation pre-treatments are options to reduce CH 4 emissions from injected manure Clemens et al, 2006).…”

Section: Manure Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Diluting the manure or reducing the degradable C flux through solid separation or anaerobic degradation pre-treatments are options to reduce CH 4 emissions from injected manure Clemens et al, 2006). As this combination of treatments reduces the availability of degradable C, it also tends to decrease N 2 O emission Clemens et al, 2006;Velthof and Mosquera, 2011). However, both CH 4 and N 2 O emissions resulting from manure injection into soil are generally low, and therefore should be weighed against the benefits of reducing NH 3 volatilization when manure is surface applied (Hristov et al, 2013).…”

Section: Manure Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the contrary, anaerobic digestion, or separation of manure solids, lowers the organic content of manure, which generally results in lower emissions of N 2 O (Clemens et al, 2006;Velthof and Mosquera, 2011). However, the inhibition of nitrification under anaerobic conditions can lead to greater ammonium N in digested manure, which, coupled with the pH increase that is likely with digestion, can lead to greater NH 3 emissions (Hristov et al, 2013).…”

Section: Interactions and Links With Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review

Gerber

Hristov

Henderson

et al. 2013

Animal

311

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although livestock production accounts for a sizeable share of global greenhouse gas emissions, numerous technical options have been identified to mitigate these emissions. In this review, a subset of these options, which have proven to be effective, are discussed. These include measures to reduce CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation by ruminants, the largest single emission source from the global livestock sector, and for reducing CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from manure. A unique feature of this review is the high level of attention given to interactions between mitigation options and productivity. Among the feed supplement options for lowering enteric emissions, dietary lipids, nitrates and ionophores are identified as the most effective. Forage quality, feed processing and precision feeding have the best prospects among the various available feed and feed management measures. With regard to manure, dietary measures that reduce the amount of N excreted (e.g. better matching of dietary protein to animal needs), shift N excretion from urine to faeces (e.g. tannin inclusion at low levels) and reduce the amount of fermentable organic matter excreted are recommended. Among the many 'end-of-pipe' measures available for manure management, approaches that capture and/or process CH 4 emissions during storage (e.g. anaerobic digestion, biofiltration, composting), as well as subsurface injection of manure, are among the most encouraging options flagged in this section of the review. The importance of a multiple gas perspective is critical when assessing mitigation potentials, because most of the options reviewed show strong interactions among sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper reviews current knowledge on potential pollution swapping, whereby the reduction of one GHG or emission source leads to unintended increases in another.

show abstract

“…The substitution was modeled as described in [14], for a pig farm. The direct emission of N 2 O were calculated equal to 1.5% of the N applied with the digestate based the average value of the range provided by the IPCC approach [37] for application on land of digestate; the emission of NH 3 was calculated equal to 11% as average of a range of values suggested by [38][39][40][41]. The indirect N 2 O emissions were quantified based on IPCC [37].…”

Section: Others: Pre-treatments and Use On Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global warming potential impact of bioenergy systems

Tonini

Hamelin

2012

EPJ Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels and mitigation of GHG emissions is a main focus in the energy strategy of many Countries. In the case of Demark, for instance, the long-term target of the energy policy is to reach 100% renewable energy system. This can be achieved by drastic reduction of the energy demand, optimization of production/distribution and substitution of fossil fuels with biomasses. However, a large increase in biomass consumption will finally induce conversion of arable and currently cultivated land into fields dedicated to energy crops production determining significant environmental consequences related to land use changes. In this study the global warming potential impact associated with six alternative bioenergy systems based on willow and Miscanthus was assessed by means of life-cycle assessment. The results showed that bioenergy production may generate higher global warming impacts than the reference fossil fuel system, when the impacts from indirect land use changes are accounted for. In a life-cycle perspective, only highly-efficient co-firing with fossil fuel achieved a (modest) GHG emission reduction.

show abstract

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry

Cited by 362 publications

References 13 publications

Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay

Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay

Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review

Global warming potential impact of bioenergy systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About