Monitoring GHG from manure stores on organic and conventional dairy farms

Sneath, R.W.; Béline, Fabrice; Hilhorst, M.A.; Peu, Pascal

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.020

Cited by 72 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…with N the number of animals and with emission factors for dairy cows (E d ), heifer (E y ), calves (E c ), manure (E m ) and farmyard manure (E f ): 274, 170, 48, 53 and 40 g CH 4 day −1 animal −1 or m −3 for farm yard manure, respectively (Sneath et al 2006;van Amstel et al 2003). The Oukoop farm owned during the measurement period 50 ha land with 65 adult cows, 20 heifer, 10 calves and had a storage of 700 m 3 slurry and no other farm yard manure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity

Schrier-Uijl

Kroon

Leffelaar³

et al. 2009

Plant Soil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methane (CH 4 ) emissions were compared for an intensively and extensively managed agricultural area on peat soils in the Netherlands to evaluate the effect of reduced management on the CH 4 balance. Chamber measurements (photoacoustic methods) for CH 4 were performed for a period of three years in the contributing landscape elements in the research sites. Various factors influencing CH 4 emissions were evaluated and temperature of water and soil was found to be the main driver in both sites. For upscaling of CH 4 fluxes to landscape scale, regression models were used which were specific for each of the contributing landforms. Ditches and bordering edges were emission hotspots and emitted together between 60% and 70% of the total terrestrial CH 4 emissions. To further evaluate the effect of agricultural activity on the CH 4 balance, the annual CH 4 fluxes of the two managed sites were also compared to the emissions of a natural peat site with no management and high ground water levels. By comparing the terrestrial and additional farm based emissions of the three sites, we finally concluded that transformation of intensively managed agricultural land to nature development will lead to an increase in terrestrial CH 4 emission, but will not by definition lead to a significant increase in CH 4 emission when farm based emissions are included.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity

Schrier-Uijl

Kroon

Leffelaar³

et al. 2009

Plant Soil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Uit een studie die werd gedaan met behulp van tracer gas is gekeken naar de productie van broeikasgasemissies vanuit al dan niet afgedekte mestopslagen voor biologische en gangbare melkveesystemen (Sneath et al 2006 . In beide bedrijfssystemen waren de N2O emissies bijna nul (Sneath et al 2006). Door grote variatie in de resultaten konden geen significante verschillen tussen de beide bedrijfssystemen worden aangetoond.…”

Section: Figuur 10unclassified

Vergelijking klimaateffecten van de gangbare vs. de biologische landbouw

Meerburg

Helmes

Reijs

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As the pit was not hermetically sealed by the synthetic sheet roof, gaseous emissions were determined by measuring the concentrations in the headspace under the cover and the air leakage with a tracer gas (CO 2 ) as described in previous studies [29]- [31]. Air leakage from the covered pit expressed in cubic meters per day (m 3 •d 4 or CO 2 NH 3 , CH 4 , CO 2 and N 2 O concentrations in the pit headspace were monitored by continuously sampling air at the perimeter of the pit where, according to [33], air leakage was assumed to occur.…”

Section: Slurry Storage and Manure Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farm-Scale Applicability of Three Covers (Peat, Polystyrene Balls and Synthetic Sheet Roof) to Reduce Ammonia Emissions from Pig Slurry Storage

Loyon¹,

Guiziou²,

Picard³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Covering the slurry pit has been shown to be one of the best ways to reduce ammonia emissions (NH 3 ) during manure management. Yet, few studies have been conducted at farm scale. We studied the feasibility of three cover materials (peat, polystyrene balls and synthetic sheet roof) to reduce ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions during on-farm storage of pig slurry. The impact on greenhouse gas emissions, methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) of covering the slurry pit was also evaluated. Simultaneous field experiments were carried out using two similar pits at a farm with peat and polystyrene ball covers, which allowed direct comparison of the feasibility of the two covers to reduce gas emissions (measured using the dynamic chamber technique). Emissions from the third option (using a synthetic sheet roof) were estimated by measuring the concentrations in the headspace under the cover and the air leakage from the cover with a tracer gas (CO 2 ). Results showed that the polystyrene balls cover reduced emissions of NH 3 during storage by up to 80% whatever the season, but increased potential greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in summer. No consistent reduction was achieved with the peat cover even though some individual results seemed to indicate up to 25% reduction in ammonia emissions; moreover, there was a 30% increase in CH 4 and CO 2 emissions during the storage period. The use of a synthetic sheet roof enabled up to 90% reduction in NH 3 , CH 4 and CO 2 emissions whatever the season.

show abstract

Monitoring GHG from manure stores on organic and conventional dairy farms

Cited by 72 publications

References 7 publications

Methane emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity

Methane emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity

Vergelijking klimaateffecten van de gangbare vs. de biologische landbouw

Farm-Scale Applicability of Three Covers (Peat, Polystyrene Balls and Synthetic Sheet Roof) to Reduce Ammonia Emissions from Pig Slurry Storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About