Proceedings of the First Meeting of the AnimalProduction and Manure Management Network
Edited by
J. France1, K. Clark2, E. Kebreab1 and C. Wagner-Riddle2
Departments of 1Animal and Poultry Science and 2Land Resource Science, University of Guelph,Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
The initial concept of this network arose from discussions between the CanadianCattlemen’s Association and Dr Karin Wittenberg of the University of Manitoba inJanuary 2003. The first forum for discussion of the concept was the workshop onGreenhouse Gas (GHG) Management in Ruminant Production Systems, held under theaegis of BIOCAP in Ottawa in December 2003. The concept was endorsed further at theworkshop on Developing a Hog Lagoon Quantification Protocol: Science at Work, heldin Calgary in April 2004. Subsequently, BIOCAP formally created the Animal Productionand Manure Management Network in June 2004, and the first meeting of the networktook place at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Ottawa on 1 February 2005.
The overall objective of the first meeting was to exchange information on currentresearch across Canada on GHG emissions from animal production and manuremanagement with the goal of creating opportunities for future collaboration. Particularemphasis was placed on description of current experiments, the techniques employed andthe data being generated. To realize this objective, the meeting was structured around fivesessions: (i) Animal Management I, (ii) Measurement of Emissions, (iii) ManureTreatment, (iv) Animal Management II, and (v) General Discussion (see Appendix 1). Areview paper was prepared by Kebreab et al. (2005) and circulated prior to the meeting tofacilitate discussion (http://www.biocap.ca/).
The meeting identified the following network goals:
(i) Increased understanding of carbon and nitrogen cycles (understanding betterthe environmental and animal production factors that affect GHG emissions);
(ii) Standardization of measurement (establishing consensus on measurementtechniques and agreeing protocols and limitations);
1
(iii) Best management practice development and assessment (developing feedingand manure management strategies that reduce methane and nitrous oxideemissions);
(iv) Model development (developing predictive statistical models and moreprocess-based mechanistic models to help determine best practice and providenumbers for GHG inventories);
(v) Facilitate communication and technology transfer (between research groups,producer organizations and producers);
(vi) Training of highly qualified personnel.
Four Working Groups, namely Ruminant Nutrition, Monogastric Nutrition, ManureManagement, and Land and Pasture Management, would be created to meet these goals.Summaries of the papers read at the meeting are given in Appendix 2, and a list ofattendees in Appendix 3.
Kebreab, E., Clark, K., Wagner-Riddle, C. and France, J. 2005. Methane and nitrousoxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: a review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. (Submittedfor review).
2
Démarches de la première réunion du réseau deproduction animale et gestion du fumier
Édité par
J. France1, K. Clark2, E. Kebreab1 et C. Wagner-Riddle2
Départments 1de la science d'animal et de volaille et 2de la science de ressource de terre, Université deGuelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Le concept initial de ce réseau a résulté des discussions entre la Canadian Cattlemen’sAssociation et Dr. Karin Wittenberg de l'université de Manitoba en janvier 2003. Lepremier forum pour la discussion du concept était l'atelier sur les gaz à effet de serre(GES) dans les systèmes de production des ruminants, tenus sous l'égide de BIOCAP àOttawa en décembre 2003. Encouragement supplémentaire pour le concept a résultéd’un atelier tenu à Calgary en avril 2004, Developing a Hog Lagoon QuantificationProtocol: Science at Work. Postérieurement, BIOCAP a créé le réseau de productionanimale et gestion du fumier (RPAGF) en juin 2004, et la première réunion du réseau a eulieu à l'hôtel Crowne Plaza en Ottawa le 1 février 2005.
L'objectif de la première réunion était l'échange d'information concernant larecherche courante à travers le Canada sur les émissions de GES à origine de laproduction animale et de la gestion du fumier, avec l’intention de créer des opportunitéspour la collaboration à l’avenir. L'accent particulier a été mis sur la description des essaiscourants, des techniques utilisées et des données étant produites. Pour réaliser cetobjectif, la réunion a été structurée autour de cinq sessions : (i) gestion animale I, (ii)mesure des émissions, (iii) traitement de fumier, (iv) gestion animale II, et (v) discussiongénérale (annexe 1). Un exposé synoptique a été préparé par Kebreab et al (2005) etcirculé avant la réunion pour faciliter la discussion (http://www.biocap.ca/).
La réunion a identifié les objectifs suivants du réseau:
(i) Augmentation de compréhension des cycles de carbone et d'azote (mieuxcomprendre les facteurs environnementaux et de production animale quiaffectent les émissions de GES);
(ii) Normalisation des techniques de mesure (établir le consensus sur destechniques de mesure et convenir de les protocoles et limitations);
(iii) Développement et évaluation des pratiques de gestion optimales (développerdes stratégies d'alimentation et de gestion de fumier afin d’attenuer lesémissions de méthane et de protoxyde d'azote);
(iv) Développement de modèle (développer des modèles statistiques prédictifs etdes modèles mécanistiques basés sur les processus qui influence la production
3
de GES, au but de déterminer des pratiques de gestion optimales et à fournirdes données pour l’inventaire canadien des GES);
(v) Faciliter communication et transfert de technologie (entre groupes derecherche, organismes de producteurs et producers);
(vi) Formation de personnel fortement qualifié.
Quatre groupes de travail en nutrition des ruminants, nutrition des monogastriques,gestion du fumier, et gestion de terre et de pâturage, seraient créés pour accomplir cesobjectifs. Les sommaires des papiers lu lors de la réunion sont donnés dans l'annexe 2, etune liste de participants dans l'annexe 3.
Kebreab, E., Clark, K., Wagner-Riddle, C. and France, J. 2005. Methane and nitrousoxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: a review. Article soumis au Can. J.Anim. Sci. (soumi pour révision).
4
Appendix 1 - Meeting AgendaAnimal Production and Manure Management NetworkTuesday, February 1, 2005
Opening Remarks8:00 – 8:10 BIOCAP Introduction – Susan Wood, BIOCAP Canada8:10 – 8:20 APMM Network Introduction – James France, University of Guelph
Session 1, Animal Production Management for Reduced GHG Emissions, Part 1Chair: Alan Iwaasa, AAFC Saskatchewan8:20 – 8:40 Karin Wittenberg, University of Manitoba8:40 – 8:55 Ming Fan, University of Guelph8:55 – 9:10 Ron Ball, University of Alberta 9:10 – 9:30 Karen Beauchemin, AAFC, Alberta9:30 – 9:50 Discussion
9:50 –10:10 Health Break
Session 2, Measurement of GHG Emissions from Animal Production and ManureManagementChair: Karin Wittenberg, University of Manitoba10:10-10:25 Stephane Lemay, IRDA, Quebec10:25-10:40 Robert Gordon, Nova Scotia Agricultural College10:40-10:55 Tom Flesch, University of Alberta10:55-11:10 Claudia Wagner-Riddle, University of Guelph11:10-11:30 Discussion
11:30-12:30 Lunch
Session 3, Manure Treatment Technologies for Reduced GHG EmissionsChair: Claudia Wagner-Riddle, University of Guelph12:30-12:45 Grant Clark, University of Alberta12:45– 1:00 Frank Larney, AAFC, Alberta1:00 – 1:15 David Burton, Nova Scotia Agricultural College1:15 – 1:30 Suzelle Barrington, McGill University1:30 – 1:45 Qiang Zhang, University of Manitoba1:45 – 2:05 Discussion
2:05 – 2:25 Health Break
Session 4, Animal Production Management for Reduced GHG Emissions, Part 2Chair: James France, University of Guelph2:25 – 2:40 Michael Main, Nova Scotia Agricultural College2:40 – 2:55 Ermias Kebreab, University of Guelph
5
2:55 – 3:15 Chaouki Benchaar, AAFC, Nova Scotia 3:15 – 3:30 Alan Iwaasa, AAFC, Saskatchewan3:30 – 3:50 Discussion
3:50 – 5:00 General Discussion, Chair: Susan Wood, BIOCAP Canada
6
Appendix 2 – Abstracts of CommunicationsReducing GHG emissions in cattle production systems
K.M. WittenbergDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba
Greenhouse gas emissions related to beef and dairy cattle production systems areinfluenced mainly by diet and production efficiencies. Carbon sequestration by grasslandsrepresents an opportunity for carbon offset within cattle production systems. Research atthe University of Manitoba identified opportunities for emissions reductions for theCanadian cattle sector through the utilization of high quality forages, through lower feedenergy losses as enteric methane and reduced manure production. Other strategies,including oil and ionophore additions to commercial diets have been evaluated andmitigation opportunities reported. A multi-disciplinary team has sought net GHGreductions through systems-based field research trials in which management practices areevaluated simultaneously with respect to production economics and environmentalsustainability, including net GHG emissions, system nutrient losses (N, P) and movementof food-borne pathogens. Finally, the research team was commissioned by EnvironmentCanada to apply IPCC Tier II equations to the Canadian cattle herd. That effort hasindicated an underestimation by Tier I, and has identified knowledge gaps. Based on 2001IPCC Tier II estimates, a 6% reduction in enteric emissions save 1.2 t CO2-equiv/yr.
Boadi, D., Ominski, K.H., Fulawka, D.L. and Wittenberg, K.M. 2004. Improvingestimates of methane emissions associated with enteric fermentation of cattle in Canada byadopting an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Tier-2 methodology.Final Report to Environment Canada, November 2004.
Boadi, D.A., Wittenberg, K.M., Scott, S.L., Burton, D., Buckley, K., Small, J.A. andOminski, K.H. 2004. Effect of diet on enteric and manure pack greenhouse gasemissions from a feedlot. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:445-453.
Ominski, K.H. and Wittenberg, K.M. 2003. Impact of preserved forage and pasture qualityon performance and enteric methane emissions in beef steers. Final Report to CCFIA,November 2003.
Ominski, K.H. and Wittenberg, K.M. 2005. Strategies for reducing enteric methaneemissions in forage-based beef production systems. In Climate Change and ManagedEcosystems. CRC Press. (In press).
7
Comprehensive strategies for concomitantly reducing GHG emission and othermajor detrimental impacts facing the pork industry
M.Z. Fan1, C.W. Forsberg2, R.R. Hacker1, C.F.M. De Lange1, J. France1 and C. Wagner-Riddle3
Departments of 1Animal and Poultry Science, 2Molecular and Cellular Biology and 3Land ResourceScience, University of Guelph
Poor efficiency of nutrient utilization and excessive excretion of environment-sensitivenutrients or compounds and emission of odor-causing, acidifying and GHG from majorlivestock production systems are a challenging environmental issue facing the Ontario andCanadian pork industries (Mackie et al. 1998; Rideout and Fan 2004). These majorenvironmental impacts have been individually examined for mitigation strategies thatinclude: (i) formulating low-protein diets for reducing ammonia and GHG emission(Möhn et al. 2003), (ii) developing low-phosphorus diets on the basis of true digestiblenutrient supply combined with the use of phytase for decreasing phosphorus excretion(Fan et al. 2001; Shen et al. 2002; Golovan et al. 2001), (iii) formulating low-sulfur dietsand dietary supplementing soluble non-starch polysaccharide fiber for minimizingbiogenesis, excretion and emission of the major volatile odor-causing compounds (Mackieet al. 1998; Rideout et al. 2004). However, one fundamental knowledge gap is how thesecomprehensive strategies would collectively affect the biogenesis and emission of themajor GHG, as well as availability and recycling of manure nutrients through changes innutrient forms for crop growth while minimizing leaching and run-off of manurenutrients into water resources from soil. Future studies should be conducted to examinethese quantitative aspects using the phytase EnviropigTM and conventional pigs fedmicrobial phyatse-supplemented diets. System modeling and artificial neural networkapproaches can be used to integrate and extrapolate various aspects of related resultsfrom research conditions into anticipated impacts at the individual farm, regional,provincial and national levels for their applications by producers and policy makers.
Fan, M.Z., Archbold, T., Sauer, W.C., Lackeyram, D., Rideout, T., Gao, Y., de Lange,C.F.M. and Hacker, R.R. 2001. Novel methodology allows measurement of truephosphorus digestibility and the gastrointestinal endogenous phosphorus outputs instudies with pigs. J. Nutr. 131: 2388-2396.
Golovan, S., Meidinger, R.D., Ajakaiye, A., Cottrill, M., Weiderkehr, M.Z., Plante, C.,Pollard, J., Fan, M.Z., Hayes, A., Jesper Laursen, A.C., Hjorth, J.P., Hacker, R.R.,Barney, D., Phillips, J.P. and Forsberg, C. 2001. Enhanced phosphorus digestion andreduced pollution potential by pigs with salivary phytase. Nature – Biotechnol. 19: 741-745.
Mackie, R.I., Stroot, P.G. and Varel, V.H. 1998. Biochemical identification and biologicalorigin of key odor compounds in livestock waste. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 1331-1342.
Möhn, S., Atakora, J.K.A., McMillan, D.J. and Ball, R.O. 2003. Low-protein diets reducegreenhouse gas production by sow. Pages 329-331 in R. Ball, ed. Digestive physiology of pigs -Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.
8
Rideout, T.C. and Fan, M.Z. 2004. Nutrient utilization in responses to chicory inulinsupplementation in studies with pigs. J. Sci. Food Agri. 84: 1005-1012.
Rideout, T.C., Fan, M.Z., Cant, J.P., Wagner-Riddle, C. and Stonehouse, P. 2004.Excretion of major odor-causing and acidifying compounds in response to dietarysupplementation of chicory inulin in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 1678-1684.
Shen, Y., Fan, M.Z., Ajakaiye, A. and Archbold, T. 2002. True phosphorus digestibilityand the endogenous phosphorus loss associated with corn for growing-finishing pigs aredetermined with the regression analysis technique. J. Nutr. 132: 1199-1206.
9
Diet changes can substantially reduce GHG emissions from pigs
R.O. Ball, S. Moehn and J.K.A. AtakoraDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta
A series of experiments were conducted in growing and finishing pigs, and in non-pregnant, gestating and nursing sows. Primary data were collected using an indirectcalorimeter with attached methane analyzer. Nitrogen and carbon balance were measured.Experiments included: amino acid supplemented low protein versus typical % diet proteinand very low protein diets (cereal grain only), corn versus barley based diets, high and lowfibre diets, and addition of carbohydrase enzymes to improve fibre digestion. Each 1%reduction in dietary protein content reduced nitrogen excretion by 10%. Corn/soybeanbased diets had lower methane and CO2-eq than barley/canola based diets, primarily dueto less fermentation in the hindgut due to less fibre. Reducing fibre intake or increasingfibre digestibility reduced methane production from the pig and increased % dietarycarbon retained by the pig. Methane production by pigs fed typical diets is approximately0.4 to 0.5 g/kgBW/d. This can be reduced by 30 to 50% by dietary changes. Nitrogenretention of pigs fed typical diets is about 50-55% of nitrogen intake. This can beimproved by about 25-30%, which will significantly reduce the potential for nitrous oxideproduction from the manure during storage and land application. Our current research isfollowing up on fibre quantity and quality (e.g., digestible vs. non-digestible andfermentable vs. non-fermentable). This includes work towards developing the Net Energy(NE) system for swine diet formulation by the Canadian feed industry. Adoption of theNE system will result in assignment of a lower economic value to feedstuffs withindigestible and fermentable fibre. This will also reduce the potential for methaneproduction from stored manure. Finally, further information is required on the nextlimiting amino acids before dietary protein can be reduced further.
Atakora, J.K.A., Möhn, S. and Ball, R.O. 2003. Low protein diets maintain performanceand reduce greenhouse gas production in finisher pigs. Advances in Pork Production,Proc. 2003 Banff Pork Seminar, 14: A-17.
Atakora, J.K.A., Möhn, S. and Ball, R.O. 2003. Low protein diets for sows reducegreenhouse gas production. Advances in Pork Production, Proc. 2003 Banff Pork Seminar,14: A-16.
Ball, R.O. and Möhn S. 2003. Feeding strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions frompigs. Advances in Pork Production, Proc. 2003 Banff Pork Seminar, 14: 301-311.
10
Methane emissions from cattle in western Canada and its mitigation through diet
K.A. Beauchemin and S.M. MCGinnAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB
The focus of our research is to estimate methane emissions from beef and dairy cattle,with the aim of developing amendments that reduce these emissions. Combining theexpertise of animal nutrition and agricultural meteorology has allowed us to develop aresearch program that ranges from screening novel compounds in vitro, to measuringmethane emissions from individual animals fed various diets, to measuring methaneemissions on commercial farms. We have used whole animal chambers to evaluate theeffects of various dietary amendments on methane emissions, including probiotics (yeasts,enzymes), fats (sunflower oil, canola oil, tallow), oilseeds (sunflower seeds), ionophores,organic acids (fumaric acid), and condensed tannins. Of those tested, the most effectivewas added fat, which reduced methane emissions by about 20%. However, added fatreduced digestible energy intake, and therefore, may not improve growth rate. We alsoevaluated feedlot cattle diets and found that reducing the duration of the backgroundingphase in the production cycle could greatly decrease the industry’s contribution to GHG.Emissions could be further reduced by feeding corn rather than barley during thefinishing phase. Chambers are an effective means of assessing dietary amendments, butmeasurements made under production situations allow a more realistic evaluation ofmethane emissions. We use a mass balance approach to determine methane emissionsfrom feedlot cattle housed in group pens equipped with open-path methane lasers.Furthermore, another technique that uses open-path laser technology was developed tomeasure methane emitted from commercial dairy facilities. The approach relatesmeasured plume characteristics to emissions from farm sources (i.e., barn, lagoon). Wholedairy farm emissions are being related to animal inventories, milk production and dietcomposition. Mitigating methane losses from cattle will have long-term environmentalbenefits by reducing agriculture’s contribution to GHG emissions.
McGinn, S. M., Beauchemin, K. A., Coates, T. and Colombatto, D. 2004. Methaneemissions from beef cattle: Effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, andfumaric acid. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 3346-3356.
Beauchemin, K. A. and McGinn, S. M. 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fedbarley or corn diets, J. Anim. Sci. (in press).
11
Greenhouse gas and odour emissions from swine operation in Québec andSaskatchewan: benchmark assessments
C. Laguë1,2, T.A. Fonstad3, A. Marquis4, S.P. Lemay5, S. Godbout5, R. Joncas5, R. Lagacé4
and L. Jaulin6
1College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 2Prairie Swine Centre Inc., 3Department ofAgricultural & Bioresource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 4Département des sols et de génieagroalimentaire, Université Laval, 5Research and Development Institute for the Agri-environment(IRDA), 6Centre de recherche industielle du Québec
The general objective of this study was to evaluate carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions for swine operations in two provinces (Québec andSaskatchewan) under liquid manure management. In this abstract, all GHG emissions areexpressed in g of CO2-equivalent per d per kg of animal mass. Carbon dioxide emissionswere the most important contributor to GHG emissions from swine buildings, rangingfrom 15.0 to 102.5. On the same basis, CH4 emissions were much lower than CO2
emissions ranging from 1.1 to 45.7 and N2O production was practically negligible. Thefloor design did not affect CO2 production but the CH4 production rate was higher withthe fully slatted floor room (4.1) than with the partially slatted floor room (1.1). Emissionsfrom different types of manure storage facilities (i.e., earthen manure storage basins(EMB) uncovered or covered with blown chopped straw; concrete storage tanks) weremeasured during three seasons in Saskatchewan. Average total GHG emissions fromuncovered EMB, covered EMB and uncovered tank storage facilities were 4.2, 2.5 and6.6, respectively. Results confirm the positive impacts of blown chopped straw covers onGHG emissions from manure storage facilities. Average total GHG emissions during thespring, summer and fall seasons respectively amounted to 0.5, 3.9 and 3.5. Greenhousegas emissions were also measured over a two-year period from a swine manure storagetank and from two swine manure treatment facilities (an aerobic-anoxic and a biofiltermanure treatment systems) in Québec. According to the results, manure treatmentsystems contributed to reduce GHG emissions. Combining the three GHG gases and theoverall manure management process, the aerobic-anoxic and the biofilter manuretreatment systems emitted 64 and 33% less GHG than the conventional manuremanagement. GHG emissions measured in this project provide guidelines to evaluate thebaseline GHG emissions of swine facilities under Canadian conditions.
Laguë, C., Godbout, S., Lemay, S.P., Marquis, A. and Fonstad, T.A. 2003. Greenhousegas and odour emissions from pig production buildings and manure storage and treatmentfacilities. CSAE/SCGR Paper No. 03-616. Mansonville, QC: CSAE.
Godbout, S., Laguë, C., Lemay, S.P., Marquis, A. and Fonstad, T.A. 2003. Greenhousegas and odour emissions from swine operations under liquid manure management inCanada. Proc. International Symposium on Gaseous and Odour Emissions From AnimalProduction Facilities, 426-443. CIGR and EurAgEng publication, June 1st to 4th, Horsens,Denmark.
12
Gaseous emissions from manure and wastewater treatment systems
R. GordonDepartment of Engineering, Nova Scotia Agricultural College
Considerable effort has recently been placed on gaseous emissions from agriculturalproduction systems. The primary emissions of concern include: (i) GHG (methane,nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide) from crop production, animal housing and wastestorage systems; (ii) ammonia from livestock production and waste storage and handling;and (iii) odour from livestock housing and manure management systems. Most researchefforts have traditionally examined each of these emissions in isolation from one another.A need, however, exists to simultaneously evaluating these gaseous emissions to betterunderstand their inter-relationships as well as any tradeoff issues associated with theirmanagement.
The Bio-Environmental Engineering Centre at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College iscurrently evaluating several gaseous emissions issues from manure and wastewatersystems. The goal is to evaluate a series of possible management options thateconomically balance GHG, ammonia and odour emissions. This is being achieved byemissions monitoring through several closed, partially closed and open methods.
Current activities include evaluating constructed wetlands in an attempt to betterunderstand their GHG “source” and “sink” relationships; emissions from manurespreading and the use of “low cost” manure storage covers.
13
Inverse-dispersion calculation of emissions
T.K. Flesch and J.D. WilsonDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta
The inverse-dispersion technique has many potential advantages for quantifyingagricultural and industrial emission sources. The technique combines a measurement ofgas concentration downwind of a source with an atmospheric dispersion modelcalculation, which allows inference of the emission rate from concentration. Advantagesof the technique are measurement simplicity, a lack of restrictions on the sourcegeometry, and the ability to make remote (non-interference) observations. However, thesimplicity of the technique results from the assumption of idealized winds and simplifiedsource configuration in the dispersion model. Care must be taken to avoid situationswhere these assumptions will cause significant error. We will discuss the principles of theinverse-dispersion technique, and demonstrate how the technique was used to measuremethane and ammonia emissions from a hog farm.
Flesch, T.K., Wilson, J.D., Harper, L.A., Crenna, B.P. and Sharpe, R.R. 2004. Deducingground-air emissions from observed trace gas concentrations: a field trial. J. Appl.Meteorol. 43: 487-502.
Flesch, T.K., Wilson, J.D., Harper, L.A. and Crenna, B.P. 2005. Deducing ground-airemissions from observed trace gas concentrations: A field trial with wind disturbance. J.Appl. Meteorol. (In press).
Wilson, J.D., Flesch, T.K. and Harper, L.A. 2001. Micro-meteorological methods forestimating surface exchange with a disturbed windflow. Agric. For. Meteorol. 107: 207-225.
14
Measurements of GHG fluxes from manure storage/treatment and after fieldapplication of manure
C. Wagner-RiddleDepartment of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph
Over the last 6 yr the research carried out by our group in Guelph has focused on thefollowing objectives: (i) to study factors that affect N2O fluxes from stored solid dairymanure, (ii) to develop methodology and measure CH4 and N2O fluxes from manurestorage in-situ (solid and liquid dairy, liquid swine) over several seasons, (iii) to study theeffect of aerobic composting of liquid swine manure with straw on CH4 and N2O fluxes,compared to liquid manure storage. We have used the open chamber method inlaboratory and field studies, a ‘mega’ chamber method to measure barn emissions, and amicrometeorological mass balance method in field studies to achieve the objectives statedabove. A 16-intake air sampling system coupled to two tunable diode laser trace gasanalyzers was used with all three methods to determine CH4 and N2O concentrations.Significant N2O emissions from solid dairy manure at 55 to 70% water content (redoxpotential ~150 to 250 mV) were determined in a laboratory incubation study (Brown et al.2000). In a field study, a micrometeorological mass balance method was used for the firsttime to our knowledge, to quantify 65-hourly N2O fluxes from a solid dairy manure pileobtaining a mean hourly flux of 4865 ng N2O-N m-2s-1 (Brown et al. 2002). When CH4
and N2O emissions during composting of liquid swine manure with straw were comparedto liquid swine manure storage we found aerated composting reduced emissions by~50%, but non-aerated composting elevated emissions up to an estimated 330%(Thompson et al. 2004). Methane emission factors for storage of liquid swine manureunder Southwestern Ontario conditions were 1.5 to 2 times larger than measured at twocommercial farms over two years (Park et al. in preparation). In future studies we arefocusing efforts in the comparison of methods of flux measurements, such as ‘small’ vs.‘mega’ chamber to monitor emissions from composting channels; ‘small’ chambers vs.micromet mass balance method used over curing piles and liquid manure. In addition, wewill quantify the effect of field application of composted liquid swine manure vs.untreated manure on field N2O emissions, and hope to use tracer (13C, and 15N) toquantify N and C cycling from animal through to manure application, and relate N and Ccycling to GHG emissions.
Brown, H.A., Wagner-Riddle, C. and Thurtell, G.W. 2002. Nitrous oxide flux from a soliddairy manure pile measured using a micrometeorological mass balance method. Nutr. Cycl.Agroecos. 62: 53-60.
Brown, H.A., Wagner-Riddle, C. and Thurtell, G.W. 2000. Nitrous oxide flux from soliddairy manure in storage as affected by water content and redox potential. J. Env. Qual. 29:630-638.
Park, K.H. and Wagner-Riddle, C. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from storedanimal manure in a cold climate. Atmospheric Environ. (In preparation).
Thompson, A.G., Wagner-Riddle, C. and Fleming, R. 2004. Emissions of N2O and CH4
during the composting of liquid swine manure. Environ. Monit. Assess. 91: 87-104.
15
Composting and GHG mitigation at the University of Alberta
O.G. Clark, J. Leonard and J. FeddesDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta
The Agricultural Waste and Emissions Management Research Group (AWEMRG) at theUniversity of Alberta conducts research into the management of bio-residuals andemissions streams from livestock production operations. The research programme isoriented toward the whole-system assessment of animal production systems in terms ofenvironmental impact, nutrient efficiencies, and economic viability, with an emphasis oncomposting as a bio-residual processing alternative. Variables of interest include GHGand odour emissions, energy and machinery inputs, nutrient content of bio-residualstreams, pathogen survivability, heavy metal concentrations, and pharmaceuticalpersistence. Past research has focused on swine diet manipulation and emissions fromindividual animals, production rooms, manure storages, and composting operations ofvarious scales. This research revealed negligible GHG emissions from pig manurestorages, but significant emissions of N2O and CH4 from composting of that manure,with a possible dietary influence on emission rates. Planned research will focus onindustrial-scale windrow and channel composting operations, and the field application ofraw, composted, and biodigested swine manure. The adoption of photoacoustic infra-redspectrometry used in conjunction with automated sampling devices, such as soil fluxchambers, promises to generate data of increased quality and resolution. Such data areneeded, for instance, to formulate accurate GHG and odour emissions factors.
Clark, O.G., Moehn, S., Edeogu, I., Price, J. and Leonard, J. Manipulation of dietaryprotein and nonstarch polysaccharide to control swine manure emissions. J. Environ.Qual. (Submitted for review).
Clark, O.G., Moehn, S., Price, J., Zhang, Y., Sauer, W., Morin, B., Feddes, J., Leonard,J., Atakora, J.K.A., Zijlstra, R.T., Edeogu, I. and Ball, R.O. Diet manipulation tocontrol odour and gas emissions from swine production. Can. J. Anim. Sci. (Submitted forreview).
Leonard, J., Feddes, J., Clark, O.G. and Morin, B. 2004. Measurement of greenhouse gasemissions and odour from swine manure derived from standard and modified diets. Finalresearch report presented at the final workshop of the Climate Change Funding Initiativein Agriculture, Winnipeg, 19–20 January 2004. Ottawa: Canadian Agri-Food ResearchCouncil.
Teshima, M., Leonard, J. and Clark, O.G. Evaluation of the static chamber method forcollection of greenhouse gases from composting. J. Environ. Qual. (Submitted for review).
16
Greenhouse Gas emissions and feedlot manure composting
F.J. Larney and X. HaoAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB
Cattle production in large confined feeding operations, typically called feedlots orfeedyards, increases the challenge of handling and utilizing manure. Recently compostinghas been adopted on a limited basis, as an alternative means of manure handling bysouthern Alberta feedlots (Larney et al. 2000). Questions arise as to the GHG emissions[carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O)] associated with composting.Experiments at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Lethbridge Research Centre havequantified GHG emissions as affected by (1) aeration method (active vs. passive); (2) typeof admixed bedding material (straw vs. wood residuals); and (3) co-composting withphosphogypsum. Cumulative GHG emissions were estimated over ~100 d compostingperiods, during which windrows were turned 6-8 times (except for the passive treatmentin the aeration trial). All emissions were expressed as kg CO2-C equivalents per Mg of drymanure. Global warming potentials of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O were used to convertto CO2-C equivalents. While total GHG emissions from the passive aeration treatment(240 kg Mg-1 CO2-C equivalents) were significantly lower than from the active treatment(397 kg Mg-1) the passive treatment failed to compost fully, likely due to lack of aeration(Hao et al. 2001). Bedding accounts for ~20% of the total dry matter of manure at pencleaning. Straw is the traditional bedding material in feedlots although wood residuals arebeing increasingly used. However, there was no significant effect (362 kg Mg-1 for strawvs. 346 kg Mg-1 CO2-C equivalents for wood) of bedding material on cumulative totalGHG emissions during composting (Hao et al. 2004). Fertilizer companies in N. Americahave large stockpiles of phosphogypsum (PG), an acidic (pH ~3) by-product ofphosphorus fertilizer manufacture from rock phosphate (Alcordo and Rechcigl 1993). Itis primarily (>90%) dihydrate calcium sulfate or gypsum (CaSO4•2H2O). Co-composting,at manure:PG ratios of 10:1, 5:1 and 3.3:1, resulted in CH4 emissions of 60, 11 and 9 kgMg-1 CO2-C equivalents, respectively, compared to 323 kg Mg-1 CO2-C equivalents for acontrol treatment with no PG. The mechanism for CH4 emission reduction was possiblythrough inhibition or competition effects by sulfur present in PG on CH4 production.
However in order to get a true picture of the pros or cons of composting on overallGHG emissions, we need to compare emissions from excretion to field application andthereafter for composting management with those from traditional feedlot manurehandling, whereby fresh manure is hauled directly to the field for immediate landapplication. Therefore, we need to go back to the feedlot pens as manure managementdiffers depending on the system used (pens may be cleaned more often if composting vs.manure left in bedding packs if not). We also need to follow-up on GHG emissions afterland application of fresh manure vs. compost. Fresh manure has higher mineralizationrates of carbon (Helgason et al. 2005a) and nitrogen (Helgason et al. 2005b) than compostand this may affect GHG emissions.
Alcordo, I.S. and Rechcigl, J.E. 1993. Phosphogypsum in agriculture: a review. Adv. Agron.49: 55-118.
17
Hao, X., Chang, C., Larney, F.J and Travis, G.R. 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions duringcattle feedlot manure composting. J. Environ. Qual. 30: 376-386.
Hao, X. Chang, C. and Larney, F.J. 2004. Carbon, nitrogen balances and greenhouse gasemission during cattle feedlot manure composting. J. Environ. Qual. 33: 37-44.
Hao, X., Larney, F.J., Chang, C., Travis, G.R., Nichol, C.K. and Bremer, E. 2005. Theeffect of phosphogypsum on greenhouse gas emissions during cattle manure composting.J. Environ. Qual. (In press).
Helgason, B.L., Larney, F.J. and Janzen, H.H. 2005a. Estimating carbon retention in soilsamended with composted beef cattle manure. Can. J. Soil Sci. (In press).
Helgason, B.L., Larney, F.J., Janzen, H.H. and Olson, B.M. 2005b. Plant-availablenitrogen in beef cattle manure composts. Proc. 42nd Ann. Alberta Soil Sci. Workshop,February 14-16, 2005, Calgary, AB.
Larney, F.J., Olson, A.F., Carcamo, A.A. and Chang, C. 2000. Physical changes duringactive and passive composting of beef feedlot manure in winter and summer. Bioresour.Technol. 75: 139-148.
18
Towards more sustainable organic waste management systems
S. BarringtonDepartment of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University
Several applied research projects are developed to improve organic waste managementwhile reducing the amounts of GHG and ammonia released to the atmosphere. The firstand more closely related to the objective of BIOCAP is the development of a poor man’sanaerobic digester, or rather “in storage psychrophilic anaerobic digestion”. This low costand relatively free maintenance system consists of an airtight cover installed over themanure in storage. Pending some scientific measurements, this system deodorizes themanure while limiting ammonia losses. Methane production is most probably notoptimized but this limitation advantages the storage of carbon as organic matter inagricultural soils following manure land spreading.
The second project aims at encouraging the sorting of food waste at the source beforecomposting. It consisted in developing an urban or compact composting unit, which canbe installed on a small site in city centres. A club of residents can drop off their foodwaste at designated hours of the day and an attendant receives the waste and operates thecomposting unit. At the end of the process, residents can claim the compost for their ownpersonal use. Although this type of system cannot handle large amounts of food waste, itis an excellent tool to educate and encourage people to sort food waste at home and toproduce high quality compost. In terms of the BIOCAP objectives, this concept reducesthe amount of organic waste going into landfills and in turn, generating methane andcarbon dioxide.
The last two projects aim at lowering the management cost of manure seepage andmilk house wash waters while improving crop production, thus increasing the fixation ofcarbon dioxide by crops. The two systems developed make use of the waste content ofwastewaters as well as their nutrient value to fertilize crops.
Abou Nohra, J., Barrington, S., Frigon, J.C. and Guiot, S.R. 2002. In Storage AnaerobicDigestion of Swine Slurry. J. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 38: 23-37.
Ali, I. and Barrington, S. 2004. Surface irrigation for the disposal of agricultural wastewaters.ASAE/CSAE Technical summer meeting, Ottawa, Canada. Paper 413-. ASAE St Joseph,Michigan, USA.
Barrington, S., Adhikari, B. and Grégoire, B. 2005. An urban composter to induce theculture of residential organic waste sorting. Waste – The social Context. University ofAlberta. Edmonton, Alberta. May 2005.
Leung, S., Barrington, S., Zhao, X. and Prasher, S. 2004. Effect of clinoptilolitesupplementation on pig growth performance and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. (Submitted forreview).
Morin, S., Lemay, S., Ali, A. and Barrington, S. 2004. A modified septic tank system toeffectively manage agricultural wastewaters. ASAE/CSAE Technical summer meeting,Ottawa, Canada. Paper 229-. ASAE St Joseph, Michigan, USA.
19
Greenhouse gas emission from swine farrowing operations
Q. ZhangDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, University of Manitoba
Greenhouse gas emissions were measured in two swine farrowing facilities in southernManitoba. The two facilities were identical in size (5,000 sows) and layout. One facilityhad an open earthen manure storage (EMS) and the other one had a negative pressurecovered (NPC) EMS. Air samples were taken from building and NPC EMS exhaust fansby using a vacuum chamber and 10-L Tedlars bags. A dynamic flux hood was used tocollect air samples from the manure surface of the open EMS. Fifteen (15) mL of gaswere transferred from each sample bag to a vial and analyzed with a Varian CP-3800 gaschromatograph for concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O. The average measured CO2
concentrations were 789, 454, and 3943 ppm for building exhaust, open EMS, and NPCEMS, respectively. The CH4 concentrations were 15, 14, and 3221 ppm for the threesources, respectively. The measured concentrations of N2O from all three sources wereabout the same as the background level (0.35 ppm). The average CO2 emission rates were25.48 g/d-kgpig, 407.32 g/d-m2, and 89.18 g/d-m2 for building exhaust, open EMS andNPC EMS, respectively. The CH4 emission rate was 0.44 g/d-kgpig for building exhaust.The CH4 emission rate of the NPC EMS was comparable to that of the open EMS (30.22g/d-m2 for NPC EMS and 32.56 g/d-m2 for the open EMS).
20
Greenhouse gas emissions from Nova Scotia dairy systems
A.H. Fredeen, M. Main, S. Juurlink and S.E. CooperDepartment of Plant and Animal Science, Nova Scotia Agricultural College
The shift from seasonal pasture to year- round use of silage and total mixed rations(TMR) in dairy production is having an unknown environmental impact, particularlyregarding GHG emissions where few data exist on lactating cows. We report on a numberof studies conducted since 2001, funded by The Climate Change Fund Initiative inAgriculture (CCFIA), NSERC and AAFC. Three crossover studies in 2001-2002 (20Holstein cows in mid-lactation), employing respiration chambers were conducted toisolate effects of diet: total mixed ration (TMR) versus Management Intensive Grazing(MIG). MIG cows were fed fresh cut forage from a pasture managed under MIG andwere supplemented concentrate twice daily at milking (0.25% of milk yield; TMRs werebalanced to support 35 kg milk. Milk yield was not affected by diet. Overall methaneemissions (MIG vs. TMR) averaged 16.6 vs. 17.0 g CH4 kg-1 milk, or 6.0 vs. 5.7% ofdietary gross energy (ns). We conducted a crossover trial in 2003 to examine the effects ofdietary protein level on methane emission (10 cows, respiration chambers), and on nitrousoxide emissions from urine affected patches on pasture (60 cm static vented chambers, 6-12/tmt). Exceeding microbial capacity to assimilate N had no effect on methaneemissions (6.0 vs. 6.3% GE evolved, ns, high vs. low protein). When urine from therespective diets was applied to pasture, 0.61 vs. 0.26% of urine N was evolved as N2Oduring the measurement period, and N2O emissions increased from 1.1 to 2.4 to 4.6 kgN2O-N ha-1 for control, urine from low protein, and urine from high protein diets. CO2-eq of N2O represented less than 6% of the CO2-eq of CH4. In 2004, the SF6 tracertechnique was used with 20 cows in a factorial design comparing pasture vs. TMR,roasted soybean supplement (1.5kg cow-1 d-1) vs. control, over 11 weeks repeatedmeasurements. MIG cows received about 9kg TMR DM d-1 rather than concentrate.Average emissions (g CH4 kg-1 milk; MIG vs. TMR) were 13.5 and 11.5 g CH4 kg-1 milkon MIG and TMR respectively, but roasted soybean did not affect methane emissions.Overall the MIG system consistently required less grain per unit of milk: 0.22 vs. 0.34kg/kg in 2001-2002 studies, and 0.16 vs. 0.41 kg/kg in 2004. Model estimates of totalGHG emission from the MIG vs. TMR system, that include impacts from N2O, CO2
balance, and life-cycle fossil energy consumption, adjusted for methane data from the2004 study, suggest a higher GHG impact from TMR feeding (1.02 vs. 1.17 kg CO2-eq kgmilk-1, MIG vs. TMR). We conclude that MIG is likely to have lower GHG impactcompared with confinement feeding in Maritime Canada. MIG can improveenvironmental impact of dairying relative to TMR.
Boadi, D.A., Benchaar, C., Chiquitte, J. and Massé, D. 2004. Mitigation strategies toreduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:319-335.
Boadi D.A., Wittenberg, K.M. and Kennedy, A.D. 2003. Validation of the sulphurhexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique for measurement of methane and carbon dioxideproduction by cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 125-131.
21
DeRamus, H.A., Clement, T.C., Giampola, D.D. and Dickison, P.C. 2003. Methaneemissions of beef cattle on forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. J. Environ.Qual. 32: 269-277.
IPCC 1996. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Reference manual. Chapter 4:Agriculture. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6c.htm
Oenema, O., Velthof, G.L., Yamulki, S. and Jarvis, S.C. 1997. Nitrous oxide emissionsfrom grazed grassland. Soil Use Manage. 13: 288-295.
22
Feeding strategies to minimise the extent of methane output in the environmentand improve dairy cow production efficiency
E. Kebreab, N. Odongo, J. France and B.W. McBrideCentre for Nutrition Modelling, Department of Animal & Poultry Science, University of Guelph
As part of a national initiative, the University of Guelph is involved in a demonstrationproject with the following objectives: (1) to demonstrate the effects on methane emissionsof (i) addition of fatty acids and (ii) extent of grain processing (steam flaking vs. dryrolling) and (2) to demonstrate and promote on farm feeding management mitigationstrategies. The project will run for three years and the progress made in the first year isreported here.
The project will use an open-circuit indirect calorimetry system to measure methaneemissions, as this is the most cost-effective measurement technique compared to othermethods currently used in Canada. The building of the calorimetry system has beencompleted and preliminary experiments have been conducted to assess the effectivenessof the method in measuring methane emissions from different groups of cows. For drycows, lactating cows producing 20 kg milk/d and lactating cows producing 40 kg milk/d,the average CH4 production was 227, 394 and 636 L/d, respectively.
It is known that medium-chain fatty acids (MCFA) have the potential to suppressrumen methanogenesis and methanogens. Ruminant diets containing coconut oil, a fatrich in the MCFA lauric acid (12:0) and myristic acid (14:0), decreased daily CH4
emissions in vitro (up to 88 % suppression) and in vivo (up to 73 % suppression). Basedon these in vitro observations, the objective of the first experiment was to evaluate in vivothe effects of supplementation of a non-esterified MCFA on CH4 emissions. Non-esterified MCFA 14:0 was chosen since 12:0 could result in a depression of feed intake.The treatments to be evaluated include a control diet (no fatty acid supplementation) anda treatment diet supplemented with 7% non-esterified MCFA 14:0. For this experiment,six cows were trained to use the portable calorimeter and measurements then taken on atwice weekly basis. The first experiment is expected to be completed in April 2005 andthe second experiment, which investigates the effect of grain processing, will commencein May 2005.
23
Quantification of methane emissions from dairy cows using the mass-balanceapproach in a closed-chamber instrumented dairy barn
C. Benchaar, D. Massé, F. Tremblay and J. ChiquetteAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine R&D Centre, Lennoxville, Qc
In Canada, methane (CH4) emitted from livestock production systems is estimated toaccount for 38% of total GHG production from the agricultural sector (Boadi et al.2004). Our GHG research program aims at quantifying and mitigating CH4 emissionsfrom dairy cows and from dairy and swine manure storage systems. A series ofexperiments using the mass-balance approach has been conducted to determine CH4
emissions from dry and lactating cows housed in a closed chamber- instrumented dairybarn. In Exp. 1, CH4 emissions from dry cows fed alfalfa hay (8.9 kg of DM d-1) averaged260 g cow-1 d-1 and ranged from 239 to 279 g cow-1 d-1. When expressed per kg of DMI,CH4 losses averaged 29.3 g CH4 kg DMI-1. In Exp.2, CH4 emissions were similar betweenlactating cows fed control diet (CO) and those supplemented with corn (314 g cow-1 d-1).However, cows supplemented with barley produced more CH4 (334 g cow-1 d-1) thanthose fed CO and corn diets. Dry matter intake (DMI) was lower (- 15%) with barley- andcorn- based diets than with CO. When corrected for differences in DMI, CH4 losses werehigher for supplemented diets than for cows fed CO (15.8 vs. 13.2 g CH4 kg DMI-1).When expressed per kg of milk, CH4 emissions were similar between barley, corn and CO(12.7 g CH4 kg milk -1). In Exp. 3, CH4 emissions were higher for cows fed Megalac (400 gcow-1 d-1) and lower for cows supplemented crushed sunflower seeds (311 g cow-1 d-1)compared to cows fed CO (350 g cow-1 d-1). DMI was higher for diets supplemented withsunflower seeds and Megalac than with CO (20.4 and 21.8 vs. 18.6 kg cow-1 d-1;respectively). When corrected for differences in DMI, CH4 emissions were lower with thesunflower seed diet as compared to CO and Megalac diets (15.3 vs. 18.6 g CH4 kg DMI-1).Milk yield was lower for cows fed sunflower seeds (kg d-1) compared to cows fed Megalacand CO diets (32.4 vs. 36.2 and 35.0 kg d-1; respectively). Expressed in kg of CH4 per kgof milk produced, CH4 emissions were reduced by 9% by using sunflower seeds. Resultsfrom our experiments suggest that the mass-balance method applied to closed chamber-instrumented dairy barn provides CH4 emissions factors similar to those reported in otherstudies using the same approach (Kinsman et al. 1995) or individual animal techniquessuch as SF6 tracer (Johnson et al. 2002).
Boadi, D.A., Benchaar, C., Chiquette, J. and Massé, D. 2004. Mitigation strategies toreduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:319-335.
Johnson, K.A., Kincaid, R.L., Westberg, H.H., Gaskins, C.T., Lamb, B.K. andCronrath, J.D. 2002. The effect of oilseeds in diets of lactating cows on milk productionand methane emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 85: 1509-1515.
Kinsman, R., Saber, F.D., Jackson, H.A. and Wolynetz, M.S. 1995. Methane and carbondioxide emissions from dairy cows in full lactation monitored over a six-month period. J.Dairy Sci.78: 2760-2766.
24
Greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration research associated with the grazingprogram at AAFC-SPARC
A.D. IwaasaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Swift Current, SK
Climate change is considered by many as the major global environmental challenge of ourtime and in order to deal with it in the most cost-effective way we need to consider thefull range of possible solutions. Canadian agriculture is a significant contributor towardthe GHG emissions of the nation. However, changes in certain agricultural managementpractices can greatly mitigate GHG emissions and agricultural land base can act as Cresources and important sinks. Some important research gaps have been identified by theAgriculture GHG Science Plan (AAFRD 2003) and are the following: (i) more rangelandand pasture GHG research is needed, (ii) interaction between grazing managementpractices in the Brown Chernozem soils (over 5.6 million ha in western Canada) andGHG emissions have not been explored, (iii) accurate methodology needs to bedeveloped to measure GHG emissions, and (iv) research on the effects of managementpractices on the permanence of sequestered carbon. Research being conducted atAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada – Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre willaddress many of those research gaps. Ongoing research studies are evaluating thepotential of re-established native rangelands/pastures to sequester carbon and measuringGHG emissions from various cattle feeding production systems (feedlot, pasture-fedcattle etc.) in the Brown soil zone. A systems approach is being used to evaluate theimpact that animal – forage type and grazing management may have on GHG emissionsand potential carbon sequestration benefits. Development of a more simple and costeffective SF6 collection system to measure CH4 emissions on grazing and feedlot cattle isalso occurring.
AAFRD 2003. Development of a Farm-Level Greenhouse Gas Assessment: Identification ofKnowledge Gaps and Development of a Science Plan. Alberta Agriculture, Food andRural Development. pp. 1-4, 5.
