![Page 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production
Systems
D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl
Colorado State University
![Page 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline, AN448,Sept. 22, 2004
I. Global greenhouse gas accumII. Agriculture and livestock role
III. Livestock system sources IV. Manure system GHG’s
V. Mitigation strategies
![Page 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
References: Agric GHG’s
IPCC, 2001 (06): GHG Inventory Good Practice Guidelines (ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp)USEPA, 2004: Inventory of US GHG (yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming)USDA, 2004: US Agric. & Forestry GHG (usda.gov/oce/gcpo) Proc. Agstar Conf. Anaerobic Digestion (epa.gov/agstar/conference04)
![Page 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
SOURCE: IPCC
![Page 5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
SOURCE: Science, 1-11-2002
![Page 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Global Climate Changes (IPCC)
Snow cover: 10% decreaseGlacier retreat: majorRiver and lake ice: 2 wk decreaseSea ice extent: 10-15% decreaseArctic ice thickness: 40% decreaseDiurnal temp range: decreaseTropospheric water, clouds: increase
![Page 7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
SOURCE: IPCC
![Page 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
SOURCE: IPCC
![Page 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
GHG Sources in US (as CO2 equivalent)
CO2
CH4 x 21N2O x 310
5004
649389
5782
598 416
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1990 2002
CO2CH4N2O
![Page 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Importance of Non-CO2 GHG’s
Why bother?Globally – 40%Effective fast Cost effectivePolitical feasibilitySynergy-other problems
Climate Forcings of GHG’s, CO2eq in US, 2002, %
CH49%
CO283%
HFC, PFC, SF62%
N2O6%
![Page 12: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Agriculture’s Role, cont’d
70% of Nitrous oxide30% of Methane
Huge C-sequestration potential
![Page 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Agriculture sources of GHG (USDA, 04)
0
510
15
2025
30
3540
4550
Crop-N2O StorSht-N2O Enteric-CH4 Manure-CH4
%
![Page 14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Global N-input Sources (Mosier and Kroeze, 99)
![Page 15: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Products and GHG from Cattle Production
JW
Herd
100 cows+ others
Cropping
Feeds
Manure
CH 4 N20FuelC02
Soil Carbon
(+)
![Page 16: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Beef System GHGs
CO2eq by Gas Source (100 cow US system)Gas t/yr CVCH4 221 4N2O 308 10CO2 66 17Cseq -53
18Total: 542 7 -100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
CH4 N2O CO2 Cseq
![Page 17: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
GHG Sources by Beef Sector(CO2, N2O, CH4 as CO2eq)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Cow Calf Stocker Feedlot Cow-Feedlot
Production Phase
CO
2 E
quiv
alen
ts p
er g
ain
(kg)
CO2
N2O
Total CH4
![Page 18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Dairy System GHGs (100 cow herd, t/yr)
Gas CalifWiscCH4, enteric 320 292
CH4, manure 185 18
N2O 331 298
CO2 254 274
C-sequest 0 (28)Total 1090 854
![Page 19: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Waste GHG, Beef Cattle
![Page 20: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Waste, Dairy Cattle
![Page 21: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Waste, Swine
![Page 22: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Biological N transformations(Nitrification-Denitrification)
NH4 NH3
NO2-
N2O
NO3-
NO2-
NON2ON2
N2O
Nitrification
Denitrification
Aerobic
Anaerobic
![Page 23: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Manure handling systemsVariations in N2O-N per Manure N
3.95.751.22.0Aerobic
2.75.752.00Graze
2.05.751.20.1Slurry
1.95.751.20Daily spread
SumLeach
DisposalStorageSystem-------------------N20/N, %-------------------
-
![Page 24: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Manure methane equations
Livestock characterization and pop.Waste characteristicsWaste management system usageMethane conversion factor (MCF)
EPA, 2002, 04
![Page 25: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Manure methane emissions
Kg CH4/yr by state for each animal group
CH4 an grp = Σ(pop. x VS x Bo x MCF x 0.662)
pop = avg head animal group for each stateVS = VS in kg/head/yearBo = max CH4 prod capacity/kg VSMCF = weighted MCF for animal group by state0.662 = conversion factor of m3 CH4 to kg CH4
EPA, 2002
![Page 26: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
SpeciesTotal
Kjeld. N, kg/d
VS, kg/dMax. CH4
Bo, m3 CH4/kg VS
Dairy cow 0.44 9.30* 0.24
Dairy heifer 0.31 7.77 0.17
Feedlot cattle 0.30 5.44 0.33
Beef cow 0.33 6.20 0.17
Market swine* 0.42 5.40 0.48
Breeding swine 0.24 2.60 0.48
Hens 0.83 10.8 0.39
Broilers 1.10 15.0 0.36
From Table L-2, EPA, 2002, *CO #s
US-EPA Manure GHG inventory assumptions, 2002 (N &VS/1000 kg animal mass)
![Page 27: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Methane Conversion Factor
Based on Van’t Hoff-Arrhenius equation
f = exp[E(T2 –T1)/RT1T2]
f = portion of VS available for CH4 production
T1 = 303.16 K
T2 = weighted ambient temp (K) for each state
E = activation energy (15,175 cal/mol)R = ideal gas constant (1.987 cal/K mol)
EPA, 2002; Safley & Westerman, 1990
![Page 28: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Manure methane in 2002
EPA, 2004
0
5
10
15
20
Dairy Beef Swine Poultry Other
CO
2eq,
Tg
Total 40 Tg CO2 eq
![Page 29: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Manure N2O, CO2eq (USDA 04) Total = 77 Tg/yr
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Dairy Beef Swine Poultry other
N2O, t/yr
![Page 30: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
All Mitigation Approaches Must:
be based on a comprehensive, life cycle analysis that assesses emissions of all greenhouse gases.
(NCCTI, 2001)
![Page 31: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
CH4 Mitigation (Mgt strategies)
Eliminate anaerobic lagoons or capture CH4
Eliminate stocker phase ~ direct to feedlot
Maximize grain feeding – trade-offs with N2O
Dilution of maintenance Faster gain or more milk/cow Hormone treatment use bST or implants
![Page 32: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Biogas from Livestock Waste
Prior failures: 140 farm sys in 70’s (< 20%)Renewed interest: 50 now in use, 60 planCost $400 - $1200/cow, brk even 5 – 15c/kWhGHG savings: 6 MT/cow?Synergisms? Odor, NH3- PM2.5, dust, health, acid rain, smog, etc.
![Page 33: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
US Biogas Plants, USDA 04
![Page 34: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Methane Mitigation Research
Immunization (Baker, Aust)Methane oxidizers (UK)H+ acceptors Nitrate (Japan) Fumaric acid (UK, Japan)Medium chain Fatty Acids (Switz)
![Page 35: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
CH4 Mitigation (Mgt strategies cont.)
Select cows with low maintenance req. Increase forage digestibility
• Intensive Grazing• Plant genetic select/modification• ? Fat cows if fed ad libitum• Tradeoff excess N (>20%CP, req~11%) • Ammoniation of forage – trade-off with N2O
MCFA – trade-off enteric, manure
![Page 36: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Diet %CP, Manure Sys vs N2O(Kulling,et. 01 J Ag Sci 137:235)
Lactating Cows, 30.9 kg/d, 3 protein levels, +bypass Methionine 12.5 15 17.5%
3 Manure management systems Liquid manure in slurry (Slurry) Farmyard manure, liquid urine (FYM-US) Deep liter + 12 kg straw (DLM-Straw)
![Page 37: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Dairy % diet CP vs Emissions(Kulling 01, J Ag Sci 137:235)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
NH3-N N2O,mg/10 CH4,g GWP/10
17.5
15
12.5
![Page 38: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Manure System vs Emissions(Kulling 01)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
NH3 N2O CH4 GWP
Slurry
FYM-U
DLM-Strw
![Page 39: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Manure vs. Synthetic N
250 kg N-Manure Stores 350 kg
C Fuel (0) N2O-C 655 kg
Net emissions 305 kg CE(1100 kg CO2eq)
250 kg N-Synthetic Stores 150 kg C Fuel 296 kg C N2O-C 655 kg
Net emissions 801 kg CE(2900 CO2eq)
![Page 40: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
80
- 51
- 118
Direct-IG
95
- 58
- 41
Direct
14.2GHG/BW sold, % base
0$ /T GHG
529Net GHG , T/herd
1997 Base
Abatement Strategies on Beef GHG Emissions & Profit
![Page 41: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Conclusions
Manure Mgt? Anaerobic; N2O, CH4 Covered lagoons?
Efficient manure use
Need good emission estimates
![Page 42: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Livestock Production Systems D. Johnson, H. Phetteplace, A. Seidl Colorado State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56649ec55503460f94bd0795/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Conclusions
GHG abatement strategies should consider emissions of all GHG’sReductions in feed/product central thrustDilution of maintenanceReductions in excess N Soil C can add modest offsets to livestock