Manure Du Jour March 25, 2009

Transcription

1 Manure Du Jour March 25, 2009 Welcome A Lunchtime Webinar Series Serving Pennsylvania s Best Practices on Animal Ag, Water-, and Air Quality AIR QUALITY Nutrition & Greenhouse Gases Dr. Wendy Powers, Michigan State University, Animal Science and Ag and Biosystems Engineering Dr. Alan Rotz, USDA Agricultural Research Service Dr. Alex Hristov, PSU Department of Dairy and Animal Sciences HOST: Michelle Moyer Penn State Dairy Alliance

2 Manure Du Jour March 25, 2009 Dr. Wendy Powers Michigan State University, Animal Science and Ag and Biosystems Engineering

3 Greenhouse gases from swine and poultry operations: nutritional approaches to mitigate emissions Wendy Powers Departments of Animal Science and Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

4 Greenhouse gas sources in swine and poultry systems Methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide Ruminants emit methane Non-ruminants themselves emit little methane and nitrous oxide relative to emissions from manure

5 GHG sources The majority of methane and nitrous oxide from swine and poultry operations come from buildings, manure storage, and land application of manure

6 EPA proposes first national reporting on greenhouse gas emissions Released in early March 2009 Applies to: Suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals Manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, Large direct emitters of greenhouse gases with annual emissions 25,000 metric tons (mtco2e) Including animal agriculture Approximates GHG emissions from 4,500 passenger vehicles

7 EPA s GHG proposal EPA estimates that 40 to 50 of the largest operations must begin reporting by March 31, 2011 (for calendar year 2010) Only emissions from manure management systems are to be considered Enteric fermentation emissions exempt

8 Manure management system emissions For systems without anaerobic digesters Methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions must be calculated For systems that include digesters CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O emissions from the combustion of supplemental fuels (not digester gas) used in flares would be reported CH 4 generated and destroyed at the digester would also be reported

9 Additional resources ns/downloads/guideagriculturelivestocks ectors.pdf ns/ghgrulemaking.html 40 CFR part 98, subpart JJ of the proposed rule ns/downloads/manuremanagementsystem s.pdf

10 Principles common to reducing nutrient excretions reduce GHG Strategy: Reduce the amount of substrate available (i.e. what is excreted) to decrease the potential formation into GHG (during manure storage) C could become CH 4 or CO 2 N could become N 2 O

11 Principles common to reducing nutrient excretions reduce GHG Improving herd health will improve feed efficiency Improving health status can improve feed approximately 10%, resulting in a 10% decrease in nitrogen excretion Select animals (genetic lines) with high feed efficiency to reduces the amounts of nutrients excreted in urine and feces Rule of thumb: A 0.1 percentage point improvement in feed efficiency translates to a 3.3 percent reduction in nutrient excretion (swine) over the grow-finish cycle

12 Principles common to reducing Split-sex feeding nutrient excretions Feed intake for each gender can be met more closely Phase feeding Allows a producer to better match nutrients provided with the changing nutrient needs Reducing manure nutrient content and GHG production potential during manure storage In Ontario, calculations show that changing to a 2- phase feeding system would result in a 12% decrease in manure N (Murphy and de Lange, 2004)

13 Principles common to reducing nutrient excretions Wet-dry feeders Wet/dry feeders increase feed efficiency by reducing the amount of feed required to achieve a desired weight gain. This means less nitrogen is excreted in the manure Reduce pig water usage by 10 to 40% in the growth-finisher phase Reduces both energy costs and GHG emissions Reduced barn water use produces a less-dilute manure, which translates into reduced energy and transportation costs to handle the manure nutrients Improve digestibility Enzymes Phytase also improves the digestibility of protein reducing nitrogen excretion in manure Phytase supplementation results in a 28% reduction in fecal and total nitrogen excretion (Zijlstra et al., 2001)

14 Improving nutrient efficiency A low crude protein diet reduced CO 2 production by pigs by 2.5 percent to 6.1 percent compared to conventional diets (Moehn et al., 2003) The overall reduction in GHG emissions (measured in CO 2 e) by finishing pigs was 7.4 percent on a low protein corn-based diet, and 14.3 percent on a low protein barley-based diet GHG emissions from sows were reduced by 16.4% on a low protein barley-based diet They concluded that diet manipulations reduce GHG emissions from both the pig and from manure

15 Reducing nitrogen excretion Studies have shown a 22 to 48% reduction in urinary nitrogen excretion and a 23% reduction in fecal nitrogen excretion from pigs fed low crude protein diets (13.8 and 15.7% CP) compared to 18.5% and 19.7% CP diets (Zervas and Zijlstra, 2002a,b) Potential to reduce both nitrous oxide and ammonia gas emissions from manure

16 Ammonia emissions from swine % -33% -48% Lys only 3 AA 5 AA 0 Powers et al., 2007 Daily ammonia emissions, mg kg-1 animal liveweight P<0.0001

17 Turkey experiment example Nitrogen excretion reduced as a result of feeding diets with 3 AA at 100% of AA recommendation (Applegate et al. 2008)

18 CO 2 emissions from turkeys /18/2008 6/25/2008 7/2/2008 7/9/2008 7/16/2008 7/23/2008 7/30/2008 8/6/2008 8/13/2008 8/20/2008 8/27/2008 9/3/2008 9/10/2008 9/17/2008 9/24/ /1/ /8/ /15/ /22/ /29/2008 ( )

19 Methane emissions from turkeys Average daily CH 4 emissions mg/day ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5 Nov 26 Oct 16 Oct 6 Oct 26 Sep 16 Sep 6 Sep 27 Aug 17 Aug 7 Aug 28 Jul 18 Jul 8 Jul 28 Jun 18 Jun Date Powers et al., unpublished

20 Diet impact on CO 2 emissions Laying hens mg CO 2 per g egg mass 1,000, , ,000 c b a 700, , , , , , , % DDGS 10% DDGS 20% DDGS P <0.05; Powers et al., unpublished

21 Diet impact on CH 4 emissions Laying hens mg CH 4 per g egg mass b ab a 0% DDGS 10% DDGS 20% DDGS P <0.05; Powers et al., unpublished

22 Diet impact on CH 4 emissions Pigs Average daily methane concentration in rooms where swine were fed 4 treatment diets b b ppm a a Corn DDGs Dehulled, degermed corn Corn germ meal Dietary treatment P <0.0001; Powers et al., unpublished

23 Diet impact on CH 4 emissions Pigs Daily methane emissions in rooms where swine were fed 4 treatment diets, mg kg -1 feed intake a a b b Corn DDGs Dehulled, degermed corn Corn germ meal P <0.0006; Powers et al., unpublished

24 Diet impact on CO 2 emissions Pigs Daily CO 2 emissions, mg kj -1 energy consumed 35 b a a a Corn DDGs Dehulled, degermed corn Corn germ meal P <0.01; Powers et al., unpublished

25 Diet impact on O 2 consumption Pigs Daily O 2 emissions, mg kj -1 energy consumed Corn DDGs Dehulled, degermed corn Corn germ meal a a a b -47 P <0.01; Powers et al., unpublished

26 Summary In monogastric systems, manure storages are the largest contributor to GHG emissions However, changing the diet can impact the potential GHG emissions that occur during storage Limited amount of data currently available to document the impact of diet on GHGs

27 Manure Du Jour March 25, 2009 Dr. Alan Rotz USDA Agricultural Research Service

28 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms Alan Rotz Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit USDA, Agricultural Research Service University Park, Pennsylvania USDA / ARS

29 What are Greenhouse Gases? Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are atmospheric gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere Livestock agriculture is an important emitter of GHGs USDA / ARS

30 What do our Farms Emit? Little information exists on the net GHG emissions from our farms USDA / ARS

31 Greenhouse Gases Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous oxide USDA / ARS

32 Carbon Dioxide Carbon fixation in plant growth Soil respiration Plant respiration Engine exhaust Animal respiration Manure respiration on barn floor Manure respiration in storage USDA / ARS

33 Methane Emissions Enteric fermentation Manure on barn floor Manure in storage Following manure application Feces from grazing animals USDA / ARS

34 Nitrous Oxide Emissions Nitrification/denitrification processes in cropland Manure on barn floor Manure storage USDA / ARS

35 Global Warming Potential Gases have different Global Warming Potential relative to carbon dioxide Methane (25 times CO 2 ) Nitrous oxide (298 times CO 2 ) Summing the three gases converted to CO 2 e gives total net GHG emission USDA / ARS

36 Carbon Footprint The net sum of all greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production (milk or meat) For a complete assessment, both primary and secondary emissions should be included USDA / ARS

37 Secondary Emissions Emissions occurring during the manufacture or production of farm inputs Fuel Electricity Machinery Fertilizer Pesticides Seed Plastic USDA / ARS

38 Carbon Sequestration Most of our soils have been depleted in carbon through intensive row crop production Conversion to reduced tillage practices or perennial grassland can stimulate the accumulation of soil carbon for up to 50 years USDA / ARS

39 Net Farm GHG Emission can not be measured USDA / ARS

40 Software Tools DairyGHG IFSM USDA / ARS

41 A Comparison of Production Systems Base: 100 cows plus replacements, free stalls, slurry storage tank, fed alfalfa and corn silage, milk production of 19,800 lb/cow Increased production to 22,900 lb/cow through improved genetics and feed management Feed more corn silage and less alfalfa Use enclosed manure storage with flare USDA / ARS

42 10 Net GHG Emission Ton CO 2 e / cow / yr Methane Nitrous oxide 2 0 Base Increased More Enclosed production corn silage manure storage USDA / ARS

43 So how does this compare? Annual emissions from driving a mid-size car 8,000 miles 4.4 ton CO 2 15,000 miles 8.5 Net annual emissions from dairy farms (per cow plus her replacement) ton CO 2 e USDA / ARS

44 Carbon Footprint lb CO 2 e / lb milk 0.6 Secondary emissions Engine emissions Manure handling Net animal/feed Base Increased More Enclosed production corn silage manure storage USDA / ARS

45 How to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of our Farms Increase production per animal Feed more grain/less forage Use higher quality forage Eliminate manure storage Cover manure storage and flare gas Use digester to create biogas / electricity Improve carbon sequestration (short term) USDA / ARS

46 Summary Our livestock farms are a net emitter of greenhouse gases The carbon footprint of our dairy farms generally falls in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 lb CO 2 e per lb of milk produced DairyGHG provides a simple tool for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon footprint of dairy production systems USDA / ARS

47 Model Availability USDA / ARS

48 USDA Agricultural Research Service Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit University Park, Pennsylvania USDA / ARS

49 Manure Du Jour March 25, 2009 Dr. Alex Hristov Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science

50 Feeding Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminants Alexander N. Hristov Department of Dairy and Animal Science Pennsylvania State University

51 NRC, 2003 Greenhouse gases from agriculture Carbon dioxide livestock contribution is unknown Methane over a 100 year period, has 25 times the global warming potential of CO 2 Enteric fermentation and manure management Nitrous oxide - over a 100 year period, has 298 times the GWP of CO 2 Soil and manure management

52 Hristov et al., unpublished Rumen gases Example concentrations of gases in the rumen of a dairy cow Ammonia = insignificant Nitrous oxide = 84 mg/m 3 Methane = 16 g/m 3 Carbon dioxide = 168 g/m 3

53 EPA, 2006 US GHG emissions (CO 2 e) by sector Residential 5% Commercial 6% Agriculture 8% Electricity Generation 33% Industry 20% Transportation 28%

54 EPA, 2005 Agriculture not on the CO 2 radar

55 EPA, 2005 Ruminants a major source of CH 4 & N 2 O

56 EPA, 2005 GHG from agriculture & livestock

57 Livestock contribution to total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions 12% 54% 2.8% 5.4% 2.4% 2.2%

58 Boadi et al., 2004 Methane emissions from dairy cows

59 Moss et al., 2000 Methane a natural product of fiber fermentation in the rumen Acetogens?

60 Mills et al., 2001 Methane increases with increasing DMI

61 Nutrition, management, and methane emissions

62 Modified from Boadi et al., 2004 Summary of mitigation strategies Strategy Potential CH 4 reduction Feasibility Improving animal productivity 20-30% Feasible Increasing concentrate intake >25% Feasible, may increase N 2 O Forage digestibility 20-25% Feasible Rotational grazing >9% Feasible, increased cost Dietary fat, inhibition of protozoa 30-50% Feasible, fiber degradability Probiotics 10-50% Needs more research Ionophores 10-30% Effect uncertain, adaptation Methane inhibitors (bromoethanesulphonate) Up to 70% Adaptation, cost Genetic selection >20% Feasible Immunization 10-20% Uncertain effects

63 Guan et al., 2006 Transient effect of ionophoric antibiotics A temporary reduction (by 30%) of CH 4 production by monensin or lasalocid Mediated through a temporary reduction in protozoal counts

64 Russell, 2002 Rumen protozoan heavily colonized by methanogens

65 Unsaturated long-chain and saturated medium-chain FA are effective inhibitors of methnogenesis in the rumen

66 Muchmüller, 2006 Medium-chain fatty acids reduce CH 4 production

67 Hristov et al., 2008 Effect of MCFA on rumen methane production rate CO vs. CON and LA, P < 0.05 Control Lauric acid Coconut oil Methane production, g/h Protozoal counts were reduced by 90% Time after feeding/treatment, h

68 Beauchemin et al., 2006 Feed additives and CH 4 production Similarly, tannins had no effect, Beauchemin et al. (2007)

69 McGinn et al., 2004 Feed additives and CH 4 production * Methane, g/kg DMI

70 Lila et al., 2003 Feed additives and CH 4 production However, DM degradability was linearly decreased

71 Busquet et al., 2005 Tatsuoka et al., 2008 (EO-cyclodextrin complexes) Essential oils

72 Tekippe et al., unpublished EO and methane production in vitro Control

73 Wright et al., 2004 Immunization Experiment with sheep Using the animal s immune system to produce antibodies against specific methanogens 20% of metanogens targeted 7.7% reduction in methane production

74 Lovett et al., 2006 Pedigree and concentrate feeding effects on whole-farm CH 4 emissions Pedigree milk Production index LP <100 kg MP, kg HP, kg Concentrate level LC, low conc. MC, low conc. HC, low conc. Minimum emissions (production system) were with MP-HC

75 Agle et al., 2008 Rumen methane production as affected by dietary energy density 6 5 P > 0.05 Control High-energy diet Methane production, g/h Time after feeding/treatment, h

76 Lifetime methane emissions as affected by dietary finishing system (Australia)

77 Question and Answers Questions received in writing will be directed to the speakers by the host. Questions not answered during the time remaining, will be posted with answers at Recordings of this session can also be viewed at the URL listed above. Wendy Powers Alan Rotz Alex Hristov

78 Next Time on Manure Du Jour Air Quality Best Practices in Housing & Barnyards Featuring the Penn State Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Faculty and Research Staff Robert Graves Eileen Wheeler Pat Topper For more information Penn State Ag & Environment Center

79