WG3. Kamila Koci WG3 Leader. Ammonia and Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Production Buildings

Transcription

1 Ammonia and Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Production WG3 Environmental assessment of housing systems and emission reduction technologies Kamila Koci WG3 Leader COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

2 CA16106 Ammonia and Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Production WG1 WG 2 WG3 Environmental assessment of housing systems and emission reduction technologies WG4 COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

3 Objectives 1. Review of information/data on the manure treatment and management relevant different production systems across species. 2. Identify what parameters (e.g. weather conditions) have the largest effects the manure treatment and management practices under different production systems across species 3. Identify Innovative housing systems that minimise contact of animals with their excreta and that avert introduction of pathogenic disease by biosecurity measures. COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

4 The idea is to link Farm The animal Innovation The product Consumers Policy makers COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

5 1. Manure treatment and management Georgios Arsenos, Greece, Peter Demeyer, Belgium, Michael Corson and Nouraya Akkal, France 1.1. Additive and acid treatment of manure 1.2. Design of building floor and slurry pit 1.3. In-house manure separation COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

6 Designs and their impacts COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

7 Climate change impacts will vary among the different European subregions Figure General trends of several climate variables for European sub regions. Indices represent changes for with respect to based on RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios (based on Jacob et al, 2014).

8 First step: Literature/data review Relevant Sources to look at: FP7 projects SCI articles National projects Other? Type of information/data Synthetic data Raw data Modelled data Qualitative data Other? COST LivAGE project, Bucharest, September WG 1 meeting

9 Data from EU projects OptiBarn SILF EU PLF PROHEALTH Optimised animal specific barn climatisation facing temperature rise and increased climate variability Smart integrated livestock system techniques for improving welfare Develop management tools that enable continuous automatic monitoring of animal welfare, health, environmental impact and production The project address the production diseases of pigs, broiler and egg laying chickens, and turkeys in a wide range of intensive systems across the EU ReUseWaste

10

11 Example from Optibarn: only qualitative data Heat stress effect on milk (L, proteins and fat) yield in cattle 5/4/2016

12 Manure treatment and management 1.1. Additive and acid treatment of manure 1.2. Design of building floor and slurry pit 1.3. In house manure separation Exposure assessment for animal health Consequence assessment Risk estimation Climate Various microbial agents Grazing system factors Dirtiness score Mastitis Productivity Quality Management Nutrition factors Housing system factors Animal handling factors Respiratory diseases Lameness

13 2. Air cleaning techniques of ventilation exhaust air Sivan Klas (Italy), Guoqiang Zhang (Danmark), Siegfried Denys (Belgium) Main strategies / technologies Increasing ventilation. Keeps NH 3 levels down, no N recovery, pollution, energy. Prevent NH 3 volatilization by adding chemicals to the manure (acid or bacteria inhibitors). N retained in the litter, costly, not effective, labor. Acid scrubbers (AS). Can be very efficient, simple, compact, control, N recovery, energy, water disposal costs. Bio trickling (NH 3 absorption and conversion to nitrate by nitrifies). N recovery, control of autotrophic growth environment, alkalinity addition, high water consumption (10 times of AS).

14 3. Effect of present livestock housing systems, without emission reducing technologies Guoqiang Zhang (Danmark) 3.1. Livestock housing system in general in European Countries and emission factor available? 3.2. How the emission factors were generated? 3.3. Could we make an overview/review based on literature available?

15 4. Influence of different feeding strategies impact of different diet composition, different modes of feed processing, specific additives, new raw materials etc Dairy (possibly sheep or other ruminants) Şeyda Özkan Gülzari and Vibeke Lind (Norway), Marin Monica (Romania), Marcello Mele (Italy), Mislav Didara (Croatia) 4.2. Swine Djuro Vukmirovic (Serbia), Marin Monica (Romania), Mislav Didara (Croatia) 4.3. Poultry Djuro Vukmirovic (Serbia), Marin Monica (Romania), Mislav Didara (Croatia)

16 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Global problem Significant contribution of GHG emissions from the animal production. Single largest anthropogenic CH 4 emission comes from ruminants (enteric fermentation). Modifying nutrition (by modifying feed composition or adding supplements ) can in some extent mitigate this problem. Correctly managing manure (to reduce direct GHG emissions from manure or indirectly by reducing eutrophication of surface waters)..

17 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Mitigation strategy Animal manipulation genetics management approaches Feed manipulation and nutrition Level of intake Grains and type of carbohydrates Forage type and quality Feed processing Lipid supplementation Rumen manipulation Biological control (antibiotics, vaccination, chemical inhibitors, defaunation). Supplements (prebiotics, probiotics, nitrates, tanins and saponins, essential oils).

18 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Animal manipulation Genetics increasing milk yield per cow, reduction of body size, selection for residual feed intake or residual solids production. Management approaches reduce heat stress (heat stress reduces DMI, decrease average daily gain, decreases milk yield, fertility), reduce disease - both infectious and metabolic, improve reproduction.

19 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Feed manipulation and nutrition o Concentrate Increasing grain level in diet increase starch content which shifts production toward propionate production and away of H 2 utilization for CH 4 production. Higher proportion of grain reduces particle size which in term increases rumen passage rate. Higher ratio of grain increases feed intake and therefore increases rumen passage rate.

20 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Feed manipulation and nutrition o Forage type and forage quality Replacing grass with Maize silage increases starch level in diet and digestibility = decreases CH 4 production. Legumes lower cell wall content increases propionate production, but higher tannin levels and lower DMI annulate overall effect. Increasing quality by taking care of the growth stage at which it is cut or grazed Earlier and more frequent cutting decreases cell wall content which in term increases propionate production. Cell content in legumes and grasses contain more sugars and less starch which in term has less effect on CH 4 production.

21 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Feed manipulation and nutrition o Processing forages (grinding, chopping or pelleting) Decrease rumen fibre digestibility and can decrease methane emissions as a result of increased passage rate. If fibre is digested in the hindgut or in the manure no net change in the whole farm methane emission will occur. Pelleting feed requires additional energy expenditure and in that way increases GHG production. Fine grinding of forages is associated with higher incidence of ruminal acidosis.

22 4. Influence of different feeding strategies Feed manipulation and nutrition o Lipid content of the diet Lipid digestion in rumen is negligible. Increased lipid ratio in diet: Reduces organic mater fermentation in rumen Decreases activity of methanogens Decreases number of ciliated protozoa in rumen Unsaturated fatty acids act as sink to hydrogen in process of biohydrogenation. The effect of dietary lipids on CH 4 production is dependent on the source, FA profile, inclusion rate (% of DMI), and diet composition (Beauchemin et al., 2008).

23 NH 3 PIGS 4. Influence of different feeding strategies NH 3 emission in pig breeding: hydrolysis of urea in the urine decomposition of nitrogen containing organics in the feces N excretion of pigs: inevitable and evitable part Main strategies to reduce ammonia emissions are (Aarnink, 2007): 1. lowering crude protein intake in combination with addition of limiting amino acids; 2. shifting N excretion from urine to faeces by including fermentable carbohydrates in the diet; 3. lowering ph of urine by adding acidifying salts to the diet; 4. lowering the ph of faeces by inclusion of fermentable carbohydrates in the diet. A total reduction of NH 3 emission in growing-finishing pigs of 70% could be reached. On the other hand, a clear relationship exists between fermentable carbohydrates in the diet and CH 4 emissions.

24 4. Influence of different feeding strategies High fibre diets (HFD) The breakdown of protein in manure is a slow process while breakdown of urea to ammonia and carbon dioxide is a fast process that covers only hours (Aarnink and Verstegen, 2007). Shifting of nitrogen excretion from urine to feces decreases ammonia emissions. This can be obtained by increasing the content of NSP in the pig feed. Kreuzer and Machmüller (1993): addition of 10 to 22% NSP in pig's diet reduced urinary nitrogen excretion from 20 to 28%. Canh et al., 2007: increasing NSP content from 14 to 31% decreased urinary nitrogen to faecal nitrogen ratio from 3.8 to 1.2. BUT: At higher NSP levels nutrient digestibility decreases and waste production increases (Moeser and Van Kempen, 2002).

25 4. Influence of different feeding strategies High fibre diets (HFD) Comparing a HFD based on sugar beet pulp with a control diet based on cereals, O'Shea et al. (2009) observed a reduction of NH 3 emissions from slurry samples by 40%. HFD - limitations: potential reduction in fattening pig performance (Bruininx et al., 2009), increase of CH 4 emissions (Le Goff et al., 2002; Jarret et al., 2012). Rijnen et al. (2001) observed linear increase of CH 4 emissions from 3.8 to 8.2 g per animal per day with SBP content ranging from 0 to 30%.

26 4. Influence of different feeding strategies PFA - swine feed Phytogenic feed additives (PFAs) became an additional tool for the reduction of NH 3 emissions from pig production. Especially saponins, were reported to reduce the NH 3 : direct binding of NH 3 the inhibition of urease activity (e.g. Makkar et al., 1998).

27 4. Influence of different feeding strategies GHGs - Green House Gasses The GHG emissions from pig houses (Philippe and Nicks, 2015): floor type, manure management nutrition of the pigs Dietary strategy for the abatement: manipulation of the levels of crude protein and fibre dietary additives.

28 4. Influence of different feeding strategies GHGs - Green House Gasses Diets reduced in crude protein content but supplemented with amino acids generally have not showed reduction of GHG emissions. Dietsrichinfibreincrease CH 4 production. Regarding CO 2 production, conflicting results have been reported N 2 O emissions from slurry-based systems are unaffected by dietary fibre content (Clark et al., 2005; Pepple et al., 2011; Philippe et al., 2012) Feed additives (Tsukahara et al. (2001)

29 5. Environmental assessment of innovative technologies 5.1. State of art of technologies to reduce ammonia and GHG emissions Kamila Kočí (Czech Republic), Şeyda Özkan Gülzari and Vibeke Lind (Norway), Stefan Mihina (Slovakia), Miroslav Radeski (Macedonia), Siegfried Denys (Belgium) 5.2. Environmental assessment, with the chosen LCA approach N Akkal-Corfini (France)

30 5. Environmental assessment of innovative technologies New ideas Collect air from the floor level (Lahav et al., 2008). Microalgae growth (Kang 2012, Li et al. 2014). Electrostatic particle ionization and biocurtain (Jerez et al., 2011). Electrochemical oxidation of scrubbed NH 4 to N 2 (Kearney et al., 2012). AOP to reduce the concentrations of odorous compounds, especially the reduced sulfur compounds (Yao, 2013).

31 6. Overview 6.1. Overview of reduction measures applied in different regions Dina Popluga (Latvia), Georgios Arsenos (Greece) 6.2. Overview of storage or/and spreading of manure and slurry in different regions Marin Monica (Romania), M. Corson; N. Akkal-Corfini and M. Hassouna (France)

32 6.2. Storage and spreading of manure and slurry in France M. Corson; N. Akkal-Corfini and M. Hassouna By French law, storage in fields cannot exceed 10 months and cannot be placed on the same location more than once every 3 years. Storage in manure pits (some of them covered) and tanks is common. Like other European Union countries, France is subject to the Water Framework Directive, which limits organic N spreading to 170 kg N/ha/year (no derogation for larger amounts). Manure must be spread more than 35 m from watercourses (or 10 m if the watercourse has riparian vegetation). French departments have specific regulations about spreading rates, dates by crop type and maximum slope restrictions. Slurry is often covered immediately.

33 7. Storage and spreading of manure and slurry in France M. Corson; N. Akkal-Corfini and M. Hassouna Biogas production 19% of greenhouse gas emissions in France (excluding land-use change) come from agriculture (CITEPA, 2015). Biogas production is one way to capture methane from manure and add value to it. France has ca. 400 biogas production units producing ca. 100 kw/year (ADEME, 2016). Digestates from biogas plants have value as fertiliser and soil carbon amendment; assessment projects are underway (e.g., MethaPolSol).

34 7. Storage and spreading of manure and slurry in France M. Corson; N. Akkal-Corfini and M. Hassouna Manure management research Performed mainly by: IRSTEA (National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture). INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research). Regional chambers of agriculture. Technical Institutes.

35 7. Storage and spreading of manure and slurry in France M. Corson; N. Akkal-Corfini and M. Hassouna Current project: MethaPolSol Improve agronomic use of biogas digestate. Assess environmental impacts of biogas production. Identify and optimise best scenarios for different regions (decreasing impacts and increasing ecosystem services).

36 Thank you for your attention