Reducing gaseous emissions from manure management in Ireland Gary Lanigan, William Burchill, Patrick Forrestal, Eddy Minet, Fred Bourdin, Grainne Meade, Ray Brennan, Enda Cahalane, Catherine Watson, Owen Fenton, Tom Curran, Karl Richards
Outline Introduction Impact of timing and application method on GHG Impact of inhibitors and amendments on manure and PRP Reducing crude protein on manure and PRP Ranking measures Other things to keep in mind
1990=100 Background In Ireland, agriculture contributes: 98% of NH 3 emissions 32.1% of GHG emissions Legislation : necessity to control and reduce these emissions: National Emissions Ceiling Directive EU Climate & Energy Package 120.0 110.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 GHG NH3* GHG Ammonia Manure management Synthetic Fertilizers Housing Animal Manure Applied to Soils Storage N-fixing Crops Landspreading ( Crop Residue sewage sludge) Pasture, Range Grazing and Paddock Manure Indirect Yard Emissions emission Atmospheric Deposition Fertilizer Nitrogen Leaching and Run-off Cattle Pigs Sheep Poultry Horses Mules Goats Fertilizer Other
Measurements N 2 O, CH 4 static and dynamic chambers Ammonia Wind tunnels and micromet. Nitrate leaching lysimeters
GHG emissions (CO 2 -eq ha -1 ) Timing of Application 500 Bourdin et al. 2014 AGEE 215: 68-75 Shifting to spring reduces NH 3 by 25% - or 10-15 kg N ha -1 Highest indirect N 2 O losses in July due to high volatilisation Direct N 2 O higher in August/September and much higher for CAN 400 300 200 100 0 CAN 112 195 228 262 CH4 N2O direct N2O indirect 60 DoY Evening spreading can 50 reduce volatilisation by 16% Ammonia losstan (%) 40 30 20 10 Splashplate Trailing shoe 0 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 Time (hr)
Application Method Bandspread: NH 3 reduced by 19% (range 9-44%) Trailing Shoe: 29% reduction (range 12-61%) Direct N 2 O lower for slurry than CAN but EF highest for low DM slurry (mean EF = 0.44%) Cumulative fluxes (kg CO2eq ha -1 ) 2400 1800 1200 600 0 Control CAN High DM (SP) CH4 N2O direct N2O indirect Low DM (SP) Low High DM DM (TS) (TS) Bourdin et al. 2014 AGEE 215: 68-75 Cahalan et al. 2014 AGEE 199; 339-349
Impact of N inhibitors on manure management Cumulative N 2 O emissions (g N ha -1 ) Incorporating DCD in slurry during storage no degradation 48% decrease in N 2 O when slurry amended with DCD 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 bandspread splashplate -DCD +DCD Treatment Minet et al. 2016 AGEE 215: 68-75 Cahalan et al. 2014 AGEE 199; 339-349
Chemical Amendment of slurry Alum, FeCl 2,PAC and biochar reduced ammonia emissions by 92%, 54%, 65% and 77% respectively Alum and FeCl2 increased N 2 O. PAC and biochar application reduced N 2 O. Alum and PAC particularly effective at reducing P loss (>60%) Brennan et al. Plos One 10(6)
Reducing crude protein Pigs fed High CP (23%) and low CP (16%) diet Dietary strategies reducing slurry N content decreased N 2 O by 18% and ammonia by 14% Meade et al. 2010 AGEE 140: 208-217
Pasture, Range and Paddock (PRP) Selbie et al. 2013 J. Ag. Res. Linear relationship between the rate of cattle urine N deposition and N 2 O Emissions DCD: 50%-69% DECREASE in N2O No impact on ammonia 62% 69%
Inhibitor amendment of PRP Reduced emissions of ammonia with NBPT but non consistent and varies seasonally No DCD impact on urine ammonia DCD reduced leaching by between 36% - 63% NH 3 -N emissions kg ha -1 NH 3 -N emissions % total N applied May June May June Urine 57 ± 25 a 36 ± 9 a 5.8 a 6.3 ab Urea 4 ± 3 b 6 ± 4 b 7.6 a 14.7 a Urine + urea 46 ± 17 a 53 ± 22 a 5.3 a 8.8 ab Urine + (urea + DCD) Urine + (urea + NBPT) Urine + (urea + NBPT + DCD) 63% 44% 42 ± 11 a 56 ± 6 a 4.3 a 9.4 ab 36 ± 8 b 33 ± 16 a 3.9 a 5.6 b 37 ± 19 a 31 ± 19 b 3.6 a 5.3 b
Percentage reduction in ammonia and N 2 O emissions for a variety of abatement techniques. Measure % change relative to broadcast Ammonia Nitrous Oxide Application Technique Bandspreading -19 +5.6ns Trailing Shoe -28.5 +11.4ns Timing Spring v summer -25 +13.2 Autumn v summer -18.7 +58.8 Evening v daytime (noon) -16.8-3.8ns Chemical Biochar -77.1-44.2 Polyaluminium Chloride -65 +54.5 Alum -92.4 +72.0 DCD na -48 Diet Reduced Crude Protein -19.2-18
Cost per kg N ATMS (dairy / non- Urea stabilisers Alum (poultry) Reduce crude protein (pigs) Trailing hose (dairy) Trailing hose (nondairy) NBPT (manure) Trailing shoe (dairy) Trailing shoe (non- DCD Urine DCD (manure) Trailing hose (pigs) Trailing shoe (pigs) Ranking abatement options 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16-2 Abatement (kt N)
Final thoughts don t forget C sequestration...or N2! Long-term slurry NPK = 200 kg N ha -1 yr -1, 32 kg P ha -1 yr -1, 160 kg K ha -1 yr -1 PIG 50, 100, 200 experiment = Pig slurry at 50, 100, 200 AFBI, m 3 ha -1 yr -1 COW 50, 100, 200 = Cow slurry at 50, 100, 200 m 3 ha -1 yr -1 Hillsborough, 44-years old Christie et al. 2011 Milk & Meat 30.8% 5.7% 4.4% 30.6% N lost to groundwater NH 3 volatilisation NO, N 2 O and N 2 from slurry storage N 2 O from soil N 2 from soil 0.3% 28.2% Burchill et al. 2016 AGEE (in press)
Conclusion Reduction in crude protein is cost effective for both N 2 O and NH 3 Switching from splash plate to bandspreading or trailing shoe application = decrease in NH 3 volatilisation and no significant effect on N 2 O release from soils Significant impact of timing of application on GHG and NH 3 emissions DCD and NBPT can reduce N 2 O/NH 3 /NO 3 from PRP and manure Chemical amendments can reduce NH 3 and P losses, but impact on N2O is variable Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Initiative - Ireland