Carbon and nutrient losses during manure storage under traditional and improved practices in smallholder crop-livestock systems—evidence from Kenya

Tittonell, Pablo; Rufino, Mariana C.; Janssen, B.H.; Giller, Ken E.

doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0107-x

Cited by 77 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To increase nutrient conservation, recommendations are to compost under roofs and on floors (Rufino and Rowe, 2006), and to limit storage time (Tittonell et al, 2010). Farmers aim to keep animals longer in confinement by improving forage availability (Landais and Lhoste, 1993).…”

Section: Manure Management Practices -A Global Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Petersen

Blanchard

Chadwick

et al. 2013

Animal

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing intensification and specialisation of livestock production lead to increasing volumes of manure to be managed, which are a source of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). Net emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O result from a multitude of microbial activities in the manure environment. Their relative importance depends not only on manure composition and local management practices with respect to treatment, storage and field application, but also on ambient climatic conditions. The diversity of livestock production systems, and their associated manure management, is discussed on the basis of four regional cases (Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, China and Europe) with increasing levels of intensification and priorities with respect to nutrient management and environmental regulation. GHG mitigation options for production systems based on solid and liquid manure management are then presented, and potentials for positive and negative interactions between pollutants, and between management practices, are discussed. The diversity of manure properties and environmental conditions necessitate a modelling approach for improving estimates of GHG emissions, and for predicting effects of management changes for GHG mitigation, and requirements for such a model are discussed. Finally, we briefly discuss drivers for, and barriers against, introduction of GHG mitigation measures for livestock production. There is no conflict between efforts to improve food and feed production, and efforts to reduce GHG emissions from manure management. Growth in livestock populations are projected to occur mainly in intensive production systems where, for this and other reasons, the largest potentials for GHG mitigation may be found.Keywords: methane, nitrous oxide, storage, treatment, farm model ImplicationsLivestock manure is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly as methane and nitrous oxide. GHG emissions are biogenic and regulated by manure characteristics, and therefore emissions can be manipulated via handling, treatment and storage conditions. Globally, livestock production systems vary widely, and this is also true for GHG mitigation potentials, but generally efforts to conserve nutrients in manure for crop production will also reduce GHG emissions. Future growth in livestock production is projected to occur mainly in confined animal feeding operations, which also appear to have the greatest potential for GHG mitigation. IntroductionSince the mid 20th century, there has been a growing pressure on land resources for production of food and feed for livestock and, increasingly, crops for energy production (Hoogwijk et al., 2005). To fulfil the demand for meat, milk and eggs, livestock production in developing countries is expanding, especially in peri-urban areas (Gerber et al., 2005), and worldwide becomes more specialised (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In consequence of these trends, increasing volumes of livestock manure are produced, which are a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing t...

show abstract

Section: Manure Management Practices -A Global Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Petersen

Blanchard

Chadwick

et al. 2013

Animal

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If farmers do apply this manure onto the land following storage, the effectiveness of this BMP will have been overestimated here. Previous research [ Tittonell et al ., ; Gooday and Anthony , ] indicates a difference of about 4% in P leakage rates between different manure storage strategies (SI 1). Livestock numbers per subcatchment were calculated using 2011 livestock densities [ Statistics Canada , ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness and resilience of phosphorus management practices in the Lake Simcoe watershed, Ontario, Canada

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncertainty surrounding future climate makes it difficult to have confidence that current nutrient management strategies will remain effective. This study used monitoring and modeling to assess current effectiveness (% phosphorus reduction) and resilience (defined as continued effectiveness under a changing climate) of best management practices (BMPs) within five catchments of the Lake Simcoe watershed, Ontario. The Integrated Catchment Phosphorus model (INCA‐P) was used, and monitoring data were used to calibrate and validate a series of management scenarios. To assess current BMP effectiveness, models were run over a baseline period 1985–2014 with and without management scenarios. Climate simulations were run (2070–2099), and BMP resilience was calculated as the percent change in effectiveness between the baseline and future period. Results demonstrated that livestock removal from water courses was the most effective BMP, while manure storage adjustments were the least. Effectiveness varied between catchments, influenced by the dominant hydrological and nutrient transport pathways. Resilience of individual BMPs was associated with catchment sensitivity to climate change. BMPs were most resilient in catchments with high soil water storage capacity and small projected changes in frozen‐water availability and in soil moisture deficits. Conversely, BMPs were less resilient in catchments with larger changes in spring melt magnitude and in overland flow proportions. Results indicated that BMPs implemented are not always those most suited to catchment flow pathways, and a more site‐specific approach would enhance prospects for maintaining P reduction targets. Furthermore, BMP resilience to climate change can be predicted from catchment physical properties and present‐day hydrochemical sensitivity to climate forcing.

show abstract

“…Previous studies found C losses of 14 to 50% from slurry stores (Amon et al, 2007;VanderZaag et al, 2010aVanderZaag et al, , 2010b) and 35 to 70% from manure heaps (Chadwick, 2005;Petersen and Sorensen, 2008;Tittonell et al, 2010). The CH 4 -C losses from manure heaps can range from 0.4% to 10% of total C (Chadwick, 2005;Webb et al, 2012) but can represent as much as 60 to 70% of total C in raw slurry stores under warm storage conditions (Moset et al, 2012).…”

Section: Nutrient Losses During Winter and Summer Storage Of Separatementioning

confidence: 95%

Nutrient Losses during Winter and Summer Storage of Separated and Unseparated Digested Cattle Slurry

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management factors affect nutrient loss during animal manure slurry storage in different ways. We conducted a pilot-scale study to evaluate carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) losses from unseparated and digested dairy slurry during winter and summer storage. In addition to season, treatments included mechanical separation of digestate into liquid and solid fractions and bimonthly mixing. Chemical analyses were performed every 2 wk for the mixed materials and at the start and end of storage for unmixed materials. The parameters examined allowed us to estimate C and N losses and examine the factors that determine these losses as well as emission patterns. Gas measurements were done every 2 wk to determine the main forms in which gaseous losses occurred. To evaluate the effect of separation, measured losses and emissions of separated liquid and solid fractions were mathematically combined using the mass separation efficiency of the mechanical separator. Nutrient losses were mainly affected by climatic conditions. Losses of C (up to 23%) from unseparated, unmixed digestate and of N (38% from combined separated fractions and from unseparated digestate) were much greater in summer than in winter, when C and N losses were <7%. Mixing tended to significantly increase N losses (P < 0.1) only in winter. Mechanical separation resulted in lower GHG emissions from combined separated fractions than from unseparated digestate. Results indicate that to maximize the fertilizer value of digested slurry, dairy farmers must carefully choose management practices, especially in summer. For separated digestates, practices should focus on storage of the liquid fraction, the major contributor of C and N losses (up to 64 and 90% of total losses, respectively) in summer. Moreover, management practices should limit NH 3 , the main form of N losses (up to 99.5%). Nutrient Losses during Winter and Summer Storage of Separated and Unseparated Digested Cattle SlurryFrancesca Perazzolo,* Gabriele Mattachini, Elisabetta Riva, and Giorgio Provolo M anure slurries from dairy and other livestock production systems are valuable sources of plant nutrients and carbon (C) and are thus a resource for crop producers. Slurry use as fertilizer should be based on its nutrient and C content (considering potential nitrogen [N] and C losses during on-farm storage) to reduce negative environmental impacts . Losses of N and C as ammonia (NH 3 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and methane (CH 4 ) during slurry storage are particularly relevant (Chadwick et al., 2011;Dinuccio et al., 2012) and should be evaluated and minimized via cost-effective mitigation methods.Using the integrated modeling tool MITERRA-EUROPE, Oenema et al. (2007) estimated that in the EU almost 30% of the N excreted in dairy barns is lost during storage. Approximately 63% of the loss was via NH 3 emissions; 23% was lost following nitrification or denitrification as nitric oxide (NO), N 2 O, and N 2 ; and 13% was lost due to leaching and run-off. However, the differences in mean N losses from manure...

show abstract

Carbon and nutrient losses during manure storage under traditional and improved practices in smallholder crop-livestock systems—evidence from Kenya

Cited by 77 publications

References 23 publications

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

The effectiveness and resilience of phosphorus management practices in the Lake Simcoe watershed, Ontario, Canada

Nutrient Losses during Winter and Summer Storage of Separated and Unseparated Digested Cattle Slurry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About