Determining Seasonal Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground-Level Area Sources in a Dairy Operation in Central Texas

Borhan, Md. Saidul; Capareda, Sergio C.; Mukhtar, Saqib; Faulkner, William B.; McGee, Russell; Parnell, Calvin B.

doi:10.3155/1047-3289.61.7.786

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There would be location variation (cubicle or aisle zone) for CH 4 emission and manure height, but the averaged emission or depth of the whole open lot was less affected and relatively stable. other estimation based on field measurements by flux chamber in different dairy farms, the emissions estimated in our study were higher than the results from Misselbrook et al (2001) and lower than those from Borhan et al (2011aBorhan et al ( , 2011b, which were 3.5 g m −2 yr −1 or 4.6 kg hd −1 yr −1 for CH 4 and 0.13 g m −2 yr −1 or 1.4 kg hd −1 yr −1 for N 2 O, respectively. CO 2 emission was not available in the investigation of Misselbrook et al (2001), and it was 1588.6 kg hd −1 yr −1 according to Borhan et al (2011aBorhan et al ( , 2011b.…”

Section: Location Variation On Ghg Emissionscontrasting

confidence: 38%

“…other estimation based on field measurements by flux chamber in different dairy farms, the emissions estimated in our study were higher than the results from Misselbrook et al (2001) and lower than those from Borhan et al (2011aBorhan et al ( , 2011b, which were 3.5 g m −2 yr −1 or 4.6 kg hd −1 yr −1 for CH 4 and 0.13 g m −2 yr −1 or 1.4 kg hd −1 yr −1 for N 2 O, respectively. CO 2 emission was not available in the investigation of Misselbrook et al (2001), and it was 1588.6 kg hd −1 yr −1 according to Borhan et al (2011aBorhan et al ( , 2011b. According to Misselbrook's investigation (2001), CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from dairy collecting or feeding yards were within 0.2~0.7 mg m −2 hr −1 and 2.9~39.3 μg m −2 hr −1 , respectively, when the ambient temperature was 5~25°C.…”

Section: Location Variation On Ghg Emissionscontrasting

confidence: 38%

“…It's hard to explain the reason for higher N 2 O emission in this research. Borhan et al (2011aBorhan et al ( , 2011b) also investigated GHG emissions from an open dairy lot using flux chambers, and reported that CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O emissions were in the range of 2824~5392, 5.1~21.5, 2.2~7.5 g hd (Bjorneberg et al, 2009;Leytem et al, 2011Leytem et al, , 2013, CO 2 and CH 4 emissions estimated by flux chambers were relatively lower. It was because chambers are only able to capture the emissions from ground level, whereas the FTIR will also capture the CO 2 emissions due to animal respiration and CH 4 from enteric fermentation, even though CO 2 from livestock are not included in GHG inventory.…”

Section: Location Variation On Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy open lot and manure stockpile in northern China: A case study

Ding

Xie

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The open lots and manure stockpiles of dairy farm are major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in typical dairy cow housing and manure management system in China. , respectively. In situ storage duration, which estimated by manure volatile solid contents (VS), would affect GHG emissions from stockpiles. Much higher N 2 O was emitted from stockpiles in summer due to longer manure storage.Implications: This study deals with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from open lots and stockpiles. It's an increasing area of concern in some livestock producing countries. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology is commonly used for estimation of national GHG emission inventories. There is a shortage of on-farm information to evaluate the accuracy of these equations and default emission factors. This work provides valuable information for improving accounting practices within China or for similar manure management practice in other countries.PAPER HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Location Variation On Ghg Emissionscontrasting

confidence: 38%

Section: Location Variation On Ghg Emissionscontrasting

confidence: 38%

Section: Location Variation On Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy open lot and manure stockpile in northern China: A case study

Ding

Xie

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rahman et al (2013) found no difference in CH 4 flux rates or fluxes of beef cattle pen surfaces among months over a 7-mo study in North Dakota. Borhan et al (2011) found no effect of season on daily CH 4 emissions for a freestall dairy barn (manure lane and bedding area) and its loafing pen. Appuhamy et al (2016) reported that the IPCC (2006b) Tier 2 model, which the US EPA (2017a) methodology is based on, was associated with a notable mean bias for over-predicting enteric CH 4 emissions from lactating cows and thus was not ranked in the top 10 models for predicting enteric CH 4 emissions.…”

Section: Open-path Ch 4 Estimates Broadly Tracked Monthly Us Epa Estimentioning

confidence: 83%

Short-term methane emissions from 2 dairy farms in California estimated by different measurement techniques and US Environmental Protection Agency inventory methodology: A case study

Arndt

Leytem

Hristov

et al. 2018

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reported estimates of CH 4 emissions from ruminants and manure management are up to 2 times higher in atmospheric top-down calculations than in bottom-up (BU) inventories. We explored this discrepancy by estimating CH 4 emissions of 2 dairy facilities in California with US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) methodology, which is used for BU inventories, and 3 independent measurement techniques:(1) open-path measurements with inverse dispersion modeling (hereafter open-path), (2) vehicle measurements with tracer flux ratio method, and (3) aircraft measurements with the closed-path method. All 3 techniques were used to estimate whole-facility CH 4 emissions during 3 to 6 d per farm in the summer of 2016. In addition, open-path was used to estimate whole-facility CH 4 emissions over 13 to 14 d per farm in the winter of 2017. Our objectives were to (1) compare whole-facility CH 4 measurements utilizing the different measurement techniques, (2) compare whole-facility CH 4 measurements to US EPA inventory methodology estimates, and (3) compare CH 4 emissions between 2 dairies. Whole-facility CH 4 estimates were similar among measurement techniques. No seasonality was detected for CH 4 emissions from animal housing, but CH 4 emissions from liquid manure storage were 3 to 6 times greater during the summer than during the winter measurement periods. The findings confirm previous studies showing that whole-facility CH 4 emissions need to be measured throughout the year to estimate and evaluate annual inventories. Open-path measurements for liquid manure storage emissions were similar to monthly US EPA estimates during the summer, but not during the winter measurement periods. However, the numerical difference was relatively small considering yearly emission estimates. Manure CH 4 emissions contributed 69 to 79% and 26 to 47% of whole-facility CH 4 emissions during the summer and winter measurement periods, respectively. Methane yields from animal housing were similar between farms (on average 20.9 g of CH 4 /kg of dry matter intake), but CH 4 emissions normalized by volatile solids (VS) loading from liquid manure storage (g of CH 4 per day/kg of VS produced by all cattle per day) at 1 dairy were 1.7 and 3.5 times greater than at the other during the summer (234 vs. 137 g of CH 4 /kg of VS) and winter measurement periods (78 vs. 22 g of CH 4 /kg of VS), respectively. We attributed much of this difference to the proportion of manure stored in liquid (anaerobic) form, and suggest that manure management practices that reduce the amount of manure solids stored in liquid form could significantly reduce dairy CH 4 emissions.

show abstract

“…Higher temperature in the summer accelerates GHG emissions from same anaerobic manure management operations than those in the winter with lower temperature. Previous research reported that the overall CH 4 and N 2 O ERs during the summer were approximately 5.3 and 2.2 times higher than those in the winter for a free-stall dairy in central Texas [40].…”

Section: Emission Comparison Based On the Usepa Recommendationmentioning

confidence: 85%

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A protocol that consisted of an isolation flux chamber and a portable gas chromatograph was used to directly quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a dairy and a feedyard operation in the Texas Panhandle. Field sampling campaigns were performed 5 consecutive days only during daylight hours from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm each day. The objective of this research was to quantify and compare GHG emission rates (ERs) from ground level area sources (GLAS) at dairy and cattle feedyard operations during the summer. A total of 74 air samples using flux chamber were collected from the barn (manure lane and bedding area), loafing pen, open lot, settling basin, lagoons, and compost pile within the dairy operation. For the cattle feedyard, a total of 87 air samples were collected from four corner pens of a large feedlot, runoff holding pond, and compost pile. Three primary GHGs (methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide) were measured and quantified from both operations. The aggregate estimated ERs for CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O were 836, 5573, 3.4 g hd(collectively 27.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) hd), respectively, at the dairy operation. The aggregate ERs for CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O were 3.8, 1399, 0.68 g hd(1.7 kg CO 2 e hd), respectively, from the feedyard. The estimated USEPA GHG ERs were about 13.2 and 1.16 kg CO 2 e hd, respectively, for dairy and feedyard operations. Aggregate CH 4 , CO 2 and N 2 O ERs at the dairy facility were about 219, 4 and 5 times higher, respectively, than those at the feedyard. OPEN ACCESSAtmosphere 2011, 2 304At the dairy, average CH 4 ERs estimated from the settling basin, primary and secondary lagoons were significantly higher than those from the other GLAS, contributing about 98% of the aggregate CH 4 emission. The runoff holding pond and pen surface of the feedyard contributed about 99% of the aggregate CH 4 emission. Average CO 2 and N 2 O ERs estimated from the pen surface area were significantly higher than those estimated from the compost pile and runoff pond. The pen surface alone contributed about 93% and 84% of the aggregate CO 2 and N 2 O emission, respectively. Abatement and management practices that address GHG emissions from these sources will likely be most effective for reducing facility emissions.

show abstract

Determining Seasonal Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground-Level Area Sources in a Dairy Operation in Central Texas

Cited by 14 publications

References 29 publications

Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy open lot and manure stockpile in northern China: A case study

Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy open lot and manure stockpile in northern China: A case study

Short-term methane emissions from 2 dairy farms in California estimated by different measurement techniques and US Environmental Protection Agency inventory methodology: A case study

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About