Emissions of Ammonia, Nitrous Oxide and Methane During the Management of Solid Manures

Webb, J.; Sommer, Sven G.; Küpper, Thomas; Groenestein, Karin; Hutchings, Nicholas J.; Eurich-Menden, Brigitte; Rodhe, Lena; Misselbrook, T.H.; Amon, Barbara

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1905-7_4

Cited by 42 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Solid Manure -Compostingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Manure can either be left undisturbed during the composting process (passive composting), mechanically turned (extensive composting) or actively aerated (intensive composting). Aeration may reduce CH 4 emissions (Table 3), but increase N 2 O and NH 3 emissions (Pattey et al, 2005;Webb et al, 2012). Combined CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are generally lower after forced aeration and turning compared with passive composting (Table 3).…”

Section: Manure Handling and Treatment For Ghg Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thorman et al (2006) reported both a reduction and an increase in N 2 O emissions after covering poultry solid manure with a plastic sheet. NH 3 emissions may also be reduced by covering the heap (Chadwick, 2005;Webb et al, 2012).Liquid manure -cover during storage Covers on liquid manure stores are mainly adopted to reduce NH 3 emissions. N 2 O emissions from liquid manure are negligible during storage, unless a surface crust is present (e.g., VanderZaag et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Solid Manure -Compostingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manure Handling and Treatment For Ghg Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Petersen

Blanchard

Chadwick

et al. 2013

Animal

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This type of housing can be conducted with different configurations, which primarily differ in the presence of bunks for animal rest, in the use of straw or other litter materials and in the presence of areas with more or fewer quantities of straw. Webb et al [44] found that housing systems with deep litter emit more NH 3 than tied stalls. This is due to the smaller emitting surface area in a tied stall.…”

Section: Housingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For these biomasses, the measured BMP is close to TBMP. However, most of the waste-biomass, such as animal slurry, present critical digestibility below 50% of TBMP, and many plant biomasses have a low digestibility due to lignocellulose [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Table 9 summarizes the substrates usable/available for each "typical farm" group, based on management logics, according to the considerations given in this paragraph.…”

Section: Substrate Livestock Effluentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping of Biomass Fluxes: A Method for Optimizing Biogas-Refinery of Livestock Effluents

Nardin

Mazzetto

2014

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the topic of the management of livestock effluents and, therefore, nutrients (particularly N) in the framework of the biogas supply chain. The bio-refinery will be analyzed as a unique system, from the farm to the biomass produced and sent to anaerobic digestion, focusing on the fate/change of the flow of material and nutrients content through the system. Within four categories of farms considered in the article, integrated ones frequently have a breeding consistency from 90 to 320 heads, according to more extensive or intensive settings. These farms must manage from 3.62 to 12.81 m of nitrogen (N) as the sum of excreta from all herd categories. By selecting a hypo-protein diet, a reduction of 10% and 24% for total effluent amount and for N excreted, respectively, can be achieved. Nitrogen can be reduced up to 45% if the crude protein content is limited and a further 0.23% if animals of similar ages, weights and (or) production or management are grouped and fed according to specific requirements. Integrated farms can implement farming activity with biogas production, possibly adding agricultural residues to the anaerobically-digested biomass. Average biogas yields for cattle effluents range from 200 to 400 m of biogas can be produced, obtaining average values from 26 to 54.5 kWe (kilowatt-electric). This type of farm can well balance farm-production profit, environmental protection, animal husbandry well-being and energy self-sufficiency.

show abstract