Farm survey used to guide estimates of nitrogen intake and ammonia emissions for beef cattle, including early season grazing and piosphere effects

Sheppard, S. C.; Bittman, S.

doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.048

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The questions were in eight general areas: (1) farm type (cow-calf, backgrounding and finishing) and size, (2) harvested forage production, (3) grazing, (4) corrals, (5) feedlots/barns, (6) manure storage, (7) manure spreading and (8) odor management. Here we exclude survey results for forage production and grazing as those data were presented by Sheppard and Bittman (2011). The numbers and types of farms surveyed (Table 1) represent the beef sector in Canada, and these farms account for 1.6 )10 6 cattle sold in the survey year.…”

Section: Livestock Farm Practices Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The structure and formulation of the model used to estimate NH 3 emissions has been published in general by Sheppard et al (2009bSheppard et al ( , 2010Sheppard et al ( , 2011b and specific to beef by Sheppard and Bittman (2011). Briefly, it is ''Tan-flow'' model that tracks the total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) from excretion through to landspreading.…”

Section: Ammonia Emissions Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The previous papers in this series described the survey objectives and methods, and reported the activities and NH 3 emissions for the poultry sector (broilers, turkeys and layers), swine and dairy (Sheppard et al 2009a(Sheppard et al , 2010(Sheppard et al , 2011a. Some aspects of cattle grazing on NH 3 emissions, especially the very high crude protein (CP) that can occur in early-season forages and the effect of cattle congregation areas on pasture, were previously reported (Sheppard and Bittman 2011). Data from the survey were used to model NH 3 emissions from various sources on contrasting beef farms, and compare and spatially allocate emissions from the beef subsectors across most agro-Ecoregions in Canada.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Farm practices as they affect NH₃ emissions from beef cattle

SheppardS.¹,

BittmanS.

2012

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sheppard, S. C. and Bittman, S. 2012. Farm practices as they affect NH 3 emissions from beef cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 525–543. Beef cattle farms in Canada are very diverse, both in size and management. Because the total biomass of beef cattle in Canada is larger than any other livestock sector, beef also has the potential for the largest environmental impact. In this study we estimate NH3 emissions associated with beef cattle production across Canada using data on farm practices obtained from a detailed survey answered by 1380 beef farmers in 11 Ecoregions. The farms were various combinations of cow/calf, backgrounding and finishing operations. The proportion of animals on pasture varied markedly among Ecoregions, especially for cows and calves, and this markedly affected the estimated NH3 emissions. The crop components of feed also varied among Ecoregions, but the resulting crude protein concentrations were quite consistent for both backgrounding and finishing cattle. Manure was stored longer in the west than in the east, and fall spreading of manure was notably more common in the west, especially when spread on tilled land. The estimated NH3 emissions per animal were relatively consistent across Ecoregions for confinement production, but because the proportion of animals on pasture varied with Ecoregion, so did the overall estimated NH3 emissions per animal. Temperature is a key factor causing Ecoregion differences, although husbandry and manure management practices are also important. Hypothetical best management practices had little ability to reduce overall emission estimates, and could not be implemented without detailed cost/benefit analysis.

show abstract

Section: Livestock Farm Practices Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ammonia Emissions Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Farm practices as they affect NH₃ emissions from beef cattle

SheppardS.¹,

BittmanS.

2012

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, high emissions have been reported from feedlots used to fatten cattle for about 6 months before slaughter (McGinn et al ., ; Hristov et al ., ). At present, there are few mitigation methods available for feedlots and emissions from beef cattle would be even greater if the breeding cows were not kept on pasture over summer where emissions are quite low in comparison (see below, Sheppard & Bittman, ). Over the past 10 yrs, Canadian farmers have increasingly used winter pastures for feeding breeding beef cows (Sheppard et al ., ) and this may reduce future emission estimates (see below).…”

Section: Nh3 Abatement In Canada: Social and Economic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential for mitigating atmospheric ammonia in Canada

Bittman

Sheppard²,

Hunt

2017

Soil Use and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions (85%) in Canada come from agricultural sources (400 kt/yr). There are international conventions that require countries to mitigate NH 3 emissions but there are no federal or provincial guidelines in Canada stipulating emission targets or best practices for agriculture. This study examines the potential for mitigating atmospheric NH 3 using a range of approaches. Taking current farm practices into account, employing proven low-cost measures (low-emission slurry application and slurry storage covers) would reduce annual emissions from livestock operations by 16 kt NH 3 -N, while using all available low-cost measures would reduce emissions by 79 kt NH 3 -N or 26% of livestock emissions. Another 36 kt/yr could be avoided by improving fertilizer practices, so that the total potential reduction would be about 29% of all agricultural emissions. Emissions from beef cattle and pig production could be reduced by 18% if consumption was cut by 50%, with greater mitigation if production for export was reduced, although the economic and social consequences need to be considered. Mitigation practices must be viewed in the context of possible pollution swapping especially in surplus nitrogen situations. Emissions must also be considered in terms of atmospheric NH 3 transport to and from the USA, therefore bi-national agreements to jointly reduce emissions might be needed. It may be more cost-effective in Canada to strategically reduce emissions to minimize risks to health (from particulate matter) and the environment rather than to reduce annual national emission targets.

show abstract

“…The importance of animals congregating is that the useful nutrients are transferred from the overall pasture area and are spatially concentrated through excretion in camping (congregation) areas (Peters et al 2011), and there may be more compaction and moisture from urine, which, in combination, might increase emissions of NH 3 and greenhouse gases relative to the main pasture area (Saggar et al 2009;Sheppard and Bittman 2011). However, there are no Canadian data available to validate this hypothesis.…”

Section: Practices That Remained Unchangedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in land, feed, and manure management practices on beef operations in Canada between 2005 and 2011

Sheppard¹,

Bittman

Macdonald

et al. 2016

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper was to evaluate changes in management practices of beef cattle from 2005 to 2011. Large nationwide surveys of husbandry practices in the beef industry were conducted to represent management practices used in 2005 and 2011 across Canadian Ecoregions. The two surveys attempted to similarly represent operation types (cow-calf, backgrounding, and finishing) and size. Several statistically significant changes in management practices from 2005 to 2011 were observed: in non-feedlot operations, these included more operations with >50% legume in perennial forage, less N fertilization applied to forages, increased winter grazing of cows, and higher quality feed used as a supplement to grazing. In feedlots, there were more shelter structures, less feeding of grain and more of high-legume forages, and more frequent removal of manure. Several practices remained constant in the two surveys including use of covers for storing hay, frequency of harvesting forage, time of barn and feedlot cleanout, manure storage and practices relating to manure incorporation into soil. The large increase in use of winter grazing on the Prairies as well as in eastern Canada documented here is an important change in the industry that has both economic and environmental implications.

show abstract

Farm survey used to guide estimates of nitrogen intake and ammonia emissions for beef cattle, including early season grazing and piosphere effects

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Farm practices as they affect NH₃ emissions from beef cattle

Farm practices as they affect NH₃ emissions from beef cattle

Potential for mitigating atmospheric ammonia in Canada

Changes in land, feed, and manure management practices on beef operations in Canada between 2005 and 2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Farm survey used to guide estimates of nitrogen intake and ammonia emissions for beef cattle, including early season grazing and piosphere effects

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Farm practices as they affect NH3 emissions from beef cattle

Farm practices as they affect NH3 emissions from beef cattle

Potential for mitigating atmospheric ammonia in Canada

Changes in land, feed, and manure management practices on beef operations in Canada between 2005 and 2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Farm practices as they affect NH₃ emissions from beef cattle

Farm practices as they affect NH₃ emissions from beef cattle