Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in southern Germany

Flessa, Heinz; Ruser, Reiner; Dörsch, Peter; Kamp, T.C. van der; Jimenez, Miguel; Munch, Jean Charles; Beese, F.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(01)00234-1

Cited by 272 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the higher GHG-intensity estimates for split and single scenarios in our study could be associated with the use of hog manure on grassland causing increased soil N 2 O emissions. Conversely, estimated emissions per unit land for single (3.6-3.7 t CO 2 -eq/ha) and split (3.6-4.0 t CO 2 -eq/ha) scenarios were comparable to values (3.3-5.9 t CO 2 -eq/ha) reported by Flessa et al (2002), Casey and Holden (2006b) and Foley et al (2011) for European beef production systems that applied on-farm produced slurry to forage and crop land.…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Addition Of Hog Manuresupporting

confidence: 50%

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from hog manure application in a Canadian cow–calf production system using whole-farm models

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The development of beneficial management practices is a key strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from animal agriculture. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the impact of time and amount of hog manure application on farm productivity and GHG emissions from a cow-calf production system using two whole-farm models. Detailed model inputs (climate, soil and manure properties, farm operation data) were collected from a 3-year field study that evaluated the following three treatments: no application of hog manure on grassland (baseline); a single application of hog manure on grassland in spring (single); and two applications of hog manure as fall and spring (split). All three treatments were simulated in a representative cow-calf production system at the farm-gate using the following whole-farm models: a Coupled Components Model (CCM) that used existing farm component models and the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). Annual GHG intensities for the baseline scenario were 17.7 kg CO 2 -eq/kg liveweight for CCM and 18.1 kg CO 2 -eq/kg liveweight for IFSM. Of the total farm GHG emissions, 73-77% were from enteric methane production. The application of hog manure on grassland showed a mean emission increase of 7.8 and 8.4 kg CO 2 -eq/kg liveweight above the baseline for the single and split scenarios, respectively. For the manured scenarios, farm GHG emissions were mainly from enteric methane (47-54%) and soil nitrous oxide (33-41%). Emission estimates from the different GHG sources in the farm varied between models for the single and split application scenarios. Although farm productivity was 3-4% higher in the split than in single application (0.14 t liveweight/ha), the environmental advantage of applying manure in a single or split application was not consistent between models for farm emission intensity. Further component and whole-farm assessments are required to fully understand the impact of timing and the amount of livestock manure application on GHG emissions from beef production systems.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of the Addition Of Hog Manuresupporting

confidence: 50%

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from hog manure application in a Canadian cow–calf production system using whole-farm models

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They argued that in the context of climate change and livestock production, a per area calculation of GHG emissions would be more appropriate than a per product quantity for farming system comparisons. According to lifecycle assessments at the farm scale, organic farming systems perform better in terms of climate impact when calculated on an area-related basis, but are similar to conventional systems when emissions are related to production (Flessa et al 2002;Haas et al 2001) due to the often lower yields in organic agriculture. We argue that the supply of high-quality food and fiber is a key purpose of agriculture for any production system and that the amount of food produced should set the scale for system analysis.…”

Section: Management and Greenhouse Gases In Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Farming and Soil Carbon Sequestration: What Do We Really Know About the Benefits?

Leifeld

Fuhrer

2010

AMBIO

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organic farming is believed to improve soil fertility by enhancing soil organic matter (SOM) contents. An important co-benefit would be the sequestration of carbon from atmospheric CO 2 . Such a positive effect has been suggested based on data from field experiments though many studies were not designed to address the issue of carbon sequestration. The aim of our study was to examine published data in order to identify possible flaws such as missing a proper baseline, carbon mass measurements, or lack of a clear distinction between conventional and organic farming practices, thereby attributing effects of specific practices to organic farming, which are not uniquely organic. A total of 68 data sets were analyzed from 32 peer-reviewed publications aiming to compare conventional with organic farming. The analysis revealed that after conversion, soil C content (SOC) in organic systems increased annually by 2.2% on average, whereas in conventional systems SOC did not change significantly. The majority of publications reported SOC concentrations rather than amounts thus neglecting possible changes in soil bulk density. 34 out of 68 data sets missed a true control with well-defined starting conditions. In 37 out of 50 cases, the amount of organic fertilizer in the organic system exceeded that applied in the compared conventional system, and in half of the cases crop rotations differed between systems. In the few studies where crop rotation and organic fertilization were comparable in both systems no consistent difference in SOC was found. From this data analysis, we conclude that the claim for beneficial effects of organic farming on SOC is premature and that reported advantages of organic farming for SOC are largely determined by higher and often disproportionate application of organic fertilizer compared to conventional farming.

show abstract

“…Production of grain increases use of mineral N fertilizer (MNF), which generates 5.5 kg CO 2 Eq/kg N manufactured -E-mail: alan.fredeen@dal.ca (Flessa et al, 2002) in addition to the N 2 O arising from the subsequent use of the fertilizer (O'Brien et al, 2012a). Reduction in EM by feeding grain is offset by GHGs produced in growing and transporting the grain (Eckard et al, 2010) and by loss of soil carbon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reducing the use of grain and its attendant CO 2 and N 2 O emissions, while maintaining economically sustainable levels of milk production, is contingent upon feeding highest forage quality, which is made possible through, for example, the use of best pasture management strategies. Since the N 2 O emission from manure may not be much different between confinement and pasture systems (Mosier et al, 1998), the main system difference in N 2 O emission is related to mineral nitrogen fertilizer use (Flessa et al, 2002;Snyder et al, 2009). Feeding supplemental corn, for example, adds to the total GHG emission through both the use of MNF (Refsgaard et al, 1998;Flessa et al, 2002), and tillage, where tillage increases emissions of GHGs (Robertson et al, 2000) compared with grazed pasture (Saggar et al, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the N 2 O emission from manure may not be much different between confinement and pasture systems (Mosier et al, 1998), the main system difference in N 2 O emission is related to mineral nitrogen fertilizer use (Flessa et al, 2002;Snyder et al, 2009). Feeding supplemental corn, for example, adds to the total GHG emission through both the use of MNF (Refsgaard et al, 1998;Flessa et al, 2002), and tillage, where tillage increases emissions of GHGs (Robertson et al, 2000) compared with grazed pasture (Saggar et al, 2004). Perennial forages, which comprise the main type of pasture used in Atlantic Canada, are less reliant on MNF and have a net negative to neutral impact on GHG emissions when C storage is considered (Robertson et al, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implications of dairy systems on enteric methane and postulated effects on total greenhouse gas emission

Fredeen

Juurlink²,

Main

et al. 2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of feeding total mixed ration (TMR) or pasture forage from a perennial sward under a management intensive grazing (MIG) regimen on grain intake and enteric methane (EM) emission were measured using chambers. Chamber measurement of EM was compared with that of SF 6 employed both within chamber and when cows grazed in the field. The impacts of the diet on farm gate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission were also postulated using the results of existing life cycle assessments. Emission of EM was measured in gas collection chambers in Spring and Fall. In Spring, pasture forage fiber quality was higher than that of the silage used in the TMR (47.5% v. 56.3% NDF; 24.3% v. 37.9% ADF). Higher forage quality from MIG subsequently resulted in 25% less grain use relative to TMR (0.24 v. 0.32 kg dry matter/kg milk) for MIG compared with TMR. The Fall forage fiber quality was still better, but the higher quality of MIG pasture was not as pronounced as that in Spring. Neither yield of fat-corrected milk (FCM) which averaged 28.3 kg/day, nor EM emission which averaged 18.9 g/kg dry matter intake (DMI) were significantly affected by diet in Spring. However, in the Fall, FCM from MIG (21.3 kg/day) was significantly lower than that from TMR (23.4 kg/day). Despite the differences in FCM yield, in terms of EM emission that averaged 21.9 g/kg DMI was not significantly different between the diets. In this study, grain requirement, but not EM, was a distinguishing feature of pasture and confinement systems. Considering the increased predicted GHG emissions arising from the production and use of grain needed to boost milk yield in confinement systems, EM intensity alone is a poor predictor of the potential impact of a dairy system on climate forcing.

show abstract

Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in southern Germany

Cited by 272 publications

References 18 publications

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from hog manure application in a Canadian cow–calf production system using whole-farm models

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from hog manure application in a Canadian cow–calf production system using whole-farm models

Organic Farming and Soil Carbon Sequestration: What Do We Really Know About the Benefits?

Implications of dairy systems on enteric methane and postulated effects on total greenhouse gas emission

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About