Dairy production and the carbon cycleeaap.org/Annual_Meeting/2015_warsaw/S01_05.pdf · Dairy...
Transcript of Dairy production and the carbon cycleeaap.org/Annual_Meeting/2015_warsaw/S01_05.pdf · Dairy...
Dairy production and the carbon cycle
the importance of carbon sequestration
Corina van Middelaara
Christel Cederbergb, Pierre Gerberac, Martin Perssonb, Imke de Boera
a Animal Production Systems, Wageningen University, the Netherlands b Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden c UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, Italy; The World Bank, USA
Reducing global warming?
Livestock production responsible for 15% of
GHGs
Demand for animal source
food to double by
2050
“Prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with climate
system”
Approaching temperature limit of 2 °C
Measures with a short or long term mitigation potential
Carbon storage in agricultural soils offers potential
Content
Dairy production and the carbon cycle
Climate impact of greenhouse gases
Case study: grass based vs maize based system
Results: the importance of C sequestration
Conclusions
Dairy production and the carbon cycle
CO2
CH4
Organic C Organic C
Fossil C Fossil C
Millions of years Centuries to Decades Now
CO2 CO2
Organic C
CH4
•
Importance of soil carbon sequestration?
One of most promising
mitigation options for agriculture
(Petersen et al., 2013)
Off-set 5-15% of global fossil fuel
emissions (Goglio et al. 2015)
Absorb the equivalent of the
annual anthrophogenic CO2 emissions
(The 4 ‰ Initiative) Long term global warming impacts hidden by short term solutions?
(Jørgensen and Hauschild, 2013)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 25 50 75 100
Year
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 25 50 75 100
Year
Persson et al. 2015 (based on AR5, IPCC 2013)
Rad.
forc
. (m
W/m
2)
Rad.
forc
. (m
W/m
2)
Climate impact of CO2 and CH4
Radiative forcing of one million tonnes of CO2 Radiative forcing of one million tonnes of CH4
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 25 50 75 100
Year
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 25 50 75 100
Year
Persson et al. 2015 (based on AR5, IPCC 2013)
Rad.
forc
. (m
W/m
2)
Rad.
forc
. (m
W/m
2)
Climate impact of CO2 and CH4
Radiative forcing of one million tonnes of CO2 Radiative forcing of one million tonnes of CH4
DT
DT
Biogenic versus fossil CH4
Atmospheric CH4 is broken
down to CO2
Short term C cycle excluded
CO2 from biogenic CH4
excluded (∙∙∙∙∙)
Long term C cycle included
CO2 from fossil CH4
included (∙∙∙∙∙)
CO2
CH4
Organic C
Fossil C
CH4
•
Case study
Aim
Determine the importance of carbon
sequestration regarding the GWP of dairy
production at various time scales
Method
Farm A [13] Farm B [27]
Land area [ha] 35 70
Grassland [%] 99 54
Maize land [%] 1 32
Dairy cows [#] 57 124
FPCM [kg cow-1 yr-1] 8,047 9,082
FPCM [kg ha-1 yr-1] 13,449 18,361
FADN, 2011;2012;2013
grass based [Farm A] vs maize based [Farm B]
How does C seq. affect the GWP of the farms over time?
How does C seq. affect the comparison between farms?
Cradle-to-farm gate analysis
Feed & food
Fertilizers pesticides, fuels
Processing Retail Consumption
Milk Manure
Dairy husbandry
Grass Maize
Roughage
Fattening
Cows
CO2 ; CH4 ; N2O
Carbon sequestration in grasslands
Introductory Carbon Balance Model (ICBM) (Kätterer and Andrén, 1999)
Simulates soil C dynamics based on soil characteristics, nitrogen input, climatic conditions, and management operations
Calibrated and tested for the Dutch situation by Vellinga et al. (2004)
Most optimal scenario C seq.
grassland what is the
maximal potential?
No increase in soil C maize
land
No C losses grass- and
maize land
Results – pulse of emission (per ton fat-and-protein-corrected milk)
GWP (100 yrs) / t FPCM
Farm A (grass)
1139 kg CO2eq
Farm B (maize)
1078 kg CO2eq
GWP (100 yrs) / t FPCM
Farm A (grass) (kg CO2eq)
Excl C seq 1139 100%
Incl C seq (t100) 1020 90%
Incl C seq (t20) 1120 98%
Farm B (maize)
Excl C seq 1078
Incl C seq (t100) 1024
Incl C seq (t20) 1069
Results – pulse of emission (per ton fat-and-protein-corrected milk)
-
100
Results – continuous emission (per ton fat-and-protein-corrected milk yr-1)
GWP (100 yrs) / t FPCM
Farm A (grass)
10% lower with C-seq compared to
without C seq
12.2 billion litres of milk (NL, 2013)
1.4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year;
DT 0.004 ˚C lower with C-seq
compared to without C-seq
RF per ton FPCM of Farm A (grass) relative to that of Farm B (maize)
Results – continuous emission (per ton fat-and-protein-corrected milk yr-1)
Excl C seq.
Incl C seq.
100
Conclusions
Mitigation potentail of carbon sequestration highly dependent on grassland age and storage time Carbon sequestration can lower the impact of a system for a certain time period buying time
At the long term, measures to reduce annual emissions might be more efficient than carbon sequestration for reducing global warming
Thank you for your attention