Measuring Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal ...zifeiliu/files/fac_zifeiliu... · 0.2 0.25 0.3...
Transcript of Measuring Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal ...zifeiliu/files/fac_zifeiliu... · 0.2 0.25 0.3...
Zifei Liu and Wendy Powers
D e p a r t m e n t s o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e
a n d B i o s y s t e m s & A g r i c u l t u r e E n g i n e e r i n g
Measuring Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Operations in
Environmental Rooms
Background
Animal operations are important sources of anthropogenic GHG, mostly of CH4 and N2O.
Measurements of both CH4 and N2O from animal operations have large uncertainties.
Dietary strategies have been studied to reduce air emissions while maintaining animal performance (Powers et al., 2007).
Air emissions from different species were measured in environmental rooms in 17 studies.
Objectives
Compare CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA analyzer
Summarize the measured GHG emissions and compare with the IPCC values
Summarize the effects of various dietary strategies on GHG emissions
Animals and Housing
AAQRF at Michigan State University.
12 environmental rooms
Each room: H 2.14 m W 3.97 m L 2.59 m
Animals and Housing
Cow, heifer or
Steer (1)
Finishing pigs
(6)
Turkeys
(20)
Broiler chickens
(50)
Laying hens
(56-80)
Air sampling and measurement system
Model 17C
Model
55C
BINOS
INNOVA
Room1
Room2
Room3
Room4
Room5
Room6
Room7
Room8
Room9
Room10
Room11
Room12
Incoming air
Sampling manifold
NH3, NO, NO2
CH4
CO2 / O2
CO2, CH4, N2O, NMTHC, NH3
Gas samples were sequentially monitored from each room and incoming air
Data collection and analysis
Software control (LabVIEW v. 8.2)
Purge for 9.5 min, data collection for 5.5 min
One measurement cycle is 195 min.
7 to 8 daily observations per room
Data analyzed using mixed model (SAS v. 9.1) Date was a random variable and room was treated as nested
term within diet
Species and diets of the 17 studies
Broilers
Reduced N
vs. control
3*2
Reduced N and litter
amendment PLT
Laying hens
0 and 15%
DDGS
0,10%,20%
DDGS
2*2
0, 20% DDGS
organic or inorganic
trace minerals
With or without
supplemental methionine
Turkeys
2*2
100%, 110% NRC
2, 3AA
Finishing pigs
0 and 20%
DDGS
15% DDGS
with or without
microbial or chemical additive
Steers
0, 40%, 60%
DDGS
0, 60% or 60% DDGs plus
added copper and
molybdenum
Quillaja, yucca, or no
extract
Quillaja, yucca, or no
extract
Heifers
High and low rumen degraded protein
High and low rumen degraded protein
Dairy cows
Typical Western
Midwestern or
Southeastern U.S. diets
Typical Western
Midwestern or
Southeastern U.S. diets
Air measurements from different instruments
17C
INNOVA
NH3
R2=0.95
BINOS INNOVA
CO2
R2=0.96
55C
INNOVA CH4
R2=0.60
0.001ppm
0.2ppm
100ppm
5.1ppm
0.02ppm
0.1ppm
CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA
y = 1.1692x - 1.3693
R² = 0.60
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
CH
4 co
nce
ntr
atio
ns
by I
NN
OV
A (
ppm
)
CH4 concentrations by the Model 55C analyzer
(ppm)
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
INNOVA
CH4
__________
55C CH4
CH4 concentrations by the Model 55C analyzer
(ppm)
RPD of CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA
0%
200%
400%
600%
800%
1000%
1200%
1400%
1600%
1800%
2000%
5 10 15 20 25
RP
D o
f C
H4 f
rom
the
two i
nst
rum
ents
Temperature (oC)
0%
200%
400%
600%
800%
1000%
1200%
1400%
1600%
1800%
2000%
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
RP
D o
f C
H4 f
rom
the
two i
nst
rum
ents
CO2 concentrations (ppm)
RPD of CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
5 10 15 20 25 30
CO
2 c
on
centr
atio
n (
pp
m)
Temperature (oC)
Bubble size represent RPD of CH4 measurements
Estimating CH4emission using the IPCC approaches
Manure CH4 emission
Enteric fermentation
CH4 emission
Total CH4 emission
=VS·Bo·0.67 ·MCF Swine: 4.2 g head-1 day-1 Steers: 145 g head-1 day-1 Dairy cows: 351 g head-1 day-1
CH4 conversion factor
maximum CH4 producing capacity
Excreted volatile solid
Comparison of measured CH4with the IPCC values
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
BR
01
08
BR
0208
LY
0108
LY
0109
LY
0209
LY
0309
TY
0108
CH
4 e
mis
sion r
ate
(g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
Codes of studies
Meaured emissions
IPCC estimated
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
SW
0109
SW
0209
ST
0109
ST
0209
ST
0110
ST
0210
HF
0108
HF
0208
DY
0108
DY
0208
CH
4 e
mis
sion r
ate
(g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
Codes of studies
Meaured emissions
IPCC estimated
Comparison of measured CH4 with the IPCC values
Species
CH4 emission rate g hd-1 day-1 (1)/(2)
Measured (1) IPCC (2)
Broiler 0.02±0.05 0.036 56%
Laying hen 0.03±0.03 0.078 38%
Turkey 0.25±0.05 0.25 100%
Finishing pig 3.4±2.0 6.9 49%
Steer 53±23 151 35%
Heifer 220±71 368 60%
Dairy cow 399±88 368 108%
Estimating N2O emission using the IPCC approaches
N excretion
rate
N2O emission
factor
Direct N2O
emission
0.31-1.10 kg N (1000kg BW)-1day-1
0.001-0.02 kg N2O-N/kg N
Comparison of measured N excretion rate with the IPCC values
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2B
R010
8
BR
020
8
LY
010
8
LY
010
9
LY
020
9
LY
030
9
TY
010
8
SW
01
09
SW
02
09
HF
01
08
HF
02
08
DY
010
8
DY
020
8
N e
xcr
etio
n r
ate
kg
N (
10
00
kg B
W)-1
day
-1
Codes of studies
Measured IPCC
Comparison of measured N2O with the IPCC values
Species
N2O emission rate g kgBW-1 day-1 (1)/(2)
Measured (1) IPCC (2)
Broiler 0.10±0.12 0.0017 59
Laying hen 0.04±0.02 0.0013 31
Turkey 0.05±0.13 0.0012 42
Finishing pig 0.010±0.005 0.0013 8
Steer 0.004±0.006 0.0010 4
Heifer 0.014±0.006 0.0013 11
Dairy cow 0.020±0.006 0.0013 15
GHG emissions in CO2e
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
broiler Laying hen Turkey Finishing
pig
Steer Heifer Dairy cow
GH
G e
mis
sio
n
(g k
gB
W-1
day
-1 i
n C
O2e)
N2O
CH4
CO2
Effects of dietary strategies on CH4 emissions
Broilers
Reduced N
vs. control
3*2
Reduced N and litter
amendment PLT
Laying hens
0 and 15%
DDGS
0,10%,20%
DDGS
2*2
0, 20% DDGS
organic or inorganic
trace minerals
With or without
supplemental methionine
Turkeys
2*2
100%, 110% NRC
2, 3AA
Finishing pigs
0 and 20%
DDGS
15% DDGS
with or without
microbial or chemical additive
Steers
0, 40%, 60%
DDGS
0, 60% or 60% DDGs plus
added copper and
molybdenum
Quillaja, yucca, or no
extract
Quillaja, yucca, or no
extract
Heifers
High and low rumen degraded protein
High and low rumen degraded protein
Dairy cows
Typical Western
Midwestern or
Southeastern U.S. diets
Typical Western
Midwestern or
Southeastern U.S. diets P<0.10
Effects of diet DDGS on CH4 emissions
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0%DDGS 15%DDGS
CH
4 e
mm
ison
(g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0%DDGS
In
0%DDGS
Org
20%DDGS
In
20%DDGS
Org
CH
4 e
mm
ison
(g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
a ab b b
LY0209 (P=0.02)
a b
0
2
4
6
8
Control 20%DDGS
In
20%DDGS
Org
CH
4 e
mm
ison
(g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
a b
c
SW0109 (P<0.01)
0
1
2
3
A:15%DDGS B: A+Reduced
N
C: B+Microb D: B+Chem
CH
4 e
mm
ison (
g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
a a a b
SW0209 (P<0.01)
LY0108 (P=0.01)
Effects of diet CP on CH4 emissions
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
MW S W MW S W
CP
con
ten
t in
die
ts
(%)
CH
4 e
mis
sio
n (
g h
ead
-1 d
ay-1
)
Diet
CH4 emission rate CP content in feed
DY0108 (P=0.08) DY0208 (P=0.07)
//
a
b b
a
b b
Effects of dietary strategies on N2O emissions
Effects of dietary strategies on N2O emissions were not observed in any of the 17 studies at α=0.10 level.
Conclusions
Large discrepancy between the INNOVA and the Model 55C CH4 measurements were observed when air temperatures were relatively high (21 to 25oC) and CO2 concentrations were low.
The measured CH4 emission rates were comparable with the IPCC estimated values.
The measured N2O emission rates were much higher than the IPCC values, especially for poultry (dry manure handling system), indicating an underestimation of the IPCC N2O emission factors.
Conclusions
Poultry had lower CH4 emission rates than dairy cows, heifers and steers, but poultry had much higher N2O emission rates in g kg BW-1 day-1. As a result, poultry had similar GWP with dairy cows, heifers and steers, if not higher, as expressed in g kg BW-1 day-1 CO2e.
Diets with higher content of DDGS resulted in higher CH4 emissions from laying hens and swine operations. Diets with higher CP content resulted in higher CH4 emissions from dairy cow operations.
The N2O emissions were not influenced by the applied dietary strategies.
Implications
The results suggested conditions when either instrument for CH4 measurement is acceptable (temp, concentration)
Diet strategies merit further investigation for both ruminant and non-ruminant species.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by National Research Initiative Competitive Grant nos. 2003-35112-17916, 2005-35112-17912, and 2008-55112-18827 from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Air Quality Program.
Funding was provided through USDA Cooperative Agreement Number 2005-35102-15356 and 2005-35112-17912.