carbon emissions (Efficiency, feeding & production system) Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Impact of nutrition on carbon emissions

(Efficiency, feeding & production system)

Dr Jimmy Hyslop Beef Specialist

2 2

Environmental Impacts

• UK agricultural GHG emissions: expressed as CO2 equivalents

–Carbon dioxide (GWP 1)

• Energy use, burning fossil fuels

–Methane (GWP 25)

• Enteric fermentation, manure management

–Nitrous oxide (GWP 296)

• Fertilizer, manure management

3

EU livestock Greenhouse Gases

Mton CO2 equivalent

Enteric fermentation (CH4)

148

Manure handling (CH4)

52

Manure handling (N2O)

33

Pasture manure (N2O)

26

Total

260

CE Delft, 2008

4 4

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from UK Agriculture Total: 54.64 Mt CO2e Total: 43.22 Mt CO2e

2007

1990

Ruminants 73.1% Pigs & Poultry 6.9%

Arable

19.0%

Other 1.0%

Pigs & Poultry 8.1% Arable 19.1%

Other 0.46%

Ruminants 72.4%

Source: AEA (2009) and Dairy Co (2009)

Gill, 2012

5 5

Proportional contribution of livestock species in UK to production & GHGs

Species Contribution to production Contribution to GHG emissions Poultry 0.48 0.26 Pigs 0.21 0.16 Cattle 0.22 0.27 Sheep 0.1 0.21

Gill, 2012

6

UK Livestock Population

% Change 1990 to 2010 Dairy Cows

• 36

Beef Cows +6 Sheep

• 29

Pigs

• 41

Poultry +28

DEFRA statistics

7 7

Output per Head % Change 1990 to 2010 Milk yield per cow + 42 Prime beef carcase weight + 21 Lamb carcase weight + 7 Pig carcase weight +20

DEFRA statistics

8

IPCC Methane inventory (kg/head/year)

Enteric Manure Dairy cattle* 100+ 44 Other cattle 48 20 Sheep 8 0.28 Pigs 1.5 10 Poultry N/A 0.117 * Based on 4,200 kg milk/yr. Actual figure used is calculated from NE intake as 6.5% of GE

9 9

Grass

(cellulose)

Pyruvate Propionate Acetate H2 Pyruvate

Cereals

(starch)

Methane

Archaea Archaea

CO2

Origin of Methane

10 10

Strategies to reduce GHG

• Individual animal

– Improve milk yield or LWG (↓ maintenance, time to finish) – Improve FCE (↓ carbon emissions/kg DMI, ↓ excretion) – Change diet (↓ carbon emissions/kg DMI , methane and excretion)

• System level

– Reduce animal wastage (e.g. lose fewer replacement heifers) – Better fertility and health (spread emissions over more output) – Improve longevity (less emissions for replacements)

11 11

Strategies to reduce GHG

• Modify rumen fermentation

– More concentrates, less forage so less methane – Increase dietary oil content (reduces fibre fermentation) – Additives (silver bullets) – nitrate seems to be current favourite

• Manure management

– Reduce CP content of diet - (yes but watch productivity) – Slurry management - (store so can spread at right time) – Slurry application - (injection = good: splash plates = bad)

12 12

Feed DM 18 kg N 490 g Milk Yield 30 kg N 150 g Urine/Faeces N 340 g CH4 500 L (69%) Daily Input & Output for an Average Cow

13 13

10 20 30 40 50 60 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Methane (t/yr) Milk yield (l/cow/yr)

250 cows 100 cows

Methane and Milk Yield

1 million litres

6.5% GE Diet adjusted

Garnsworthy (2004)

14 14

• Rowett feed factors (ME system)

– ME determination includes CH4 measurement

• Animal equation

CH4 (MJ/d) = 1.36 + 1.21DMI – 0.825DMconc + 12.8NDF

(Yates et al., 2000)

• Total daily Methane production is related to

Dry Matter Intake Proportion of concentrates in diet Fibre content of diet Positive Positive Negative Predicted Methane Emissions

15 15

16 16

Effect of low and high methane diets on CH4 42 cows, 14 days per diet, crossover design

Methane Diet Low High sed P . Dry matter intake (kg/d) 23.6 20.3 0.31 <0.001 Milk yield (kg/d) 32.7 32.1 0.28 0.034 Methane emission rate (g/d) 373 395 8.2 0.042 (g/kg DMI) 15.8 19.5 0.58 <0.001

Diets: Low = commercial TMR (maize, grass & whole-crop silages; SBP, rape, soya, fat, M&V) High = Low + double grass silage (13% -> 30%) + peas (2kg/d)

17 17

Replacement numbers 1984-2007

500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 3 500 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year Number of Animals (000) 20 25 30 35 Replacement rate (%) Heifers in calf Dairy cows Replacement rate Defra Statistics

3 lactations 4 lactations

18 18

Dairy production - Conclusions

• Production efficiency (number of animals) is the

main driver of total emissions and excretions

• Feed intake is the main determinant of GHG per

animal

• Feed efficiency affects product per unit pollution
• Methane and nitrogen can be manipulated by

nutrition – both directly and indirectly

19

Efficiency of production and climate change

Beef production systems

20 20

20

Efficiency & carbon emissions in beef production What is it all about ? Better conversion of feed into meat (FCR) Net Feed Efficiency (RFI) Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Carbon Footprint) Also More calves / 100 cows mated (fertility) Improved animal health (more calves to sell) More output / £ spent on fixed costs (More profit & lower environmental impact / kg beef)

21 21

21

Hill Suckler Herds

22 22

22

Nutrition, feeding, efficiency & emissions in beef systems

23 23

23

Efficiency & carbon emissions in beef production Nutrition, efficiency, systems & carbon emissions Measure main inputs (feed intake) Quantify beef outputs (LWG, carcass wt etc) Measure CH4 & N2O etc (Carbon Footprint) (More profit & lower environmental impact / kg beef)

24 24

24

Implications for beef systems - EFFICIENCY IS KEY

• The way to reduce Global warming in practice is to improve the

efficiency of the processes that we use to turn raw inputs into a supply of human needs/wants

Inputs Feed Fixed costs Processes Cellular Tissue (rumen) Animal System Outputs Supply for human needs/wants e.g. Beef Waste / Pollution e.g. GHG & NH3

25 25

25 25

25

Results

Concentrate Forage:Concentrate Methane produced g/day 142 205 ***

(l/day) (237) (342)

Methane Yield g/kg DMI 13.7 21.5 ***

(l/kg DMI) (22.8) (35.8)

Factors affecting methane production/day

26 26

26 26

26

Results

Breed effects ? – Little effect seen between AAx & LIMx when scaled to DMI or LWG (now looking at CHx & Luings) BUT:- CH4 output between sires within AA & LIM breeds (g/day) (g/kg LWG) Scope for selection within breeds ?????

Factors affecting methane production/day

205 170 169 136 191 172 147 151 189 50 100 150 200 250 AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 AA5 LIM1 LIM2 LIM3 LIM4

Sire Methane (g/d)

176 137 117 136 132 157 122 130 170 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 AA5 LIM1 LIM2 LIM3 LIM4

Sire Methane/ADG (g/kg*d)

27 27

27

Dry suckler cows (no sig breed effects)

Straw/Silage Straw/BG LIMx Luing LIMx Luing sed Diet DMI (kg/d) 9.9 9.8 9.2 9.4 0.89 NS CH4 (g/d) 140 161 125 129 18.3 *** (g/kg DMI) 14.6 15.8 14.2 13.5 2.21 NS % of GEI 4.34 4.70 4.10 3.89 0.65 * (4.52) (4.00) (12% less)

28 28

28

Key Messages

• Wide range in methane outputs - differences

between animals – scope for genetic selection

• Confirms what we already know – less methane

per kg gain in high concentrate & high oil diets

• Within any system, the more efficient the

animals are, the less methane / kg gain

• What about choice of system ?

29 29

29

Results - CO2 Eq. / CCW sales from 100 cow suckler herd (tonnes CO2 Eq. / tonne CCW sold)

• Without changing the efficiency of the individual animal through breeding:

– Greatest scope for reducing GHG in beef systems is to shorten the finishing system – Has major implications for the nutrition / feeding of these animals

Figure 5. Relative GWP contributions (t CO2 eq. / t CCW) from the suckler breeding herd, heifer replacements and finishing cattle system (H x FS)

4 8 12 16 20 24 12 18 24 30 12 18 24 30 12 18 24 30 12 18 24 30 12 18 24 30 Finishing system (months) Total CO2 eq. (t/t CCW)

Suckler herd Replacements Finishing system Dx PB RO CO SS

30 30

30

NFE results – 1st batch of bulls

Low NFE Average High NFE

Mean LW (kg) 567 574 582 DLWG (kg/d) 1.9 1.9 1.9 Fat depth (mm) 6.0 6.4 6.2 DMI (kg/d) 12.0 12.9 13.8 FCR (DMI:LWG) 6.5 7.1 7.5 NFE (kg/d)

• 0.75

0.0 +0.76 Cost deviation from average

• £11

+ £12 Methane (l/day) 436 467 499

• 2.00
• 1.50
• 1.00
• 0.50

NB: @ feed cost of £155/t DM - 12 weeks on Wold farm NFE test

31 31

31

Improving efficiency in beef production

• Strategies to improve efficiency in livestock (beef) systems
• Choose to finish weaned animals using efficient, short duration finishing systems
• Minimise animal productivity losses due to adverse animal health problems
• Adopt measures to ensure high fertility rates in the breeding herds/flocks
• Manage cow (ewe) BCS to minimise use of winter feed
• Calve heifers for the 1st time at 2 rather than 3 years of age
• Use creep feed to minimise performance checks at weaning
• Ration animals according to feed quality and animal requirements

32 32

Sheep health, nutrition & methane emissions

• Sheep parasitism impacts on methane emissions
• Wormy ewes eat less and produce less milk
• Slower growing lambs
• Wormy ewes produce:

– less methane per day – same methane per kg DM intake – more methane per lamb due to longer time required on farm

• Parasitism increases methane

emissions in sheep production

32

33 33

33

Technical efficiency & carbon emissions

• Reducing carbon emissions (GHG) and improving

efficiency of ruminant production are the same thing !

– The farmer gains the feed & fixed cost efficiency (win) – Govt objectives to reduced GHG emissions are achieved (win) – Major role for improving nutrition of the animals

34 34

34

35 35

35

Technical efficiency in suckler herds

36 36

36

Herd Fertility - 5 key principles

Management of cow condition Avoiding difficult calvings Bulls - soundness, fertility and calving ease Herd health - keep out disease Heifers - hit target bulling weight

2.5 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 At calving At service At housing At turnout

Body condition sco Spring calv ers

Spring Summer Autumn Spring

37 37

37

Which beef finishing system ?

S y s t e m C a l v i n g S p r S u mA u t W i n S p r S u mA u t W i n S p r S u m 1 2 m t h s S p r i n g 1 8 m t h s S p r i n g 2 4 m t h s S p r i n g 3 m t h s S p r i n g F

• r

a g e G r a z i n g S u c k l i n g F

• r

a g e G r a z i n g F

• r

: c

• n

c S u c k l i n g F

• r

a g e G r a z i n g S u c k l i n g F

• r

: c

• n

c G r a z i n g : c

• n

c S u c k l i n g C

• n

c

• Feed conversion efficiency (lifetime feed reqts)
• Fixed cost efficiency (per animal)

38 38

38

Typical finishing systems

Feed conversion ratio & costs Time to finish (months) 12 18 24 30 FCR 5-7 12 16 20

(kg LWG/kg DMI)

Feed costs High Med Low Low

(per tonne)

Feed costs Low/ Med Med High

(over lifetime)

Med Fixed costs Low Med Med High

(over lifetime)

Carbon in Grass

how much does Scotland’s grassland need to sequester to negate its beef & sheep carbon footprint ?

Dr Jimmy Hyslop – Beef Specialist

40

40

21 Farms – carbon sequestration needed (t C / ha pa.)

Low, Moderate and High stocking rate farms (assuming 3:1 ratio) Average carbon sequestration needed was 1.06 t C / ha pa. (0.06 – 2.89) Low stocking rate farms were all below 0.4 t C / ha pa.

Grassland sequestration needed (t C/unadjusted ha)

1.15 1.19 1.15 0.93 1.06 0.11 0.08 0.06 1.65 1.70 1.62 1.53 1.54 0.89 0.88 0.79 1.42 0.27 0.28 0.39 2.89 1.80

• 0.5

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Farm No.

t C/unadjusted ha

Medium Low High

Mean

41 41

41

European data on carbon sequestration

Initial studies/data Technique remains to be validated Tentatively suggests that carbon may be accumulating:-

– at an average rate of 1.04 t C / ha pa. across 9 EU grassland sites – (range -2.26 to 4.62 t C / ha grassland)

Mean is remarkably close to the figure of 1.06 t C /ha pa. needed here

42 42

42

Conclusions to date:-

The QMS work carried out here highlights two fundamental things:- (1) scope of the challenge

using beef, sheep and grassland data on farm along with current “carbon footprint” calculators – Carbon sequestration needs are not that large (~ 1 t C/ha pa.):-

(2) need to incorporate carbon sequestration potential

complete or at least partial negation of livestock emissions may be possible if we take grassland sequestration into account especially on extensive livestock units Major research effort is needed to develop methods to estimate carbon sequestration potential of Scotland’s grassland if a balanced view of livestock carbon footprint are to be properly assessed