Measuring Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Operations in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
measuring greenhouse gases emissions
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Measuring Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Operations in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 02, 2023 545 likes •836 views

Measuring Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Animal Operations in Environmental Rooms 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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

 Animal operations are important sources of anthropogenic

GHG, mostly of CH4 and N2O.

 Measurements of both CH4 and N2O from animal

  • perations 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.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Animals and Housing

Cow, heifer or Steer (1) Finishing pigs (6) Turkeys (20) Broiler chickens (50) Laying hens (56-80)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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

slide-7
SLIDE 7

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

slide-8
SLIDE 8

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

  • rganic 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

  • r

Southeastern U.S. diets Typical Western Midwestern

  • r

Southeastern U.S. diets

slide-9
SLIDE 9

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA

y = 1.1692x - 1.3693 R² = 0.60

  • 5

5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25

CH4 concentrations by INNOVA (ppm) CH4 concentrations by the Model 55C analyzer (ppm)

  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 5 5 10 15 20

INNOVA CH4 __________ 55C CH4 CH4 concentrations by the Model 55C analyzer (ppm)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

RPD of CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA

0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000% 1200% 1400% 1600% 1800% 2000% 5 10 15 20 25 RPD of CH4 from the two instruments Temperature (oC) 0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000% 1200% 1400% 1600% 1800% 2000% 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 RPD of CH4 from the two instruments CO2 concentrations (ppm)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

RPD of CH4 measurements from 55C and INNOVA

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 5 10 15 20 25 30

CO2 concentration (ppm) Temperature (oC)

Bubble size represent RPD of CH4 measurements

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Comparison of measured CH4with the IPCC values

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 BR0108 BR0208 LY0108 LY0109 LY0209 LY0309 TY0108 CH4 emission rate (g head-1 day-1) Codes of studies

Meaured emissions IPCC estimated

100 200 300 400 500 600 SW0109 SW0209 ST0109 ST0209 ST0110 ST0210 HF0108 HF0208 DY0108 DY0208 CH4 emission rate (g head-1 day-1) Codes of studies

Meaured emissions IPCC estimated

slide-15
SLIDE 15

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%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Comparison of measured N excretion rate with the IPCC values

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 BR0108 BR0208 LY0108 LY0109 LY0209 LY0309 TY0108 SW0109 SW0209 HF0108 HF0208 DY0108 DY0208 N excretion rate kg N (1000kg BW)-1day-1 Codes of studies Measured IPCC

slide-18
SLIDE 18

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

slide-19
SLIDE 19

GHG emissions in CO2e

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 broiler Laying hen Turkey Finishing pig Steer Heifer Dairy cow GHG emission (g kgBW-1 day-1 in CO2e) N2O CH4 CO2

slide-20
SLIDE 20

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

  • rganic 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

  • r

Southeastern U.S. diets Typical Western Midwestern

  • r

Southeastern U.S. diets

P<0.10

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Effects of diet DDGS on CH4 emissions

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0%DDGS 15%DDGS CH4 emmison (g head-1 day-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

CH4 emmison (g head-1 day-1)

a ab b b LY0209 (P=0.02) a b

2 4 6 8

Control 20%DDGS In 20%DDGS Org

CH4 emmison (g head-1 day-1)

a b c SW0109 (P<0.01)

1 2 3 A:15%DDGS B: A+Reduced N C: B+Microb D: B+Chem

CH4 emmison (g head-1 day-1)

a a a b SW0209 (P<0.01) LY0108 (P=0.01)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Effects of diet CP on CH4 emissions

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 100 200 300 400 500 600 MW S W MW S W CP content in diets (%) CH4 emission (g head-1 day-1) Diet CH4 emission rate CP content in feed

DY0108 (P=0.08) DY0208 (P=0.07)

//

a b

b

a b b

slide-23
SLIDE 23

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.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

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.

slide-25
SLIDE 25

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.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

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.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

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.