Balanço de gases de efeito estufa em sistemas de produção de bovinos de corte

دراینمقاله،میزانو ارزش انتشارگازهایگلخانه‌ای اکسید‌نیتروس(N2O) و دی‌اکسید‌کربن(CO2)حاصلازتولید حبوبات منتخب ایران (شامل نخود، لوبیا و عدس) با استفاده از مدل GHGE،برایسالزراعی91-90برآورد شده است.نتایج نشان‌داد که استان‌هایفارسوبوشهر، به‌ترتیبباتولیدسالانه271/79 و 004/0 تنN2O، بیشترینوکمترینمیزانتولیدگاز گلخانه‌ایN2Oرا دارامی‌باشند. همچنین استان‌هایلرستانوبوشهر نیز به‌ترتیب باتولیدسالانه83/10327 و33/1‌تنCO2،بیشترینوکمترینمیزانتولیدگاز گلخانه‌ایCO2را به‌خود اختصاص داده‌اند. مجموعهزینه‌هایزیست‌محیطی انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای N2O و CO2 کلکشورنیزحدود705/32‌میلیاردریالبرآوردگردید. باتوجهبه یافته‌ها، مدیریت کودهای نیتروژنه مصرفی در مزارعوتوسعهسیاست‌کاهشمیزانانتشاربه‌همراه مالیات زیست‌محیطی انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای بر سطوح مختلف تولید پیشنهاد شده ‌است. واژه‌های کلیدی: اکسید‌نیتروس، دی‌اکسید‌کربن، حبوبات، گازهای گلخانه‌ای

انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای و اثرات آن بر گرمایش جهانی یکی از چالش‌های جدی کشورهای توسعه‌یافته و درحال‌توسعه محسوب می‌شود. بر اساس پیمان کیوتو، کشورهای مختلف موظف به محاسبه و اعلام میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای شدند. بررسی میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای کشورهای مختلف این امکان را فراهم می‌آورد تا ضمن ارائه تصویری از سهم کشورها در تولید گازهای گلخانه‌ای، جایگاه ایران نیز در این مجموعه مشخص شود. این مقاله تلاش دارد تا میزان و ارزش انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای اکسید نیتروس (N2O) و دی‌اکسید کربن (CO2) حاصل از دانه های روغنی تولیدی منتخب در ایران (سویا، کلزا، ذرت دانه ای و سایر دانه های روغنی) را با استفاده از مدل GHGE، برای سال زراعی 91-90 برآورد نماید. نتایج نشان داد استان‌های خوزستان و زنجان به ترتیب، با تولید سالانه 49/341 و 004/0 تن، بیش ترین و کم ترین میزان تولید گاز گلخانه‌ای N2O را در سطح کشور دارا می‌باشند. همچنین استان‌های گلستان و هرمزگان نیز به ترتیب، با تولید سالانه 47/7841 و 24/0 تن دی‌اکسید کربن بیش ترین و کم ترین میزان تولید گاز گلخانه‌ای CO2 را به خود اختصاص داده‌اند. مجموع هزینه‌های انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای N2O و CO2 کل کشور نیز حدود 331/27 میلیارد ریال برآورد گردید. باتوجه به یافته ها، اصلاح و تغییر شیوه‌های مدیریتی کشاورزی نسبت به سطح زیرکشت محصولات زراعی، مدیریت و افزایش کارایی کودهای ازته مصرفی در مزارع و توسعه سیاست‌های کاهش میزان انتشار به‌همراه مالیات زیست-محیطی انتشار گازهای گلخانه ای به سیاست‌گذاران این عرصه پیشنهاد شد.

Blue revolution for food security under carbon neutrality: A case from the water-saving and drought-resistance rice

Globally, agriculture is directly responsible for 14% of annual greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions and induces an additional 17% through land use change, mostlyin developing countries (Vermeulen et al 2012). Agricultural intensification andexpansion in these regions is expected to catalyze the most significant relativeincreases in agricultural GHG emissions over the next decade (Smith et al 2008,Tilman et al 2011). Farms in the developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa andAsia are predominately managed by smallholders, with 80% of land holdingssmaller than ten hectares (FAO 2012). One can therefore posit that smallholderfarming significantly impacts the GHG balance of these regions today and willcontinue to do so in the near future.However, our understanding of the effect smallholder farming has on theEarth’s climate system is remarkably limited. Data quantifying existing andreduced GHG emissions and removals of smallholder production systems areavailable for only a handful of crops, livestock, and agroecosystems (Herrero et al2008, Verchot et al 2008, Palm et al 2010). For example, fewer than fifteenstudies of nitrous oxide emissions from soils have taken place in sub-SaharanAfrica, leaving the rate of emissions virtually undocumented. Due to a scarcity ofdata on GHG sources and sinks, most developing countries currently quantifyagricultural emissions and reductions using IPCC Tier 1 emissions factors.However, current Tier 1 emissions factors are either calibrated to data primarilyderived from developed countries, where agricultural production conditions aredissimilar to that in which the majority of smallholders operate, or from data thatare sparse or of mixed quality in developing countries (IPCC 2006). For the mostpart, there are insufficient emissions data characterizing smallholder agricultureto evaluate the level of accuracy or inaccuracy of current emissions estimates.Consequentially, there is no reliable information on the agricultural GHG budgetsfor developing economies. This dearth of information constrains the capacity totransition to low-carbon agricultural development, opportunities for smallholdersto capitalize on carbon markets, and the negotiating position of developingcountries in global climate policy discourse.Concerns over the poor state of information, in terms of data availability andrepresentation, have fueled appeals for new approaches to quantifying GHGemissions and removals from smallholder agriculture, for both existing conditionsand mitigation interventions (Berry and Ryan 2013, Olander et al 2013).Considering the dependence of quantification approaches on data and the currentdata deficit for smallholder systems, it is clear that in situ measurements must bea core part of initial and future strategies to improve GHG inventories and

The contribution of agriculture to the emission of the main greenhouse gases, CO2, N2O, and CH4, is estimated to be between 25 and more than 50% of the total emissions worldwide. These data indicate that in developed, industrialized countries, severe policies might be successful in strongly reducing greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on agriculture. However, despite its central importance, agriculture is not at the center of political debate or meaningful emission-reducing policies. In this scientific review, current knowledge of the factors affecting the emission of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, from agriculture is critically discussed. The pathways through which the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture can be achieved are evaluated. For this purpose, we list the main factors contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases from agriculture and evaluate the roles of agricultural intensification, industrialization, and organic farming in greenhouse gas emissions. If the present trajectory of agricultural development continues, industrialized, intensive conventional agriculture will become an increasing source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Also, the increasing quantitative relevance of energy plants in agriculture will contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Organic agriculture may offer an alternative means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by applying the following central boundary conditions: a. the omission of mineral nitrogen fertilizers produced by the Haber–Bosch process, b. the combination of crop and livestock production, and c. the application of nutrient recycling at a regional level. This kind of organic agriculture may combine relatively high and sustainable crop yields with low emissions of greenhouse gases. Industrialized agriculture, whether in its conventional or even its industrialized organic form, is an important source of greenhouse gases with increasing emissions worldwide. Under conditions of agricultural industrialization, industrialized organic agriculture will also contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. At present, there are no political attempts in the countries of the industrialized Western hemisphere to address agriculture-related contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

Paddy soil is an important emission source of agricultural greenhouse gases. The excessive application of chemical fertilizer to paddy soil is one of the important reasons for high greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions can be reduced through optimized agricultural management measures. The incorporation of Chinese milk vetch (CMV) and rice straw in the field to replace some of the chemical fertilizer can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, but the relationship between these emissions and soil properties after the incorporation of CMV and rice straw is unclear. Through the continuous determination of greenhouse gases and the physical and chemical properties of soil, it was found that the addition of CMV and straw could increase the emissions of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), but nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions were lower. The effect of the combined incorporating of CMV and rice straw on soil properties was more significant than CMV alone. It was also found that CH4 and CO2 emissions were positively correlated with microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, pH, and soil catalase and β-xylosidase activities. In practice, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by water and fertilizer management.

EDITORIAL article Front. Vet. Sci., 02 July 2021Sec. Animal Nutrition and Metabolism https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.717426

Climate change is a subject of global environmental concern. The UK has seen a progressive strengthening of political resolve to address the problems associated with emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Although agriculture globally, and ruminant livestock production in particular, is a net contributor to GHG emissions, generalizations about impacts on climate change often fail to distinguish between different systems of production, advances in technology, and the role of extensive grazing lands in contributing to ecological services and food production in situations where other forms of farming are impractical. Against this background, the overall aim of this review was therefore to conduct an independent desk-based analysis of the scientific evidence of the impacts of the UK’s forage-based livestock sectors (beef, sheep and dairy production) on emissions of the three main GHGs: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The study has been confined to impacts up to the ‘farm gate’ and it has examined and reviewed the evidence to answer the following questions: How do GHG emissions from UK beef, sheep and dairy production compare with the situation in other countries/regions, such as South America and NZ, and selected EU countries. Within the UK how do various intensive and extensive systems of dairy, beef cattle and sheep production compare in terms of their respective emissions balances? What are the research findings on measures that can or have been adopted to reduce net GHG emissions, and what is the potential for further adoption by the industry in the UK? What are the likely future impacts of climate change on the UK ruminant livestock industry, particularly in comparison with its competitors? Main findings: Total UK agricultural GHG emissions have decreased by 17% since 1990. Methane (CH4) emissions have decreased by 52% since 1990, through a combination of reduced livestock numbers and more efficient feeding. There is evidence that UK ruminant agriculture compares favourably with other countries, and that the rate of reduction of total agricultural GHGs in the UK in recent years has been similar to, or greater than, several competitor countries. There is a wide degree of uncertainty over the exact levels of emissions of N2O and evidence suggests that UK emissions are lower than those based on the IPCC methodology. The development of more precise GHG inventories will address these uncertainties. Increases in milk yields and technical feed improvements have been associated with reductions in GHG emissions per litre of milk. The UK beef sector has also benefited from technical feed improvements, and UK beef production, and increasingly also lamb production, is mainly carried out over a short production cycle; this contributes to reducing the GHG emissions per animal and thus per unit of output. Livestock in upland and marginal areas may be associated with high CH4 emissions per unit of output (due to relatively low quality forage) but low emissions per ha. Many of these areas also have a role in CH4 capture, and their management via low intensity beef and sheep grazing is also important in achieving wider agri-environmental objectives.

Chapter 5 - Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems

In the context of global climate change, carbon footprint (CF) becomes an important sustainability indicator for dairy production systems. To mitigation the CF of the dairy sector, insight into greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from individual farms is required. The objective of this study was to determine the primary contributors to GHG emissions at the farm-gate level, expressed as a carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq), to produce one kg of fat-and protein corrected milk (FPCM). Primary data about farms’ management and feeding practices were collected from twelve dairy farms that belong to Gyeonggi-do province, which represent the most important region for milk production in South Korea. Allocation of GHG emissions between meat and milk was assessed as a physical allocation, 98% allocated to milk and 2% to meat (surplus of calves and culled cows). The CF of the evaluated farms averaged to 0.61 CO2-eq/kg of FPCM and ranged from 0.49 to 0.78 CO2-eq/kg of FPCM. Results indicated that the largest source of GHG comes mostly from enteric fermentation (83%), followed by manure management (6%), manure and fertilizer land application (8%) and energy consumption (3%). By type of gas emitted, methane accounted for 86% of total emissions, originating from enteric fermentation and manure management. Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide accounted for 11.6 % and 2.8% of total GHG emissions, respectively. Lactating cows contributed by 70% of total GHG emissions, whereas dry cows, heifers and calves contributed by 5, 22 and 3%, respectively. Differences in GHG emissions from the evaluated farms could be explained by differences in feed quality and management practices through manure and fertilizers application on cropland. This study contributes to identify the main sources of GHG production in dairy farms, which can help to define mitigation strategies towards the transition to neutral carbon emissions of the dairy sector.

Parameterization, calibration and validation of the DNDC model for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and maize crop performance estimation in East Africa

Agricultural practices such as repeated fertilization impact carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) cycling and their relationships in the plant–soil continuum, which could have important implications for the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions. However, little is known about the effect of C and N additions under contrasting soil P availability status on nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In this study, we conducted a field-based experiment that investigated the impact of long-term (23 years) P management (no (P0, 0 kg P ha−1), low (P15, 15 kg P ha−1) and high (P45, 45 kg P ha−1) P inputs) on N2O and CO2 emissions following two C + N application events in two managed grassland ecosystems with loam and sandy loam soils. The magnitude of fluxes varied between the soil P availability levels. Cumulative N2O emission was significantly higher in P0 soils (1.08 ± 0.09 g N2O-N m−2) than P45 soils (0.63 ± 0.03 g N2O-N m−2), with the loam soil (1.04 ± 0.04 g N2O-N m−2) producing significantly higher emissions than the sandy loam soil (0.88 ± 0.05 g N2O-N m−2). We conclude that P-limitation stimulates N2O emissions, whereas P-enrichment promotes soil respiration in these temperate grassland sites. Our findings inform effective nutrient management strategies underpinning optimized use of N and P inputs to agricultural soils as mitigation measures for both food security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Bioenergy from perennial grasses mitigates climate change via displacing fossil fuels and storing atmospheric CO2 belowground as soil carbon. Here, we conduct a critical review to examine whether increasing plant diversity in bioenergy grassland systems can further increase their climate change mitigation potential. We find that compared with highly productive monocultures, diverse mixtures tend to produce as great or greater yields. In particular, there is strong evidence that legume addition improves yield, in some cases equivalent to mineral nitrogen fertilization at 33–150 kg per ha. Plant diversity can also promote soil carbon storage in the long term, reduce soil N2O emissions by 30%–40%, and suppress weed invasion, hence reducing herbicide use. These potential benefits of plant diversity translate to 50%–65% greater life-cycle greenhouse gas savings for biofuels from more diverse grassland biomass grown on degraded soils. In addition, there is growing evidence that plant diversity can accelerate land restoration. Bioenergy from perennial grasses mitigates climate change via displacing fossil fuels and storing atmospheric CO2 belowground as soil carbon. Here, we conduct a critical review to examine whether increasing plant diversity in bioenergy grassland systems can further increase their climate change mitigation potential. We find that compared with highly productive monocultures, diverse mixtures tend to produce as great or greater yields. In particular, there is strong evidence that legume addition improves yield, in some cases equivalent to mineral nitrogen fertilization at 33–150 kg per ha. Plant diversity can also promote soil carbon storage in the long term, reduce soil N2O emissions by 30%–40%, and suppress weed invasion, hence reducing herbicide use. These potential benefits of plant diversity translate to 50%–65% greater life-cycle greenhouse gas savings for biofuels from more diverse grassland biomass grown on degraded soils. In addition, there is growing evidence that plant diversity can accelerate land restoration.

Abstract. This article provides an overview of the effects of land-use on the fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and from peatlands in the Nordic countries based on the field data from about 100 studies. In addition, this review aims to identify the gaps in the present knowledge on the greenhouse gas (GHG) balances associated with the land-use of these northern ecosystems. Northern peatlands have accumulated, as peat, a vast amount of carbon from the atmosphere since the last glaciation. However, the past land-use and present climate have evidently changed their GHG balance. Unmanaged boreal peatlands may act as net sources or sinks for CO2 and CH4 depending on the weather conditions. Drainage for agriculture has turned peatlands to significant sources of GHGs (mainly N2O and CO2). Annual mean GHG balances including net CH4, N2O and CO2 emissions are 2260, 2280 and 3140 g CO2 eq. m−2 (calculated using 100 year time horizon) for areas drained for grass swards, cereals or those left fallow, respectively. Even after cessetion of the cultivation practices, N2O and CO2 emissions remain high. The mean net GHG emissions in abandoned and afforested agricultural peatlands have been 1580 and 500 g CO2 eq. m−2, respectively. Peat extraction sites are net sources of GHGs with an average emission rate of 770 g CO2 eq. m−2. Cultivation of a perennial grass (e.g., reed canary grass) on an abandoned peat extraction site has been shown to convert such a site into a net sink of GHGs (−330 g CO2 eq. m−2). In contrast, despite restoration, such sites are known to emit GHGs (mean source of 480 g CO2 eq. m−2, mostly from high CH4 emissions). Peatland forests, originally drained for forestry, may act as net sinks (mean −780 g CO2 eq. m−2). However, the studies where all three GHGs have been measured at an ecosystem level in the forested peatlands are lacking. The data for restored peatland forests (clear cut and rewetted) indicate that such sites are on average a net sink (190 g CO2 eq. m−2). The mean emissions from drained peatlands presented here do not include emissions from ditches which form a part of the drainage network and can contribute significantly to the total GHG budget. Peat soils submerged under water reservoirs have acted as sources of CO2, CH4 and N2O (mean annual emission 240 g CO2 eq. m−2). However, we cannot yet predict accurately the overall greenhouse gas fluxes of organic soils based on the site characteristics and land-use practices alone because the data on many land-use options and our understanding of the biogeochemical cycling associated with the gas fluxes are limited.

Legislation to cap and trade greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was approved by a 219-212 vote of the United States House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. Cap and trade policy articulated in the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act of 2009 regulates GHGs including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and nitrogen trifluoride. Debate over the ACES act focused heavily on economic issues contrasted against concerns about climate change1. However, discussion largely ignored the potential for cap and trade legislation to contribute to reductions in levels of other harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and ozone precursors that share emission sources with GHGs. Under the bill, domestic GHG emissions are to be capped at 2005 annual levels, and reduced to 17% of those marks by 20502. The bill provides for an initial round of pollution permits to be made available, some free, others at auction. Subsequently, these permits can be bought and sold in the open market by organizations such as utility companies and manufacturing firms. A key provision in the ACES act requires the president to impose tariffs on countries that do not implement similar regulations on GHG emissions. While other potentially viable legislation, such as a tax on carbon emissions, has been proposed3, the current cap and trade legislation is the first bill to pass in either the House or Senate. The greenhouse gases regulated under the ACES act do not generally pose serious direct health risks. For example, nitrous oxide is used in dental procedures, and carbon dioxide is an ingredient in carbonated beverages. Other GHGs, like nitrogen trifluoride and sulfur hexafluoride, are not harmful at their current concentration levels, but can be hazardous to persons working with them if safety precautions are not taken. Instead, substantial human health benefits from cap and trade legislation could potentially come from reductions in ambient levels of harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, that share emissions sources with GHGs. For example, 94% of CO2 emissions in the US result from combustion of fossil fuels, with electricity generation and transportation alone comprising nearly 70%. These are also the leading source of sulfur dioxide, fine particles having diameter small than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and precursors to ozone such as mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx)4. While the time scale for potential impacts of cap and trade legislation on climate change and related health benefits is likely decades or centuries, ancillary air pollution mitigation could have immediate health benefits. In two nationwide epidemiological studies, daily levels of ambient ozone and PM2.5 have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory mortality5 and to increased risk of emergency hospital admissions, especially for heart failure6, respectively. Estimates of the potential health benefits attributable to reductions in harmful air pollutants resulting from mitigation of GHG emissions, at the city, region and national, have been substantial7. While US cap and trade legislation would likely reduce domestic air pollution levels, two caveats deserve consideration. First, methods for reducing GHG emissions typically reduce air pollution levels, but not always. This problem can be highlighted using airplanes as an example8. Two methods to reduce CO2 emissions from airplanes are to decrease aircraft weight or increase engine combustion temperatures. The former reduces both GHG and air pollution emissions, whereas the later reduces GHG emissions at the cost of increasing precursors to ozone. In the broader context of energy production, it is likely cap and trade legislation would drive a shift away from fossil fuel combustion to sources such as solar technology that produce much less air pollution. However, the exact technology development path is still uncertain. A second problem is the potential for domestic cap and trade legislation to transfer US emissions to newly industrialized nations. Countries facing lower production costs associated with looser regulations on GHG emissions would have an economic advantage over manufacturing industries in the US. However, increased air pollution from new manufacturing could be a key public health issue for developing regions, such as China's Pearl River delta, where air pollution levels are already much higher than standards in the US9. The economic and physical systems that would be affected by cap and trade legislation are extremely complex, and impacts on air pollution will have to be considered in a broad context. For example, while the absence of tariffs would likely push manufacturing, air pollution and related negative health effects to developing regions, those regions might experience health benefits associated with increased per capita income. The discussion is similarly complex in the physical domain. For example, some air pollutants, such as sulfate particulate matter, can contribute to short term climate cooling. Though still somewhat unclear, there is an emerging debate over the possibility that air pollution mitigation could actually exacerbate global warming in the short term10. While it faces potentially significant opposition and alteration in the Senate, the cap and trade bill recently passed in the House has progressed further through Congress than any other similar legislation. There is tremendous potential for legislation regulating GHG emissions, via cap and trade or other strategies, to simultaneously decrease emissions of harmful air pollutants and reduce morbidity and mortality attributable to cardiovascular and respiratory illness. Such improvements in public health have been linked to economic benefits from recovered workforce productivity8, and add important support for progress on cap and trade legislation versus delayed action.