Bridging the data gap: engaging developing country farmers in greenhouse gas accounting

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

Research and implementation needs to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in the USA

To mitigate climate change at local, regional, and global scales, we must begin to think beyond greenhouse gases.

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Simple SummaryMinimizing the effects of climate change by reducing GHG emissions is crucial and can be accomplished by truly understanding the carbon footprint phenomenon. This study aims to improve the understanding of carbon footprint alteration due to agricultural management and fertility practices. It provides a detailed review of carbon footprint management under the impacts of environmental factors, land use, and agricultural practices. The results show that healthy soils have numerous benefits for the general public and especially farmers. These benefits include being stable and resilient, resistant to erosion, easily workable in cultivated systems, good habitat for soil micro-organisms, fertile and good structure, large carbon sinks, and hence lower carbon footprint. Intensive tillage is harmful to soil structure by oxidizing carbon and causing GHG emissions. If possible, no-till; if not, minimum tillage frequency and depth of tillage, and optimum moisture are recommended. The soil should be at an appropriate level of moisture when tillage takes place. Diverse cropping systems are better for the soil than monocultures. Minimizing machinery operations can help to avoid soil compaction. Building soil organic carbon in the most stable form is the most efficient practice of sustainable crop production.Global attention to climate change issues, especially air temperature changes, has drastically increased over the last half-century. Along with population growth, greater surface temperature, and higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there are growing concerns for ecosystem sustainability and other human existence on earth. The contribution of agriculture to GHG emissions indicates a level of 18% of total GHGs, mainly from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Thus, minimizing the effects of climate change by reducing GHG emissions is crucial and can be accomplished by truly understanding the carbon footprint (CF) phenomenon. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to improve understanding of CF alteration due to agricultural management and fertility practices. CF is a popular concept in agro-environmental sciences due to its role in the environmental impact assessments related to alternative solutions and global climate change. Soil moisture content, soil temperature, porosity, and water-filled pore space are some of the soil properties directly related to GHG emissions. These properties raise the role of soil structure and soil health in the CF approach. These properties and GHG emissions are also affected by different land-use changes, soil types, and agricultural management practices. Soil management practices globally have the potential to alter atmospheric GHG emissions. Therefore, the relations between photosynthesis and GHG emissions as impacted by agricultural management practices, especially focusing on soil and related systems, must be considered. We conclude that environmental factors, land use, and agricultural practices should be considered in the management of CF when maximizing crop productivity.

Increasing concentrations of the atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) are serious threats to the living beings and their niches. The rapid increase in GHGs is undoubtedly related to anthropogenic activities. Literature related to GHG emissions and mitigation approaches is widely available, but very few reviews concentrated on spatial-temporal trends of GHG emission from the agriculture sector. Agriculture is a potent contributor to GHG emissions, involving different agricultural practices followed by the farmers, which affect the rate of emission either positively or negatively. Agricultural soil management practices add excess nutrients, which disturb the natural mineral cycling leading to soil and water pollution and increase emission from soil to atmosphere, thus contributing to climate change. Research papers and reports related to GHG emission from different agricultural sectors in different parts of the world were reviewed to find the variations in emission pattern and intensities, and the factors influencing the emissions from the soil. The soil GHG emissions are directly or indirectly modified by natural as well as anthropogenic factors, like pH, soil texture, tilling, fertilizer application, mulching, irrigation, etc. The determinants taking part in the soil GHG emissions varied with region and different agricultural practices. Different mitigation approaches for GHGs from the agriculture sector were also compared for their efficacy in reducing emissions. A variety of advanced techniques developed to enhance the yield of crops were found to influence GHG emissions by direct influence on soil pH, temperature, and moisture. The conditions favorable for GHG emissions can be modified to reduce the emissions as the soil acts both as a reservoir and as an emitter of GHGs based on local natural and anthropogenic factors.

Dairy farming is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. There are numerous scientific studies analysing GHG flows and testing GHG reduction methods in dairy farming, yet very few scientific papers cover all the relevant GHG flows. GHG flows that are difficult to quantify, such as C sequestration in soils, the effects of land-use change (LUC) or the energy input used to produce capital equipment, are not always considered.This paper describes the development and application of a model for energy and GHG accounting in dairy farming. This new model enables all relevant nutrient, energy and GHG flows to be modelled at farm level. This then forms the basis for system analysis and derivation of GHG mitigation strategies. The model was used on 18 organic and 18 con-ventional farms in Germany. Calculated CO2-eq emissions per kg of Energy Corrected Milk (ECM) were 995 g on average for organic farms (org) and 1,048 g on average for conventional farms (con). The largest contribution (55 % (org) and 43 % (con)) to total GHG emissions came from enteric methane emissions (549 g CO2-eq (kg ECM)-1 (org) and 449 g CO2-eq (kg ECM)-1 (con)). On the organic dairy farms, there was an increase in soil humus and therefore carbon storage and sequestration in soils, whereas the GHG emissions for the conventional farms included CO2 emissions from LUC due to soybean usage. The significantly higher energy input in the conventional systems resulted from the production of energy-intensive concentrates, mineral fertilisers and pesticides, and transportation (imported feed).This study shows that there are many factors that influence GHG emissions in dairy farming, and that these factors often interact with each other. An increase in productivity is one of several optimisation strategies; however, it must not be at the expense of productive lifetime or require an extremely high amount of concentrates. GHG reduction in dairy farming requires farm-specific optimisation approaches due to the heterogeneity of production systems.

Brazilian cattle production is mostly carried out in pastures, and the need to mitigate the livestock's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its environmental footprint has become an important requirement. The adoption of well-suited breeds and the intensification of pasture-based livestock production systems are alternatives to optimize the sector's land use. However, further research on tropical systems is necessary. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of Holstein (HO) and Jersey–Holstein (JE x HO) crossbred cows in different levels of pasture intensification (continuous grazing system with low stocking rate–CLS; irrigated rotational grazing system with high stocking rate–RHS), and the interaction between these two factors on GHG mitigation. Twenty-four HO and 24 JE x HO crossbred dairy cows were used to evaluate the effect of two grazing systems on milk production and composition, soil GHG emissions, methane (CH4) emission, and soil carbon accumulation (0–100 cm). These variables were used to calculate carbon balance (CB), GHG emission intensity, the number of trees required to mitigate GHG emission, and the land-saving effect. The number of trees necessary to mitigate GHG emission was calculated, considering the C balance within the farm gate. The mitigation of GHG emissions comes from the annual growth rate and accumulation of C in eucalyptus trees' trunks. The CB of all systems and genotypes presented a deficit in carbon (C); there was no difference for genotypes, but RHS was more deficient than CLS (-4.99 to CLS and −28.72 to RHS ton CO2e..ha−1.year−1). The deficit of C on GHG emission intensity was similar between genotypes and higher for RHS (−0.480 to RHS and −0.299 to CLS kg CO2e..kg FCPCmilk−1). Lower GHG removals (0.14 to CLS higher than 0.02 to RHS kg CO2e..kg FCPCmilk−1) had the greatest influence on the GHG emission intensity of milk production. The deficit number of trees to abatement emissions was higher to HO (−46.06 to HO and −38.37 trees/cow to JE x HO) and to RHS (−51.9 to RHS and −33.05 trees/cow to CLS). However, when the results are expressed per ton of FCPCmilk, there was a difference only between pasture management, requiring −6.34 tree. ton FCPCmilk−1 for the RHS and −3.99 tree. ton FCPCmilk−1 for the CLS system. The intensification of pastures resulted in higher milk production and land-saving effect of 2.7 ha. Due to the reservation of the pasture-based dairy systems in increasing soil C sequestration to offset the GHG emissions, especially enteric CH4, planting trees can be used as a mitigation strategy. Also, the land-save effect of intensification can contribute to the issue, since the area spared through the intensification in pasture management becomes available for reforestation with commercial trees.

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

Agricultural lands occupy 37% of the earth's land surface. Agriculture accounts for 52 and 84% of global anthropogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Agricultural soils may also act as a sink or source for CO2, but the net flux is small. Many agricultural practices can potentially mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the most prominent of which are improved cropland and grazing land management and restoration of degraded lands and cultivated organic soils. Lower, but still significant mitigation potential is provided by water and rice management, set-aside, land use change and agroforestry, livestock management and manure management. The global technical mitigation potential from agriculture (excluding fossil fuel offsets from biomass) by 2030, considering all gases, is estimated to be approximately 5500-6000Mt CO2-eq.yr-1, with economic potentials of approximately 1500-1600, 2500-2700 and 4000-4300Mt CO2-eq.yr-1 at carbon prices of up to 20, up to 50 and up to 100 US$ t CO2-eq.-1, respectively. In addition, GHG emissions could be reduced by substitution of fossil fuels for energy production by agricultural feedstocks (e.g. crop residues, dung and dedicated energy crops). The economic mitigation potential of biomass energy from agriculture is estimated to be 640, 2240 and 16 000Mt CO2-eq.yr-1 at 0-20, 0-50 and 0-100 US$ t CO2-eq.-1, respectively.

Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation measures in Chinese agroecosystems

Reply to L Aleksandrowicz et al.

This work aims to assess the dynamics of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals, as well as analyse the mitigation potential for managed lands in Russia, the country’s contributions to global GHG fluxes and global mitigation in agriculture, forestry and other land use required under the goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21st Conference of the Parties (Paris Agreement). Russia is the fifth-largest GHG emitter in the world, yet information on its ecosystem-based emissions and related mitigation potential remains insufficient. In order to estimate annual GHG emissions and removals, the adapted methodologies and parameters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) methodological reports were applied. Managed land in Russia exhibits a steady trend of increasing net GHG absorption from 1990 to 2016, reaching an absorption value of 553 Mt carbon dioxide (CO2-eq) in 2016 (compensating for about 4.6% of the current global net GHG emission from land use) from a net loss of 343 Mt CO2-eq in 1990 due to the decrease in forest harvesting rates and reduction in the organic and mineral fertilisation of croplands. The results obtained in our work are in accordance with the carbon fluxes (per hectare) of other countries, taking into account similarities and differences in climatic conditions. The total mitigation potential of managed land in Russia is estimated at about 545–940 Mt CO2-eq year−1, which may compensate for an additional 4.5–7.8% of current global net GHG emissions from land use. Major mitigation measures in Russia comprise sustainable land management activities, such as land protection from fires, insect outbreaks and other natural disturbances, the reduction of carbon losses due to harvesting and wood production, the replacement of existing extensive agricultural management with intense farming, the prevention of soil erosion, reforestation and reclamation activities. Our research demonstrates that implementing these activities can provide general insights into land mitigation strategies and affect land management in other countries, particularly in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On the global scale mitigation recommendations informed by our study include improved forest management, reforestation, cropland nutrient management and wetland restoration.

Over the last half-century, global attention has focused on climate change, particularly changes in air temperature. Concerns about the sustainability of the Earth’s ecosystems and other human life on the land are increasing along with population growth, rising surface temperature, and higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agriculture is responsible for ~18% of total GHG emissions. Therefore, mitigating the effects of climate change by reducing GHG emissions is essential and can be achieved by careful evaluation of the carbon footprint (CF). The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of the changes in CF due to agricultural management practices. Carbon footprint is a popular concept in agro-environmental sciences owing to its role in the environmental impact assessments related to alternative solutions and global climate change. The CF of agricultural products is one of the most crucial indicators to assess the effectiveness and long-term viability of agricultural products. Soil-moisture content, soil temperature, porosity, and anoxic conditions are some of the soil properties directly related to GHG emissions. The GHG emissions are also affected by different land-use changes, soil types, and agricultural management practices. Globally, better soil-management techniques can alter atmospheric GHG emissions. Therefore, the relation between photosynthesis and GHG emissions is impacted by agricultural management practices, especially focusing on soil and related systems. When maximizing crop productivity, environmental factors, land use, and agricultural practices all should be considered in CF management. The current review highlights the importance of CF and its role in maintaining the sustainability of agricultural systems.

The potential for improving productivity and increasing the resilience of smallholder agriculture, while also contributing to climate change mitigation, has recently received considerable political attention (Beddington et al 2012). Financial support for improving smallholder agriculture could come from performance-based funding including sale of carbon credits or certified commodities, payments for ecosystem services, and nationally appropriate mitigation action (NAMA) budgets, as well as more traditional sources of development and environment finance. Monitoring the greenhouse gas fluxes associated with changes to agricultural practice is needed for performance-based mitigation funding, and efforts are underway to develop tools to quantify mitigation achieved and assess trade-offs and synergies between mitigation and other livelihood and environmental priorities (Olander 2012).