Abstract

The increasing global demand for food and the environmental effects of reactive nitrogen losses in the food production chain, increase the need for efficient use of nitrogen (N). Of N harvested in agricultural plant products, 80% is used to feed livestock. Because the largest atmospheric loss of reactive nitrogen from livestock production systems is ammonia (NH3), the focus of this paper is on N lost as NH3 during the production of animal protein. The focus of this paper is to understand the key factors explaining differences in Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) of animal production among various European countries. Therefore we developed a conceptual framework to describe the NUE defined as the amount of animal-protein N per N in feed and NH3N losses in the production of milk, beef, pork, chicken meat and eggs in The Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Denmark. The framework describes how manure management and animal-related parameters (feed, metabolism) relate to NH3 emissions and NUE. The results showed that the animal product with the lowest NUE had the largest NH3 emissions and vice versa, which agrees with the reciprocal relationship between NUE and NH3 within the conceptual framework. Across animal products for the countries considered, about 20% of the N in feed is lost as NH3. The significant smallest proportion (12%) of NH3N per unit of Nfeed is from chicken production. The proportions for other products are 17%, 19%, 20% and 22% for milk, pork, eggs and beef respectively. These differences were not significantly different due to the differences among countries. For all countries, NUE was lowest for beef and highest for chicken. The production of 1 kg N in beef required about 5 kg N in feed, of which 1 kg N was lost as NH3N. For the production of 1 kg N in chicken meat, 2 kg N in feed was required and 0.2 kg was lost as NH3. The production of 1 kg N in milk required 4 kg N in feed with 0.6 kg NH3N loss, the same as pork and eggs, but those needed 3 and 3.5 kg N in feed per kg N in product respectively. Except for beef, the differences among these European countries were mainly caused by differences in manure management practices and their emission factors, rather than by animal-related factors including feed and digestibility influencing the excreted amount of ammoniacal N (TAN). For beef, both aspects caused important differences. Based on the results, we encourage the expression of N losses as per N in feed or per N in product, in addition to per animal place, when comparing production efficiency and NUE. We consider that disaggregating emission factors into a diet/animal effect and a manure management effect would improve the basis for comparing national NH3 emission inventories.

Highlights

  • Nitrogen (N) as a nutrient is an important contributor towards food security

  • Using a conceptual framework of the N-flow in livestock systems, this paper aims to establish which parameters we need to focus on, distinguishing animal-related factors on the one hand and manure management, explaining the fraction of total ammoniacal N (TAN) that emits as NH3eN, on the other

  • Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) of the feed did not differ as much as the excreted amount of ammoniacal N (TAN) and implied emission factor (IEF) due to less variability of Nfeed and Nproduct, with a coefficient of variation of 5e14%

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Nitrogen (N) as a nutrient is an important contributor towards food security. The demand for food increases thereby increasing the demand for reactive N. Inefficiencies in the production chain of food protein mean that N is lost, both as unreactive N2 and as reactive N compounds (Nr), contributing the majority of the Nr pollution of the global environment (Bouwman et al, 2013). Ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and nitrate (NO3À), contribute to acidification, eutrophication and climate change, threating biodiversity, water-, air- and soil quality (Sutton et al, 2013). Ammonia contributes to the formation of secondary atmospheric particulate matter, with the smaller of these (PM2.5) implicated in a range of adverse impacts on human health

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call