Energy crops in Ireland: Quantifying the potential life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity

Spatial and life cycle assessment of bioenergy-driven land-use changes in Ireland

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

A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used to examine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy balance of short rotation coppice (SRC) willow for heat production. The modelled supply chain includes cutting multiplication, site establishment, maintenance, harvesting, storage, transport and combustion. The relative impacts of dry matter losses and methane emissions from chip storage were examined from a LCA perspective, comparing the GHG emissions from the SRC supply chain with those of natural gas for heat generation. The results show that SRC generally provides very high GHG emission savings of over 90 %. The LCA model estimates that a 1, 10 and 20 % loss of dry matter during storage causes a 1, 6 and 11 % increase in GHG emissions per MWh. The GHG emission results are extremely sensitive to emissions of methane from the wood chip stack: If 1 % of the carbon within the stack undergoes anaerobic decomposition to methane, then the GHG emissions per MWh are tripled. There are some uncertainties in the LCA results, regarding the true formation of methane in wood chip stacks, non-CO2 emissions from combustion, N2O emissions from leaf fall and the extent of carbon sequestered under the crop, and these all contribute a large proportion of the life cycle GHG emissions from cultivation of the crop.

An analysis of the social and private return to land use change from agriculture to renewable energy production in Ireland

This monograph is concerned with different aspects of green house gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. The first part summarizes the total amount of GHG emissions and analyses them regarding their composition. A differentiation is made between the emissions which are already linked to agriculture (source group agriculture: digestion , manure-management and agricultural soils ) within the National Report on GHG Emissions and those which can be counted primarily in addition to agriculture ( energy and land use and land use change ). Depending on which database is used, agriculture is participating in emitting green house gases with 6.3% or 11.1% of total German GHG emissions in 2004. This means that agriculture is an important polluter. The development of GHG emissions in agriculture compared to the year 1990 is -18.5% for the source group agriculture. This means that the source group has reduced more emissions than the average (-17.5%) over all domains published within the National Report. Regarding the sources energy and land use and land use change in addition emission reduction is -16.4% in the same period and thus worse than the average. Moreover, realized emission reductions are predominantly based on structural changes, less on systematical measures. This fact raises the question how agriculture can make a contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions in future particularly with regard to higher aims in climate politics.For this reason the second part of the monograph identifies capacities for the reduction of GHG emissions by using available agricultural biomass for energetic purposes. Due to the heterogeneity of biomass and the variety of its possible products, a lot of technical processes concerning the conversion of biomass into energy exist in practice. Since all of them have different emission factors the derivation of realistic reduction capacities is a nontrivial problem. This work restricts the problem by combining existing biomass with those technologies which provide largest benefit concerning the reduction of GHG emissions. Thereby it is possible to evaluate the maximum contribution of GHG reductions from biomass usage in agriculture in Germany, which aggregates up to 50,341 Gg CO2-equivalent. This means that 78.3% of the emissions from the source group agriculture in 2004 could be compensated if biomass was used within those technologies which produce the largest benefit. In this regards the subsidy of energy crops in biogas plants based on the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz (renewable energy law) in Germany should be reviewed because there they do not produce the largest benefit. Energy crops should be applied to replace solid fuels instead. Since in practice several biogas plants are already using energy crops as input material without having an option for alternatives, the question raises how this fact can be improved for the future regarding climate protection.Therefore the third part of this monograph analyses the possible emission reductions of different technologies for converting biogas into energy. Objects of investigation are existing technologies like block heat and power plants or direct gas feeding into public gas distribution system as well as future technologies like the application of biogas in different types of fuel cells. Although direct gas feeding has a better ratio concerning the conversion of primary to secondary energy the GHG reduction capacity is much less compared to technologies of cogeneration. The reason for this is that the production of electricity has much more effect on GHG emissions than the production of heat. This is to be seen when comparing the emission factors of certain reference systems used in this part like condensing boilers running with natural gas (253 gCO2/kWhheat), gas steam power plants (432 gCO2/kWhel) and the average emissions factor of German power production (653 gCO2/kWhel). The more electricity is produced by a conversion technology based on biogas, the higher is its GHG reduction capacity. Direct gas feeding is not the most efficient way of using biogas in matters of climate protection considering that only 13% of the natural gas in Germany is used for electric purposes and considering that replacing natural gas by biogas means that the part of fossil fuels with lowest emissions is replaced. Direct gas feeding is not even then the most efficient way of using biogas if there is a consumer at the other end of the public gas distribution system who theoretically uses the injected biogas for running cogeneration systems. The conditioning of biogas in order to feed public distribution combined with additional heat source for running the fermenter of the biogas plant is worse for efficiency. Considering ecological standpoints local heat and power production next to the fermenter is the most efficient way of using biogas in matters of climate protection. This can only be improved by using more efficient systems like fuel cells instead of existing block heat and power plants.

Taking Stock of Strategies on Climate Change and the Way Forward: A Strategic Climate Change Framework for Australia

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada – Evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment

Evaluation of the effect of accounting method, IPCC v. LCA, on grass-based and confinement dairy systems’ greenhouse gas emissions

The body of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature is vast and has grown over the last decade at a dauntingly rapid rate. Many LCAs have been published on the same or very similar technologies or products, in some cases leading to hundreds of publications. One result is the impression among decision makers that LCAs are inconclusive, owing to perceived and real variability in published estimates of life cycle impacts. Despite the extensive available literature and policy need formore conclusive assessments, only modest attempts have been made to synthesize previous research. A significant challenge to doing so are differences in characteristics of the considered technologies and inconsistencies in methodological choices (e.g., system boundaries, coproduct allocation, and impact assessment methods) among the studies that hamper easy comparisons and related decision support. An emerging trend is meta-analysis of a set of results from LCAs, which has the potential to clarify the impacts of a particular technology, process, product, or material and produce more robust and policy-relevant results. Meta-analysis in this context is defined here as an analysis of a set of published LCA results to estimate a single or multiple impacts for a single technology or a technology category, either in a statisticalmore » sense (e.g., following the practice in the biomedical sciences) or by quantitative adjustment of the underlying studies to make them more methodologically consistent. One example of the latter approach was published in Science by Farrell and colleagues (2006) clarifying the net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ethanol, in which adjustments included the addition of coproduct credit, the addition and subtraction of processes within the system boundary, and a reconciliation of differences in the definition of net energy metrics. Such adjustments therefore provide an even playing field on which all studies can be considered and at the same time specify the conditions of the playing field itself. Understanding the conditions under which a meta-analysis was conducted is important for proper interpretation of both the magnitude and variability in results. This special supplemental issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology includes 12 high-quality metaanalyses and critical reviews of LCAs that advance understanding of the life cycle environmental impacts of different technologies, processes, products, and materials. Also published are three contributions on methodology and related discussions of the role of meta-analysis in LCA. The goal of this special supplemental issue is to contribute to the state of the science in LCA beyond the core practice of producing independent studies on specific products or technologies by highlighting the ability of meta-analysis of LCAs to advance understanding in areas of extensive existing literature. The inspiration for the issue came from a series of meta-analyses of life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies based on research from the LCA Harmonization Project of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, which also provided financial support for this special supplemental issue. (See the editorial from this special supplemental issue [Lifset 2012], which introduces this supplemental issue and discusses the origins, funding, peer review, and other aspects.) The first article on reporting considerations for meta-analyses/critical reviews for LCA is from Heath and Mann (2012), who describe the methods used and experience gained in NREL's LCA Harmonization Project, which produced six of the studies in this special supplemental issue. Their harmonization approach adapts key features of systematic review to identify and screen published LCAs followed by a meta-analytical procedure to adjust published estimates to ones based on a consistent set of methods and assumptions to allow interstudy comparisons and conclusions to be made. In a second study on methods, Zumsteg and colleagues (2012) propose a checklist for a standardized technique to assist in conducting and reporting systematic reviews of LCAs, including meta-analysis, that is based on a framework used in evidence-based medicine. Widespread use of such a checklist would facilitate planning successful reviews, improve the ability to identify systematic reviews in literature searches, ease the ability to update content in future reviews, and allow more transparency of methods to ease peer review and more appropriately generalize findings. Finally, Zamagni and colleagues (2012) propose an approach, inspired by a meta-analysis, for categorizing main methodological topics, reconciling diverging methodological developments, and identifying future research directions in LCA. Their procedure involves the carrying out of a literature review on articles selected according to predefined criteria.« less

Dairy production systems represent a significant source of air pollutants such as greenhouse gases (GHG), that increase global warming, and ammonia (NH3), that leads to eutrophication and acidification of natural ecosystems. Greenhouse gases and ammonia are emitted both by conventional and organic dairy systems. Several studies have already been conducted to design practices that reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from dairy systems. However, those studies did not consider options specifically applied to organic farming, as well as the multiple trade-offs occurring between these air pollutants. This article reviews agricultural practices that mitigate greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. Those practices can be applied to the most common organic dairy systems in northern Europe such as organic mixed crop-dairy systems. The following major points of mitigation options for animal production, crop production and grasslands are discussed. Animal production: the most promising options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the livestock management level involve either the improvement of animal production through dietary changes and genetic improvement or the reduction of the replacement rate. The control of the protein intake of animals is an effective means to reduce gaseous emissions of nitrogen, but it is difficult to implement in organic dairy farming systems. Considering the manure handling chain, mitigation options involve housing, storage and application. For housing, an increase in the amounts of straw used for bedding reduces NH3 emissions, while the limitation of CH4 emissions from deep litter is achieved by avoiding anaerobic conditions. During the storage of solid manure, composting could be an efficient mitigation option, depending on its management. Addition of straw to solid manure was shown to reduce CH4 and N2O emissions from the manure heaps. During the storage of liquid manure, emptying the slurry store before late spring is an efficient mitigation option to limit both CH4 and NH3 emissions. Addition of a wooden cover also reduces these emissions more efficiently than a natural surface crust alone, but may increase N2O emissions. Anaerobic digestion is the most promising way to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from storage and land spreading, without increasing NH3 emissions. At the application stage, NH3 emissions may be reduced by spreading manure during the coolest part of the day, incorporating it quickly and in narrow bands. Crop production: the mitigation options for crop production focus on limiting CO2 and N2O emissions. The introduction of perennial crops or temporary leys of longer duration are promising options to limit CO2 emissions by storing carbon in plants or soils. Reduced tillage or no tillage as well as the incorporation of crop residues also favour carbon sequestration in soils, but these practices may enhance N2O emissions. Besides, the improvement of crop N-use efficiency through effective management of manure and slurry, by growing catch crops or by delaying the ploughing of leys, is of prime importance to reduce N2O emissions. Grassland: concerning grassland and grazing management, permanent conversion from arable to grassland provides high soil carbon sequestration while increasing or decreasing the livestock density seems not to be an appropriate mitigation option. From the study of the multiple interrelations between gases and between farm compartments, the following mitigation options are advised for organic mixed crop-dairy systems: (1) actions for increasing energy efficiency or fuel savings because they are beneficial in any case, (2) techniques improving efficiency of N management at field and farm levels because they affect not only N2O and NH3 emissions, but also nitrate leaching, and (3) biogas production through anaerobic digestion of manure because it is a promising efficient method to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, even if the profitability of this expensive investment needs to be carefully studied. Finally, the way the farmer implements the mitigation options, i.e. his practices, will be a determining factor in the reduction of greenhouse gas and NH3 emissions.

The shield method is a commonly used construction technique in subway tunnel engineering. However, studies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions specifically in subway shield tunnel engineering are lacking. This study aims to investigate the GHG emission characteristics and GHG reduction pathways during the construction period of subway shield tunnels. Firstly, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) method, a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission quantification model for the shield tunnel construction period was developed using a multi-level decomposition of construction. Then, the GHG emission level and intensity during the construction period of a case project are quantified, and its emission characteristics and GHG reduction potential points are assessed. Finally, a comprehensive path for GHG reduction in subway shield tunnel engineering is proposed. The research results indicate that constructing 1 km of subway shield tunnel can generate 19,294.28 t CO2eq. Among these, material production element dominates the emissions with a percentage of 89.05%, while transportation and mechanical construction elements contribute 1.81% and 9.14%, respectively. From the structure perspective, the main structure contributes 88.73% of total emissions, while the ancillary structure contributes 11.27%. Among them, the working shaft and tunnel segments are the main sources of emissions for the main structure, accounting for 23.65% and 65.08%, respectively. Connecting channel and end reinforcement are the main emission sources of the ancillary structures, accounting for 43.63% and 31.30%, respectively. These findings provide a scientific foundation for the environmentally friendly transformation of urban railway development regarding pursuing "carbon peaking and carbon neutrality" strategic goals.

PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒 基于生命周期评价的上海市水稻生产的碳足迹 DOI: 10.5846/stxb201304240794 作者: 作者单位: 上海市农业科学院,上海市农业科学院,上海市农业科学院,上海市农业科学院,江西农业大学 作者简介: 通讯作者: 中图分类号: 基金项目: 国家科技部支撑计划后世博专项资助项目（2010BAK69B18）；上海市科委崇明科技攻关专项资助项目（10DZ1960101） Life cycle assessment of carbon footprint for rice production in Shanghai Author: Affiliation: Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Seed management station of Shanghai,,,Jiangxi Agricultural University Fund Project: 摘要 | 图/表 | 访问统计 | 参考文献 | 相似文献 | 引证文献 | 资源附件 | 文章评论 摘要:碳足迹是指由企业、组织或个人引起的碳排放的集合。参照PAS2050规范并结合生命周期评价方法对上海市水稻生产进行了碳足迹评估。结果表明：（1）目前上海市水稻生产的碳排放为11.8114 t CO2e/hm2，折合每吨水稻生产周期的碳足迹为1.2321 t CO2e；（2）稻田温室气体排放是水稻生产最主要的碳排放源，每吨水稻生产的总排放量为0.9507 t CO2e，占水稻生产全部碳排放的77.1%，其中甲烷（CH4）又是最主要的温室气体，对稻田温室气体碳排放的贡献率高达96.6%；（3）化学肥料的施用是第二大碳排放源，每吨水稻生产的总排放量为0.2044 t CO2e，占水稻生产总碳排放的16.5%，其中N最高，排放量为0.1159 t CO2e。因此，上海低碳水稻生产的关键在降低稻田甲烷的排放，另外可通过提高氮肥利用效率，减少氮肥施用等方法减少种植过程中碳排放。 Abstract:Global climate change has become an urgent issue of concern. Climate change will increasingly threaten our food production, security and even the survival of the human race. It also has a serious impact on natural ecosystems and the socioeconomic system. With the increasing scale and improvement in mechanization levels, the economic linkage between agricultural production and reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions is even closer in the agricultural production system. Therefore, the development of a low-carbon agricultural model is one of the long-term strategies for low-carbon economic growth throughout the country.This research of carbon footprint is introduced to measure the GHG emission over the rice production cycle. The carbon footprint can be defined as the total carbon emissions caused by an organization, event, product or person. At present, carbon footprints are used to measure GHG emissions in products, services, organizations, cities and countries and offer the decision basis for the formulation of GHG emission reduction schemes.Agricultural ecological systems, every year, also produce a lot of GHG emissions. The whole process of prenatal, intrapartum and postpartum agricultural production are closely related to energy consumption and GHG emission. In the process, all the agricultural inputs, such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, cultivation, plant protection, agricultural machinery, irrigation and harvest also produce greenhouse gas emissions.The whole cultivation of rice involves methane (CH4) emission. This study shows that rice cultivation is one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions in crop cultivation. Rice paddies emit a large amount of methane in their water logged mode. Different irrigation modes have a great influence on the emission of GHG. Straw return is another factor that promotes GHG emissions. Soil organic content increases with the return of straw, with an increase in the soil methanogen activity, leading to increased methane emissions.The current carbon footprint research is the first time it has been used to measure the carbon emissions involved in rice production. The carbon footprint for rice production in Shanghai was assessed by the PAS2050 paradigm and life cycle assessment. The study area, located in Changjiang Farm, which belongs to the Guangming Group in Chongming County Shanghai City atlatitude 121°32'22' E, longitude31°40'23' N. Chongming County, in the Yangtze River Estuary, is a typical sub tropical monsoon climate with mild climate, abundant rainfall, annual average temperatures of 15.3 ℃, and annual precipitation of 1245 mm. It is the major grain production base for Shanghai city with winter wheat and summer rice forming their main planting patterns, which are typical for the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River rice-wheat rotation cropping pattern.The entire carbon emission of rice production in Shanghai was 11.8114 t CO2e (CO2-equivalents)/hm2, corresponding to a 1.2321 t CO2e/t rice grain yield. GHG emissions from paddy fields were the major source, which emitted 0.9507 t CO2e/t rice and accounted for 77.1% of total carbon emissions during rice production. Moreover, CH4 was the largest source for GHG emissions with a contribution rate of 96.6%.Chemical fertilizers were the second largest emission source in rice production. Chemical fertilizers emitted 0.2044 t CO2e for each ton of rice production, contributing 16.5% of total carbon emissions in rice production. N fertilizer was the biggest emission source, which released 0.1159 t CO2e/t rice.This research investigates the GHG emissions over the whole process of the Shanghai rice production cycle and reveals the energy consumption and GHG emissions in rice production. Thus, a rice carbon footprint is calculated by assessing the GHG emissions in Shanghai rice production. The results are beneficial for producing reduction plans of reducing GHG emissions in Shanghai rice production. Furthermore, the results will supply both practicable and theoretical foundations for drafting carbon footprint formulations in other industrial areas. 参考文献 相似文献 引证文献

BackgroundPolicies to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can yield public health benefits by also reducing emissions of hazardous co-pollutants, such as air toxics and particulate matter. Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities are typically disproportionately exposed to air pollutants, and therefore climate policy could also potentially reduce these environmental inequities. We sought to explore potential social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program—the dominant approach to GHG regulation in the US and globally.Methods and findingsWe examined the relationship between multiple measures of neighborhood disadvantage and the location of GHG and co-pollutant emissions from facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program—the world’s fourth largest operational carbon trading program. We examined temporal patterns in annual average emissions of GHGs, particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and air toxics before (January 1, 2011–December 31, 2012) and after (January 1, 2013–December 31, 2015) the initiation of carbon trading. We found that facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program are disproportionately located in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents of color, and that the quantities of co-pollutant emissions from these facilities were correlated with GHG emissions through time. Moreover, the majority (52%) of regulated facilities reported higher annual average local (in-state) GHG emissions since the initiation of trading. Neighborhoods that experienced increases in annual average GHG and co-pollutant emissions from regulated facilities nearby after trading began had higher proportions of people of color and poor, less educated, and linguistically isolated residents, compared to neighborhoods that experienced decreases in GHGs. These study results reflect preliminary emissions and social equity patterns of the first 3 years of California’s cap-and-trade program for which data are available. Due to data limitations, this analysis did not assess the emissions and equity implications of GHG reductions from transportation-related emission sources. Future emission patterns may shift, due to changes in industrial production decisions and policy initiatives that further incentivize local GHG and co-pollutant reductions in disadvantaged communities.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to examine social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program. Our results indicate that, thus far, California’s cap-and-trade program has not yielded improvements in environmental equity with respect to health-damaging co-pollutant emissions. This could change, however, as the cap on GHG emissions is gradually lowered in the future. The incorporation of additional policy and regulatory elements that incentivize more local emission reductions in disadvantaged communities could enhance the local air quality and environmental equity benefits of California’s climate change mitigation efforts.

New energy and renewable widely available in Indonesia. One of them is the biomass that can be used with gasification technology. Biomass is an organic matter to which derived from biological materials. This research was used integration gasification system with a gas engine, which works more properly with CO, and H2. The advantage of this biomass power plant compared the environmental impact on other types of plants such as coal-fired power plants, diesel power plants, etc. Therefore the potential of environmental impacts was generated, it is necessary to calculate quantitatively through the life cycle assessment methods. This research aimed to calculate impact assessment on electricity production from a Biomass Power Plant system through a life cycle assessment with boundary cradle to grave in Indonesia. The study revealed that greenhouse gas (GHG) emission of electricity production from an empty fruit bunch palm oil mill was 0.15 kg CO2-eq kWh–1. The gas engine was the highest GHG emission contributor during its life cycle. Empty fruit bunch as a source of biomass for electricity production was considered as climate-friendly power plant system due to its potential in reducing GHG emission from palm oil production and released lower GHG emission.

Dairy production systems represent a significant source of air pollutants such as greenhouse gases (GHG), that increase global warming, and ammonia (NH3), that leads to eutrophication and acidification of natural ecosystems. Greenhouse gases and ammonia are emitted both by conventional and organic dairy systems. Several studies have already been conducted to design practices that reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from dairy systems. However, those studies did not consider options specifically applied to organic farming, as well as the multiple trade-offs occurring between these air pollutants. This article reviews agricultural practices that mitigate greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. Those practices can be applied to the most common organic dairy systems in northern Europe such as organic mixed crop-dairy systems. The following major points of mitigation options for animal production, crop production and grasslands are discussed. Animal production: the most promising options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the livestock management level involve either the improvement of animal production through dietary changes and genetic improvement or the reduction of the replacement rate. The control of the protein intake of animals is an effective means to reduce gaseous emissions of nitrogen, but it is difficult to implement in organic dairy farming systems. Considering the manure handling chain, mitigation options involve housing, storage and application. For housing, an increase in the amounts of straw used for bedding reduces NH3 emissions, while the limitation of CH4 emissions from deep litter is achieved by avoiding anaerobic conditions. During the storage of solid manure, composting could be an efficient mitigation option, depending on its management. Addition of straw to solid manure was shown to reduce CH4 and N2O emissions from the manure heaps. During the storage of liquid manure, emptying the slurry store before late spring is an efficient mitigation option to limit both CH4 and NH3 emissions. Addition of a wooden cover also reduces these emissions more efficiently than a natural surface crust alone, but may increase N2O emissions. Anaerobic digestion is the most promising way to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from storage and land spreading, without increasing NH3 emissions. At the application stage, NH3 emissions may be reduced by spreading manure during the coolest part of the day, incorporating it quickly and in narrow bands. Crop production: the mitigation options for crop production focus on limiting CO2 and N2O emissions. The introduction of perennial crops or temporary leys of longer duration are promising options to limit CO2 emissions by storing carbon in plants or soils. Reduced tillage or no tillage as well as the incorporation of crop residues also favour carbon sequestration in soils, but these practices may enhance N2O emissions. Besides, the improvement of crop N-use efficiency through effective management of manure and slurry, by growing catch crops or by delaying the ploughing of leys, is of prime importance to reduce N2O emissions. Grassland: concerning grassland and grazing management, permanent conversion from arable to grassland provides high soil carbon sequestration while increasing or decreasing the livestock density seems not to be an appropriate mitigation option. From the study of the multiple interrelations between gases and between farm compartments, the following mitigation options are advised for organic mixed crop-dairy systems: (1) actions for increasing energy efficiency or fuel savings because they are beneficial in any case, (2) techniques improving efficiency of N management at field and farm levels because they affect not only N2O and NH3 emissions, but also nitrate leaching, and (3) biogas production through anaerobic digestion of manure because it is a promising efficient method to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, even if the profitability of this expensive investment needs to be carefully studied. Finally, the way the farmer implements the mitigation options, i.e. his practices, will be a determining factor in the reduction of greenhouse gas and NH3 emissions.KeywordsAgricultureGreenhouse gasAmmoniaAbatementMixed crop-dairy systemsOrganicLivestockManureGrasslandCarbon storageSoil carbon sequestration