greenhouse gas (ghg) and ammonia emissions from poultry ... · alimentation agriculture...

ALIMENTATION AGRICULTURE

ENVIRONNEMENT

Florianopolis, SC, 11-13 May 20101

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Ammonia Emissions from Poultry and Swine: Animal Houses and

Manure Stores, Measurements and Reduction

Paul Robin, Mélynda Hassouna

UMR SAS, INRA-Agrocampus Ouest

IX International Seminar on Poultry and SwineI Ecoagri Forum on Sustainable Food Production

Florianopolis, SC11-13 May 2010

Emissão de gases de Efeito Estufa (GEE) na produção deSuínos e Aves e em sistema de armazenamento de dejetos


ENVIRONNEMENT


Introduction

• acceleration was due to increased meat consumption

At global scale...

• meat production increased dramatically during last century

99 Mt244 Mt1970:2002:


ENVIRONNEMENT


Introductionpork

cow

poultry

broiler

meat consumption 1970-2007

consumption

production

pork meat 1985-2007

pork costs 1970-2007

minimum salary

cost of livestock house

inflation

meat price

feed price

1700

1300

1000

700

400

100

Similar increase in France

Source: ifip.asso.fr, itavi.asso.fr


ENVIRONNEMENT


• Changes in animal productionanimal selectiongenetic progressfeeding strategiesclimate control

increased farm sizeincreased stocking densityincreased regional concentration of animal farms

Introduction

Increased inputs of animal feed, Increased gas emissions and manure release per hectare of animal farm

Increased efficiency of animal feed (N,P), energy, work per kg meat produced; and better meat quality

decrease in recycling efficiency


ENVIRONNEMENT


Introduction

Green tides

eutrophication and biodiversity decreaseair quality (NH3, GHG, odors)

French areas with excessive

nitrogen in water

resources

In France concentration of animals in western regions + decrease in recycling efficiency induced:

French state was several times sentenced by EU

NO3-

25 mg/l

1971 - 2004

30 years monitoring on 180 plots with slurry inputs

soil degradation (P, Cu, Zn)

Source: eau-et-rivieres.asso.fr,Vertes, 2004


ENVIRONNEMENT


Previous evolution led to productive but polluting animal farming systems

Present evolution has to find a way toward an environment-friendly livestock production

Livestock houses, farming systems, non-food social needs, environmental (green) marketing can offer opportunities to improve manure recycling and avoid water, air, and soil pollution, and resource depletion

- which gaseous emissions should be reduced ?- when choosing a reduction technique, in which direction should the system change ?

Introduction


ENVIRONNEMENT


which gaseous emissions should be reduced ?

Introduction

ammonia (NH3) animal farms;

77%

other sources;

23%

methane (CH4)other sources;

21%animal farms;

79%

nitrous oxide (N2O) animal farms; 9,3%

other sources;

90,7%

emissions in France; CITEPA, 2009

CO2 and H2O are also greenhouse gases but are considered “biogenic”Uncertainty is large (e.g. 80% for NH3) due to the high variability between farms, and to local sinksEmission is already low on some farms => how to detect them?=> how to learn from them?

Need for more measurements


ENVIRONNEMENT


Population increase& needs for non food products

unchanged production systems« ecological footprint »

SocietyAnimals

Crops

Natural resources, mineral and organic,

flora & fauna,waters, soils, air, seas

Increased recycling,with ecological intensification

in which direction should the system change ?


ENVIRONNEMENT


Introduction

• in France environmental impacts on water, air, soils increased from 1970 => 2000

despite warning knowledge (since Coppenet, 1977)despite regulation evolution:

farm evolutions are controlled by state authorizations, after impact study; laws were integrated into a “Code of Environment”spreading manure is limited to 170 kg N/ha for water protection,P and metals should also be consideredammonia emission of big farms have to be declaredstate programs (PMPOA) and EU aids help farm evolutions (‘Cross-compliance’ links aids to farmers to their respect of environmental and other requirements set at EU and national levels)

despite conflicts:the association “water and rivers of Brittany” developped its activity since 1958 (http://www.eau-et-rivieres.asso.fr)frequency of conflicts between population and farmers increased



ENVIRONNEMENT


Introduction

long term strategies: transformation of ≈200’000 animal farms in France takes 1-2 decades proposed changes can be adopted and adapted by the farmers themselves, years after introduction, without decreasing sustainabilitysustainability improvements will be proposed by farmers if their personal efforts improve their economic income(less if they just have to conform to regulations…)on farm scale, emission reductions can be observed on a mass balance basis (around 50% of C in feed and 25% of excreted N are volatilised) and contribute to carbon sinksreuse efficiency increases with the number of reuses and with synchronization between input and use fluxes



ENVIRONNEMENT


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

21-sept-00 11-oct-00 31-oct-00 20-nov-00 10-déc-00

Prod

uctio

ns d

e ch

aleu

r tot

ale

(W/c

anar

d)

cailleb. CIGR 84 tot

cailleb. OBS tot

Emission measurements from animal houses and

manure stores


ENVIRONNEMENT


Existing methods

Principle: Concentration gradient (inside – outside) x ventilation• concentration measurement: continuous/discontinuous;

local/global; intrusive/not instrusive• ventilation measurement: air speed, tracing (tracer, heat, CO2 ),

reverse modelling

Examples:• Chamber method = local, intrusive, high detection level• Fan wheel anemometer = global, not intrusive, low cost• Reverse modelling (concentration measurements are outside

the source) = global, not intrusive, recording, high cost

Difficulties:• Heterogeneity of concentrations, multiple inlets-outlets of air,

temporal variability (climate, animals)

Emission measurements


ENVIRONNEMENT


Existing methods

Limits:• repeatability between labs (no intercalibration procedures, as it

is the case for commercial chemical analysis)=> need for standardization of methods, and intercalibation

• very few uncertainty estimates=> need to identify clearly the sources of errors and to standardize error calculations

• very few farms were observed compared to the number of animal houses and to their variability=> need for more representative sampling of farms

=> first proposition, available on a web site at end 2010:• standardization of measurements and uncertainty calculation • simplification of measurements for extensive application



ENVIRONNEMENT


Procedures:• Mass balance during manure storage (using weight or P tracing)

• Emission measurement using dynamic closed chamber• Emission measurement using SF6 tracing for manure storage • Emissions from livestock houses and manure stores using a model

calibrated with intermittent measurements of concentrations• Ventilation measurement in mechanically ventilated houses using air

speed measurements• Ventilation measurement using CO2 produced by animals• Ventilation measurement using heat produced by animals• Ventilation measurement using SF6 tracing

• Emission measurement using ventilation and concentration gradient• Emission measurement using reverse modelling

• Generate a predefined ammonia concentration and measure it with acid bubbling

• Uncertainty calculation applied to the measurements of gaseous emissions from animal houses and manure stores



ENVIRONNEMENT


Proposition of simplified measurements for extensive use on many farms:• Based on the mass balance of one animal flock, and on the measurement

of concentration gradients of CO2 , H2 O, NH3 , N2 O, CH4

• Protocols of air sampling – calculation – checking and control for meat poultry, laying hens, growing-finishing pigs, dairy cows

• Calculation in .xls datasheets and associated to a database

• Development of a bootable USB key containing all software (database, calculations, xls datasheets, documentation, standard procedures) based on Linux system, multilanguage, and opensource softwares

Objective:• from « Good Agricultural Practices » with assumed emission factors and

high uncertainties

• to « Approved Methodologies » with local observations: low-costs methods + models (time interpolation) + references (relevant categories)



ENVIRONNEMENT


• Equipment (all animal houses)– Air pump– 1 TEDLAR bag (8 L) for inside sampling– 1 TEDLAR bag (3,8 L) for outside sampling– Innova analyser (N2 O, CO2 , NH3 , CH4 , H2 O)– Thermo hygrometer

Simplified measurements for extensive use on many farms


ENVIRONNEMENT


Simplified measurements for extensive use on many farms

• protocol(adapted to house type and animal management)

e.g. broiler house1. Start innova analyser2. Outside sampling

- Rincing TEDLAR bag- Sampling outside

3. Analysis of TEDLAR bag4. Sampling inside house

- Rincing TEDLAR bag- Sampling inside

5. Analysis of TEDLAR bag6. Recommandation: between

2 inside sampling, rince the TEDLAR bag with an air at low concentration

7. Avoid temperature drop of TEDLAR bag

sasbuilding

drinking line

feeding line

outside sampling

inside sampling

LEGEND

2-3 per flock


ENVIRONNEMENT


Database with emission calculations suited for a large number ofanimal houses + mobile measuring equipment

National referencesFarm referencesLocal observations

AnimalsFeedLitterManureHousing

ofEmission estimates of CO2 , CH4 , NH3 , N2 O for laying hens, broilers, cows, growing pigs

Calculation scheme also in OpenOffice sheets; system+database+software+documentation on a GNU-licence, multi-language, USB key for further public and international development


Mass balance,Gas observations of CO2 , CH4 , NH3 , N2 O

Schools & R&D


ENVIRONNEMENT


Emission measurements and emission factors

in solid manure systems


ENVIRONNEMENT


Method comparison

⇒Measurements of gaseous emissions in commercial buildings(pig-on-litter systems):Contrasted stocking densityContrasted building insulation

Contrasted seasons (winter and summer)

⇒comparison of continuous/discontinuous methods


ENVIRONNEMENT


Method comparison

Gas concentrations : NH3 , N2 O, CO2 , CH4 , SF6

SF6 Air flow rate

Tracing with SF6 , or heat


ENVIRONNEMENT


Livestock building Experimental station Commercial buildingsYear of the measurements 2002 2002 2002 2003 2001

200220012002

2003

Duration (weeks) Winter Summer

1821

1421

2016

1414

13 13 13

Number of pigs Winter Summer

30 4035

3040

103106

3x23 3x23 3x23

Final weight (kg) Winter Summer

146143

117144

146110

115105

115 115 115

Measurement technique Simplified method Tracergas

Simplified method Tracer gas

Initial straw quantity (kg/pig) Winter Summer

1616

5816

1616

3030

10 10 10

Straw supply (kg/day.pig) Winter Summer

0,80.5

00.7

0,50.6

≈0,6≈0,6

≈0,6 ≈0,6 ≈0,6

Litter surface (m²/pig) Winter Summer

1,41.4

1,01.2

1,41.0

1,21.2

2,6 2,6 2,6

Method comparison


ENVIRONNEMENT


(A) growing period

0

50

100

150

200

250

27 29 31 33pig weight (kg.pig-1)

amm

onia

em

issi

on

(mg

N_N

H3 .h

-1.p

ig-1

) tracing

heat production

(B) finishing period

0

500

1000

1500

78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92pig weight (kg.pig-1)

amm

onia

em

issi

on

(mg

N_N

H 3.h

-1.p

ig-1

)

tracing

heat production

Emission estimates from tracing and heat production give similar values

Method comparison


ENVIRONNEMENT


Validation of the results

Water emission Carbon emission Nitrogen emission

Gaz H2O(kg H2O.pig-1)

CO2(kg C-CO2.pig-1)

CH4(kg C-CH4.pig-1)

NH3(kg N-NH3.pig-1)

N2O(kg N-N2O.pig-1)

Tracing 402 92 1,1 1,4 0,01

Heat production 391 84 1,0 1,3 0,01

Concentration ratios a 387 91 1,1 0,7 0,01a the water emission of 387 kg H2O.pig-1 is the deficit of the mass balance increased by 10% metabolic water produced,

the ratios of gas concentration to water vapor are used to calculate the other emissions

Method comparison


ENVIRONNEMENT


Commercial conditions

B1 Winter 2003 1,2 m²/p ig5,4 kg N-food + 0,4 kg N-straw/pig

N-pigs29%

NH3-N26%

N2-N 9%

N2O-N1%

N-manure35%

B2-R1 Summer 2002 2,6m²/pig4,5 kg N-food + 0,5 kg N-straw /pig

N-pigs29%

NH3-N10%

N2O-N5%

N-manure32%

N2-N 24%

B2-R1 Winter 2001 2,6m²/pig 4,5 kg N-food + 0,5 kg N-straw/pig

N-pigs29%

N2-N 40%

NH3-N3%

N2O-N3% N-manure

25%

B1 Summer 2003 1,2 m²/pig 5,4 kg N-food + 0,4 kg N straw/pig

N2-N 15%

N-manure25%

N2O-N1%

N-pigs33%

NH3-N26%

ITP-R1 Summer 2002 1,4 m²/pig 8,5 kg N-food + 0,4 kg N straw/pig

NH3-N26%

N-pigs33%

N2O-N1%

N-manure25%

N2-N 15%

ITP-R1 Winter 2002 1,4 m²/pig 8 kg N-food + 0,4 kg N straw/pig

N2-N 15%

N-manure25%

N2O-N1%

N-pigs33%

NH3-N26%

iTP-R2 Summer 2002 1,0 m²/pig 6 kg N-food + 0,4 kg N straw/pig

NH3-N26%

N-pigs33%

N2O-N1%

N-manure25%

N2-N 15%

ITP-R2 Winter 2002 1,4 m²/pig 9 kg N-food + 0,4 kg N straw/pig

N2-N 15%

N-manure25%

N2O-N1%

N-pigs33%

NH3-N26%

Solid manure: high variability of emissions


ENVIRONNEMENT


A specific classification of animal houses should be developed to improve Emission Factor estimates

Pollution control: Gas emissions : measuring, modellingHypothesis: combined Effects explain high variability

for pig-on-litter reared for at least 10 weeks, 1,2m²/pig, 50-80kglitter/pig, no turning, normal management (% excreted N): EF(NH3) = 20%; EF(N2O) = 8%; EF(Nloss) = 64%

NH3 = 0,20 . 17/14 . Nexcret . EAnimalDensity . EMaintenance . ESubstrateAmountN2O = 0,08 . 44/28 . Nexcret . ELitterType . EAnimalDensity . EMaintenance . ESubstrateAmount . EmixingNLoss = 0,64 . Nexcret . ELitterType . EAnimalDensity . EMaintenance . ESubstrateAmount . EMixing

Gas Variation Factors

Litter type Animal density(m²/pig) Management Substrate amount

(kg/pig) Turning

straw sawdust 1 2 careful careless > 100 < 30 frequentNH3 1 1 1.1 0.5 0.8 2 0.8 1.2 1N2O 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 2NLoss 0.88 1.13 1 1.1 1.1 1 0.9 1 1.1

explore existing variability of emissions


ENVIRONNEMENT


Variability of NH3 emission during composting

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A N--C D N++C-

NH

3-N

em

itted

(g k

g-1 T

N h

-1)

time (d)

C N-C

B N-C

E NC F N+C-

H N+CG NC+

•more manure => shorter response time

• more available N => longer emission

•more biodegradable C => lower amplitude


ENVIRONNEMENT


Model of potential NH3 & CO2 emission during heap composting of animal manure

NH3 -N emitted at 56 d = 16,38 SN –

0,903 SHVS + 643,7(N=8; P<0,05

; R2= 0,82)

CO2 -C emitted at 28 d = 0,683 SHVS -58,92(N=8; P<0,01

; R2= 0,84)

with NH 3-N expressed in g kg -1 TN, CO2 -C in g kg -1 TC, SN and SHVS ing.kg -1 DM.

• SN: Soluble Nitrogen• SHVS : Soluble + Hemicellulose-like

fractions from the Van Soest analysis• Wc: Water content• DMd: Dry Matter density 0

20406080

100 Available N (%)

Oxygen;porosity (%)

Biodegradable C (%)

Water content (%)

pig slurry

compost

wheat straw

(Paillat et al., 2005; 2010)

J.M. Paillat, 2009


ENVIRONNEMENT


Emission reduction and recycling improvement in liquid manure systems

Ji-Qin NI, 2008


ENVIRONNEMENT


Concept associate a priori complementary productions water = vector of nutrients between productions

2 : screening = physical treatment

4 : lagooning (macrophytes)= high plant yields

1 : animals

flushingfresh slurry

3 : vermifiltration (saprophytes)= production of organic matter

Recycle water biomonitors


ENVIRONNEMENT


Experimental setup

macrophytesSlSampling points Sl

50 times less area than spreading 170 kg N/ha

lagoons (L) & wetlands(FP)

L1FP2

L3FP4

L5Storage lagoonvariable water level

4-5 m3/day

raw effluent

Sp30 sows

flushing

sowshousefeed

boue

s

Settling tank

D0

vermi- compost

spreading + maturation (vermifiltration) (vermicomposting)

worms

effluent lombrifiltré

Sl

screen

screened effluent

St

Solid refuse

faeces


ENVIRONNEMENT


Pollution control: Ecological intensification at farm scale carbone (g C - DCO / L)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Flus

h

Pork

hous

e

Siev

e

Verm

ifiltr

e

Lago

onin

g

1st Lf

2nd Lf

Nitrogen (mg N / L)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Flus

h

Pork

hou

se

Siev

e

Verm

ifiltr

e

Lago

onin

g

1st Lf

2nd Lf

Phosphorus (mg P / L)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Flus

h

Pork

hou

se

Siev

e

Verm

ifiltr

e

Lago

onin

g

1st Lf

2nd Lf

Potassium (mg K / L)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Flus

h

Pork

hou

se

Siev

e

Verm

ifiltr

e

Lago

onin

g

1st Lf

2nd Lf

• Combination of plants & organic matter induce removal of various nutrients (C,N,P,K).

• The unused nutrients are not lost in the environment, but recycled toward the pork house, until they are removed with the produced solids

Gestating sows

Growing pigs


ENVIRONNEMENT


summer 2008

0

100

200

300

400

500

Sp St Sl P0 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

N (m

g/L)

autumn 2008

0

100

200

300

400

500


spring 2009

0

100

200

300

400

500


summer 2009

0

100

200

300

400

500


summer 2008 autumn 2008 spring 2009 summer 2009

0

50

100

150

200


Nitr

ogen

0

50

100

150

200


50

100

150

200


50

100

150

200


P (m

g/L)

Pho

spho

rus

Pot

assi

um

0

200

400

600

800


K (m

g/L)

0

200

400

600

800


200

400

600

800


200

400

600

800


Recycling manure from animal houses (2/2) High recycling efficiency induces a change in stoechiometry (here: N/P/K),compared to an ecosystem, when inputs and outputs are balanced

Nitrogen removal through organic storage and early denitrification

Phosphorus removal through organic storage in all compartments

Potassium removal through organic storage when high concentrations are reached

K>>P>>N


ENVIRONNEMENT


23314350

319

265

16

136108

151

116

524955

9664

46 36

640

504

384 362 332 324262 244

186

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


points d'échantillonnage

conc

entr

atio

n (m

g L

-1)

NPK

Sp L5FP4L3FP2L1D0SlSt

sampling points

Recycling elementsoutputs

N2 & organic matteroutputs

organic matter & plants

input=output when stoechiometry

K >> P > N


ENVIRONNEMENT


Consequences• Recycling improves the efficiency of inputs (more productions

per kg input)

• Combining organic matter and macrophyte productions reduce the are necessary for recycling,protects the surrounding environment (less leakages)

• When equilibrium is reached, proportions between elements (C, N, P, K) are necessary different from the proportions in natural ecosystems; design should consider all inputs

• Increased exportation of organic matter between producers and users, either in food or non-food production,

require the clarification of specifications and an improved logistics (cf. feed logistics)


ENVIRONNEMENT


Conclusion:from local management to

global results


ENVIRONNEMENT


• Development of methods and practical tools suited for emission measurement in a large number of animal houses

• Prototype of a farming system that increases the efficiency of inputs, reduces the area for manure recycling, and increases the number of recycled elements => change in stoechiometry of products

• Challenges:

→

develop the marketing of environment-friendly products, based on traceability of input efficiency (area, water, feed, energy) and certification of reduced polluting emissions

→

link this research with rapid characterization of effluents (e.g. NIRS), and with organic matter stabilization, in manures, soils, or artifical soils, and its consequences on fertility, biodiversity, carbon sink

Conclusions

greenhouse gas (ghg) and ammonia emissions from poultry ... · alimentation agriculture...

Documents