w2wclim13 – Page 2 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

*Abstract

Much of the greenhouse gases (GHG) generated from the poultry industry is primarily from feed production. The poultry producer does not have control over the production and distribution of the feed used on the farm. However, they can control other emissions that occur on the farm such as emissions from the utilization of fossil fuels and from manure management. A series of studies were conducted to evaluate on-farm greenhouse gas emissions from broiler, breeder and pullets houses in addition to an in-line commercial layer complex. Data was collected from distributed questionnaires and included; the activity data from the facility operations (in the form of fuel bills and electricity bills), house size and age, flock size, number of flocks per year, and manure management system. Emissions were calculated using GHG calculation tools and emission factors from IPCC. The carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions were computed and a carbon footprint was determined and expressed in tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

The results from the study showed that about 90% of the emissions from the broiler and pullet farms were from propane and diesel gas use, while only 6% of the total emissions from breeder farms were from propane and diesel gas use. On breeder farms, about 29% of GHG emissions were the result of electricity use while the pullet and broiler farms had only 3% emissions from electricity use. Emissions from manure management in the layer facility were responsible for 53% of the total emission from the facility, while electricity use represented 28% of the total emissions. The results from these studies identified the major sources of on-farm of GHG emissions. This will allow us to target these areas for abatement and mitigation strategies.

Why Study Greenhouse Gases on Poultry Farms?

Human activities, including modern agriculture, contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 1996). Agriculture has been reported to be responsible for 6.3% of the GHG emissions in the U.S., of this 53.5% were a result of animal agriculture. Of the emissions from animal agriculture, poultry was responsible for only 0.6%. Much of the CO₂e that is generated from the poultry industry is primarily from feed production, the utilization of fossil fuels and manure management (Pelletier, 2008; EWG, 2011). While the poultry producer does not have control over the production of the feed that is used on the farm, there are other GHG emissions that occur on the farm that are under their control. These emissions may be in the form of purchased electricity, propane used for heating houses and incineration of dead birds, diesel used in farm equipment which includes generators and emissions from manure management.

What Did We Do?

A series of studies were conducted to examine the GHG emissions from poultry production houses and involved the estimation of emissions from; broiler grow-out farms, pullet farms, breeder farms from one commercial egg complex. Data collection included the fuel and electricity bills from each farm, house size and age, flock size and number of flocks per year and manure management. The GHG emissions were evaluated using the IPCC spreadsheets with emission factors based on region and animal type. We separated the emissions based on their sources and determined that there were two main sources, 1. Mechanical and 2. Non-mechanical. After we determined the sources, we looked at what contributed to each source.

What Have We Learned?

When all GHG emissions from each type of operation was evaluated, the total for an average broiler house was approximately 847 tonnes CO₂e/year, the average breeder house emission was 102.56 tonnes CO₂e/year, pullet houses had a total emission of 487.67 tonnes CO₂e/year, and 4585.52 CO₂e/year from a 12 house laying facility. The results from this study showed that approximately 96% of the mechanical emissions from broiler and pullet houses were from propane (stationary combustion) use while less than 5% of these emissions from breeder houses were from propane use. The high emission from propane use in broiler and pullet houses is due to heating the houses during brooding and cold weather. Annual emissions from manure management showed that layer houses had higher emissions (139 tonnes CO₂e/year) when compared to breeder houses (65.3 tonnes CO₂e/year), broiler houses (59 tonnes CO₂e/year) and pullet houses (61.7tonnesCO₂e/year). Poultry reared in management systems with litter and using solid storage has relatively high N₂O emissions but low CH₄ emissions.We have learned that there is variability in the amount of emissions within each type of poultry production facility regardless of the age or structure of houses and as such reduction strategies will have to be tailored to suit each situation. We have also learned that the amount of emissions from each source (mechanical or non-mechanical) depends on the type of operation (broiler, pullet, breeder, or layer).

Future Plans

Abatement and Mitigation strategies will be assessed and a Poultry Carbon Footprint Calculation Tool is currently being developed by the team and will be made available to poultry producers to calculate their on-farm emissions. This tool will populate a report and make mitigation recommendations for each scenario presented. Best management practices (BMP) can result in improvements in energy use and will help to reduce the use of fossil fuel, specifically propane on the poultry farms thereby reducing GHG emissions, we will develop a set of BMP for the poultry producer.

Authors

Claudia. S. Dunkley, Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia; cdunkley@uga.edu

Brian. D. Fairchild, Casey. W. Ritz, Brian. H. Kiepper, and Michael. P. Lacy, Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Integrating Probable Fieldwork Days into Nutrient Management Plans from LPE Learning Center

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

In recent years, processing agricultural by-products to produce energy has become increasingly attractive due to several reasons: centralized availability of low cost by-products, avoiding the fuel vs. food debate, reduction of some associated environmental impacts, and added value that has the potential to generate additional income for producers. Anaerobic digestion systems are one waste-to-energy technology that has been proven to achieve these objectives. However, investigation on the impacts of anaerobic digestion has focused on defined segments, leaving little known about the impacts that take place across the lifecycle. Current systems within the U.S. are dairy centric with dairy manure as the most widely used substrate and electricity production as the almost sole source for biogas end use. Recently, there is more interest in exploring alternative feedstocks, co-digestion pathways, digestate processing, and biogas end uses. Different operational and design practices raise additional questions about the wide reaching impacts of these decisions in terms of economics, environment, and operational aspects, which cannot be answered with the current state of knowledge.

Why Study the Life Cycle of Anaerobic Digestion?

Waste management is a critical component for the economic and environmental sustainability of the agricultural sector. Common disposal methods include land application, which consumes large amounts of land resources, fossil energy, and produces significant atmospheric GHG emissions. Proof of this is that agriculture accounts for approximately 50% of the methane (CH₄) and 60% of the nitrous oxide (N₂O) global anthropogenic emissions, being livestock manure one of the major sources of these emissions (Smith et al., 2007). In the last decades, the development of anaerobic digestion (AD) systems has contributed to achieve both climate change mitigation and energy independence by utilizing agricultural wastes, such as livestock manure, to produce biogas. In addition, it has been claimed that these systems contribute to nutrient management strategies by adding flexibility to the final use and disposal of the remaining digestate. Despite these advantages, the implementation of AD systems has been slow, due to the high investment and maintenance costs. In addition, little is still known about the lifecycle impacts and fate and form of nutrients of specific AD systems, which would be useful to validate their advantages and identify strategic and feasible areas for improvement.

The main goal of this study is to quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions, ammonia emissions, net energy, and fate and form of nutrients of alternative dairy manure management systems including land-spread, solid-liquid separation, and anaerobic digestion. As cow manure is gaining an important role within the biofuel research in the pursuit for new and less controversial feedstocks, such as corn grain, the results of this study will provide useful information to researchers, dairy operators, and policy makers.

What Did We Do?

Lifecycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methods were used to conduct this research, which is focused in Wisconsin. The state has nearly 1.3 million dairy cows that produce approximately 4.7 million dry tons of manure annually and is the leading state for implemented agricultural based AD systems. Manure from a 1,000 milking cow farm (and related maintenance heifers and dry cows) was taken as the base-case scenario. Four main processes were analyzed using the software GaBi 5 (PE, 2012) for the base case: manure production and collection, bedding sand-separation, storage, and land application. Three different manure treatment pathways were compared to the base-case scenario: including a solid-liquid mechanical separator, including a plug-flow anaerobic digester, and including both the separator and the digester. The functional unit was defined as one kilogram of excreted manure since the function of the system is to dispose the waste generated by the herd. A cradle-to-farm-gate approach was defined, but since manure is considered waste, animal husbandry and cultivation processes were not included in the analysis (Fig. 1). Embedded and cumulative energy and GHG emissions associated with the production of material and energy inputs (i.e. sand bedding, diesel, electricity, etc.) were included in the system boundaries; however, the production of capital goods (i.e. machinery and buildings) were excluded.

Figure 1. System boundaries of the base case scenario (land-spread manure) and the three manure treatment pathways: 1) solid-liquid separation, 2) anaerobic digestion, 3) anaerobic digestion and solid-liquid separation.

Global warming potential (GWP) was characterized for a 100-year time horizon and measured in kg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂-eq). Characterization factors used for gases other than CO₂ were 298 kg CO₂-eq for N₂O, 25 kg CO₂-eq for abiotic CH₄ based on the CML 2001 method, and 24 kg CO₂-eq for biotic CH₄. CO₂ emissions from biomass are considered to be different from fossil fuel CO₂ emissions in this study; the former recycles existing carbon in the system, while the latter introduces new carbon into the atmosphere. In this context, it will be assumed that CO₂ emissions from biomass sources were already captured by the plant and will not be characterized towards GWP^{^[1]}. This logic was applied when characterizing biogenic methane as one CO₂ was already captured by the plant, therefore, reducing the characterization factor from 25 kg CO₂-eq to 24 kg CO₂-eq. Even though ammonia (NH₃) does not contribute directly to global warming potential, it is considered to be an indirect contributor to this impact category (IPCC, 2006).

Data was collected from different sources to develop lifecycle inventory (LCI) as specific to Wisconsin as possible, in order to maximize the reliability, completeness, and representativeness of the model. The following points summarize some of the data sources and assumptions used to construct the LCI:

Related research (Reinemann et al., 2010): This model provided data about animal husbandry and crop production for dairy diet in Wisconsin.
Manure management survey: The survey, sent to dairy farms in Wisconsin, has the objective of providing information related to manure management practices and their associated energy consumption.
In house experiments: laboratory experiments, conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, provided characterization data about manure flows before and after anaerobic digestion and solid-liquid separation and manure density in relation to total solids (Ozkaynak and Larson, 2012).
Material and energy databases: National Renewable Energy Laboratory U.S. LCI dataset (NREL, 2008), PE International Professional database (PE, 2012), and EcoInvent (EcoInvent Center, 2007), which are built into GaBi 5. The electricity matrix used in this LCA represents the mix of fuels that are part of the electric grid of Wisconsin.
Representative literature review.

Biotic emissions from manure have been cited to be very site specific (IPCC, 2006) and even though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides regional emission factors, they are only for CH₄ and N₂O. Specific GHG emission factors were developed for Wisconsin based on the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) (Rotz et al., 2011), and by using key parameters that affect emissions (e.g. temperature, volatile solids, manure management practices) for each stage of the manure management lifecycle.

What Have We Learned?

Emissions are produced from consumed energy and from manure during each stage of the manure management lifecycle. In the base-case scenario, manure storage is the major contributor to GHG emissions. In this scenario, a crust tends to form on top of stored manure due to the higher total solids content when compared to digested manure and the liquid fraction of the separated manure. The formation of this crust affects overall GHG emissions (e.g. crust formation will increase N₂O emissions but reduce CH₄ emissions). The installation of a digester reduces CH₄ emissions during storage due to the destruction of volatile solids that takes place during the digestion process. However, some of the organic nitrogen changes form to ammoniacal nitrogen, increasing ammonia and N₂O emissions posterior to storage and land application. Energy consumption increases with both anaerobic digester and separation, but net energy is higher with anaerobic digestion due to the production of on-farm electricity. The nutrient balance is mostly affected by the solid-liquid separation process rather than the anaerobic digestion process.

Future Plans

A comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the lifecycle environmental impacts of AD systems requires assessing the multiple pathways that are possible for the production of biogas, which are defined based on local resources, technology, and final uses of the resulting products. A second goal of this research is to quantify the net GHG and ammonia emissions, net energy gains, and fate of nutrients of multiple and potential biogas pathways that consider different: i) biomass feedstocks (e.g miscanthus and corn stover), ii) management practices and technology choices, and iii) uses of the produced biogas (e.g. compressed biogas for transportation and upgraded biogas for pipeline injection) and digestate (e.g. bedding). This comprehensive analysis is important to identify the most desirable pathways based on established priorities and to propose improvements to the currently available pathways.

Authors

Aguirre-Villegas Horacio Andres. Ph.D. candidate. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. aguirreville@wisc.edu

Larson Rebecca. Ph.D. Assistant Professor. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Additional Information

- Ozkaynak, A. and R.A. Larson. 2012. Nutrient Fate and Pathogen Assessment of Solid Liquid Separators Following Digestion. 2012 ASABE International Meeting, Dallas, Texas, August 2012

References

De Klein C., R. S.A. Novoa, S. Ogle, K. A. Smith, P. Rochette, T. C. Wirth, B. G. McConkey, A. Mosier, and K. Rypdal. 2006. Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

Ecoinvent Centre.2007. Ecoinvent Eata. v2.0. Ecoinvent Reports No.1-25. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2008. U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database.

Ozkaynak, A. and R.A. Larson. 2012. Nutrient Fate and Pathogen Assessment of Solid Liquid Separators Following Digestion. 2012 ASABE International Meeting, Dallas, Texas, August 2012

PE International. 2012. Software-systems and databases for lifecycle engineering.

Reinemann D. J., T.H. Passos-Fonseca, H.A. Aguirre-Villegas, S. Kraatz, F. Milani, L.E. Armentano, V. Cabrera, M. Watteau, and J. Norman. 2011. Energy intensity and environmental impact of integrated dairy and bio-energy systems in Wisconsin, The Greencheese Model.

Rotz, C. A., M. S. Corson, D. S. Chianese, F. Montes, S.D. Hafner, R. Jarvis, and C. U. Coiner. 2011. The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). Reference Manual Version 3.4. Accessed on Nov, 2012. Available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=8519

Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko. 2007: Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.