1. Nitrogen co-benefits and trade-offs of novel
CH4 mitigation measures applied on livestock
systems
Del Prado, A.1; Misselbrook T.2; Chadwick, D.R.2; Newbold C. J.3
Email:
agustin.delprado@bc3research.org
http://www.land-ghg.net/
BC3-Basque Centre For Climate Change (Spain)
Rothamstead Res., North Wyke (UK)
Institute of Rural Sciences, The University of Wales(UK)
Study funded by
(DEFRA-AC0209)

2. CONTEXT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12895166

3. GHG-FOOTPRINT MILK/MEAT: MAIN SOURCES (PRE-FARM)
energy Direct energy use: in farm, after farm
Indirect energy use: to produce things that go to farm
Main sources
The ruminant and the methane (CH4)
The waste and the methane (CH4)
waste
and other GHG (N2O)
soil The soil and the carbon (sink or emission)
The soil and the N2O

4. OTHER N LOSSES: NH3, N2, NOx, NO3 leaching
From interactions: climate, soil types and Waste & soil management
Climate,
Soil,
management

5. MEASURES TO MECHANISM TO DIRECT SIDE-EFFECTS
REDUCE CH4 REDUCE CH4 (POTENTIAL)
Allicin (AL) antimicrobial Animal: palatability-,production-
milk: nutritional-, organoleptic-
essential antimicrobial Animal: palatability-,production-
Oils (EO) milk: nutritional-
+ propionate and
HSG butyrate Animal: NUE+
+energy that does
not contribute to Animal: intake-, fibre digestib.-
naked methanogenesis milk: PUFA+, fat-
Oats
-crude
Protein +energy that does
(CP) not contribute to Animal: NUE+
+maize methanogenesis

6. STEPS FOR THE STUDY
• Define baseline scenarios for dairy, beef and sheep
• Run baseline scenarios for dairy, beef and sheep at the farm level
• Data collection from mitigation methods (experimentalists)
• Run mitigation scenarios for dairy, beef and sheep at the farm level
Experiments + literature
Changes in models
Del Prado&Scholefield (2008); Del Prado et al (2010
Brown et al (2005)

7. WHAT WAS MEASURED? (ANIMAL LEVEL)
CH4/animal Production and excreta
no effect
-10%
AL
-10%
-10%
dairy ?%
EO
Assumption: Beef = Sheep
HSG -20% no effect
-10% no effect
-20%
no effect
NAKED OATS
-CP/+MAIZE

8. WHAT WAS FROM LITERATURE & MODELLED?(ANIMAL,PLANT
AL
CH4/animal Production and excreta Plant
EO
modified per modified based on
Kg DM intake Miller et al., 2001 (DMintake +, CPplant-)
HSG
dairy models models models
NAKED OATS
-CP/+MAIZE

9. SYSTEM TYPE AND LOCATIONS FOR FARM MODELLING
Sector System county Location soil texture drainage class
dairy intensive/indoors Wiltshire Warminster sandy loam good
dairy medium Lancashire Lancaster loam moderate
dairy extended Leicestershire Leicester clay loam poor
beef lowland grazing-beef Devon Crediton loam moderate
sheep lowland grazing-sheep Devon Crediton loam moderate
beef upland grazing-beef Clwyd Llangollen loam moderate
sheep upland grazing-sheep Clwyd Llangollen loam moderate
Dairy is based on ryegrass (grazed&cut) + maize
Beef/sheep is based on raygrass/clover (grazed&cut)

10. MAIN ASSUMPTIONS FOR FARM MODELLING: DAIRY
1. Reseeding frequencyRyegrass= Reseeding frequencyHSG
dairy
1. Maize grown on-farm
2. The measure DOES NOT apply to Followers
dairy 3. CP intake was restricted by decreasing CP content in the
concentrates and increasing the maize intake
4. Forage maize was increased about 50% in extended and
medium dairy systems (not in fully housed, only concentrates)

11. MAIN ASSUMPTIONS FOR FARM MODELLING: OTHER
beef
Four scenarios were tested for HSG:
(1) HSG1
4-6 years old
<2 years old
( 2) HSG2
<2 years old
4-6 years old
(3) HSG3
4-6 years old
4-6 years old
(4) HSG4
4-6 years old 4-6 years old

12. RESULTS-DAIRY: % CHANGE IN LOSSES
How many years of mitigation before the emissions
due to land change/ grass renovation are
compensated (C payback time)? (Vellinga&Hoving,
2011)

13. DAIRY: % CHANGE IN GHG LOSSES FOR EACH SYSTEM

14. DAIRY: % CHANGE IN OTHER LOSSES FOR EACH SYSTEM

15. SHEEP SYSTEMS
TOTALS Allicin essential oil HSG1 HSG2 HSG3 HSG4
N2O kg N 0% 0% 21% 9% -4% 3%
NO kg N 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NH3 kg N 0% 0% 12% 2% -7% 2%
NO3 leaching kg N 0% 0% 7% 26% -1% -31%
CH4 kg CH4 -20% -10% -18% -18% -18% -18%
C storage kg C 0% 0% -100% -100% 0% 0%
GHG kg CO2 eq. -11% -6% -1% -6% -12% -9%
( 1) HSG1
4-6 years old >2 years old
( 2) HSG2
4-6 years old >2 years old
(3) HSG3
4-6 years old 4-6 years old
(4) HSG4
4-6 years old 4-6 years old

16. CONCLUSIONS
1. Overall GHG effectiveness depends on changes in
grassland renovation time and land use change
2. A shift towards more maize has associated - impact
on N2O, NO3 leaching and NH3 and may require
several years of C payback (if maize is changed from
long term grassland).
3. High sugar grasses (if renovation freq. time and
clover/grass composition remains the same) are
benefitial for all GHG and N losses.