IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v148y2016icp28-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of winter feeding systems on farm greenhouse gas emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Alemu, A.W.
  • Doce, R.R.
  • Dick, A.C.
  • Basarab, J.A.
  • Kröbel, R.
  • Haugen-Kozyra, K.
  • Baron, V.S.

Abstract

Overwintering beef cows is a major cost in Canadian cow-calf production systems and swath grazing is a potential alternative to reduce winter feeding cost relative to the traditional drylot feeding systems. The objective was to estimate and compare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from winter feeding systems: i) swath grazing on triticale, ii) swath grazing on corn, and iii) conventional drylot feeding systems (control). Data were obtained from a study conducted over three production cycles (2008/2009, 2009/2010, 2010/2011) at the Lacombe Research Center in western Canada. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated by calculating methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from different sources using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2 approach. Methane emissions were estimated from enteric fermentation and manure, N2O emissions from fertilization and manure, and CO2 emissions from energy use for farm activities related to feed production and processing, feed and bedding delivery and manure removal. Total emission expressed per kg of feed produced and fed were significantly (P<0.001) lower for both the swath grazing treatments relative to the control treatment. Emissions per cow varied among treatments (P<0.001), higher for control (12.3kg CO2e cow-d−1) than corn (9.4kg CO2e cow-d−1), with triticale (11.0kg CO2e cow-d−1) intermediate. In all the treatments, the largest fraction of emissions was enteric CH4 (69–76%), followed by N2O (14–24%). The contribution of energy-derived CO2 emissions for total GHG emissions was lower in swath grazing treatments (5–7%) compared to a traditional feeding system (11%) due to their minimal energy use. Farm activity related energy use was 9.4, 11.5 and 21.4MJ cow-d−1 for triticale, corn and conventional drylot feeding, respectively. This study indicated that swath grazing on triticale or corn can be an effective alternative winter feeding systems to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy use efficiency of Canadian beef cattle industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Alemu, A.W. & Doce, R.R. & Dick, A.C. & Basarab, J.A. & Kröbel, R. & Haugen-Kozyra, K. & Baron, V.S., 2016. "Effect of winter feeding systems on farm greenhouse gas emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 28-37.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:148:y:2016:i:c:p:28-37
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.06.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16302876
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.06.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beauchemin, Karen A. & Henry Janzen, H. & Little, Shannan M. & McAllister, Tim A. & McGinn, Sean M., 2010. "Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 371-379, July.
    2. Bonny, Sylvie, 1993. "Is agriculture using more and more energy? A French case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 51-66.
    3. Solano, C. & Bernues, A. & Rojas, F. & Joaquin, N. & Fernandez, W. & Herrero, M., 2000. "Relationships between management intensity and structural and social variables in dairy and dual-purpose systems in Santa Cruz, Bolivia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 159-177, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Amiro, Brian D. & Bittman, Shabtai & MacDonald, Douglas & Ominski, Kim H., 2017. "Greenhouse gas emission of Canadian cow-calf operations: A whole-farm assessment of 295 farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-83.
    2. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Legesse, Getahun & de Souza, Danielle Maia & Iravani, Majid & Selin, Carrie & Byrne, James & McAllister, Tim A., 2018. "Beef production and ecosystem services in Canada’s prairie provinces: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 152-172.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Refsgaard, Karen & Halberg, Niels & Kristensen, Erik Steen, 1998. "Energy utilization in crop and dairy production in organic and conventional livestock production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 599-630, August.
    2. Pervanchon, F. & Bockstaller, C. & Girardin, P., 2002. "Assessment of energy use in arable farming systems by means of an agro-ecological indicator: the energy indicator," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 149-172, May.
    3. Zaman, Khalid & Khan, Muhammad Mushtaq & Ahmad, Mehboob & Rustam, Rabiah, 2012. "The relationship between agricultural technology and energy demand in Pakistan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 268-279.
    4. Barut, Zeliha Bereket & Ertekin, Can & Karaagac, Hasan Ali, 2011. "Tillage effects on energy use for corn silage in Mediterranean Coastal of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 5466-5475.
    5. Alluvione, Francesco & Moretti, Barbara & Sacco, Dario & Grignani, Carlo, 2011. "EUE (energy use efficiency) of cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 4468-4481.
    6. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    7. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Dakpo, K Hervé & Lansink, Alfons Oude, 2019. "Dynamic pollution-adjusted inefficiency under the by-production of bad outputs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 202-211.
    10. María I. Nieto & Olivia Barrantes & Liliana Privitello & Ramón Reiné, 2018. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Dyer, James A & Verge, Xavier P. C. & Desjardins, Raymond L. & Worth, Devon E., 2014. "A Comparison of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Sheep Industry With Beef Production in Canada," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(3).
    12. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Amiro, Brian D. & Bittman, Shabtai & MacDonald, Douglas & Ominski, Kim H., 2017. "Greenhouse gas emission of Canadian cow-calf operations: A whole-farm assessment of 295 farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-83.
    13. Hafeez, Mohsin & Bundschuh, Jochen & Mushtaq, Shahbaz, 2014. "Exploring synergies and tradeoffs: Energy, water, and economic implications of water reuse in rice-based irrigation systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 889-900.
    14. Jessica Gilreath & Tryon Wickersham & Jason Sawyer, 2022. "Comparison of Methodologies Used to Estimate Enteric Methane Emissions and Warming Impact from 1920 to 2020 for U.S. Beef Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Janzen, Henry & Little, Shannan & Hao, Xiying & Thompson, Donald J. & Baron, Vern & Iwaasa, Alan & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Kröbel, Roland, 2017. "Assessment of grazing management on farm greenhouse gas intensity of beef production systems in the Canadian Prairies using life cycle assessment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-13.
    16. Boaitey, Albert & Goddard, Ellen & Mohapatra, Sandeep, 2019. "Environmentally friendly breeding, spatial heterogeneity and effective carbon offset design in beef cattle," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 35-45.
    17. Wood, Richard & Lenzen, Manfred & Dey, Christopher & Lundie, Sven, 2006. "A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 324-348, September.
    18. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    19. Hünerberg, Martin & Little, Shannan M. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & McGinn, Sean M. & O’Connor, Don & Okine, Erasmus K. & Harstad, Odd M. & Kröbel, Roland & McAllister, Tim A., 2014. "Feeding high concentrations of corn dried distillers’ grains decreases methane, but increases nitrous oxide emissions from beef cattle production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 19-27.
    20. Tanure, Soraya & Nabinger, Carlos & Becker, João Luiz, 2013. "Bioeconomic model of decision support system for farm management. Part I: Systemic conceptual modeling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 104-116.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:148:y:2016:i:c:p:28-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.