Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5070 - Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions From Animal Operations - 2
5070 - Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions From Animal Operations - 2
© 2013 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2013.91:5070–5094
doi:10.2527/jas2013-6584
1This article is part of a series of articles examining methane and INTRODUCTION
nitrous oxide mitigation practices for livestock operations. The article
is derived in part from a published review of mitigation options for Climate change associated with emissions of green-
the livestock sector funded by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations (Hristov et al., 2013b), with the consent
house gases (GHG) resulting from human activities is
of FAO. The views expressed in this information product are those of noted as the defining human development issue cur-
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. rently (UNDP, 2008). Through the production of feed,
The authors would like to thank the experts who reviewed the original
FAO report (in alphabetic order): M. Doreau, R. Eckard, D. Hongmin,
growth of productive animals and the supporting herd,
T. McAllister, H. Montgomery, M. Powell, S. Sommer, and M. Tibbo. and the disposal of animal waste, livestock produc-
2Corresponding author: anh13@psu.edu
tion contributes 8 to 18% (depending on the estimation
Received April 12, 2013. method used) of global GHG emissions (O’Mara, 2011)
Accepted August 18, 2013.
5070
Manure greenhouse gas mitigation 5071
and emissions from animal agriculture are expected to in- storage, processing, and application to cropland as well as
crease 17% by the year 2020 (USEPA, 2006). Significant deposition in pastures and rangelands in grazing systems.
reduction of GHG emissions can be achieved through in- Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions. In rumi-
tensification of animal production and improved produc- nant production systems, enteric CH4 production is the
tion technologies in less developed countries and the use largest contributor to GHG emissions followed by CH4
of novel mitigation practices in modern production sys- from manure and in beef feedlot systems, N2O from pen
tems (Smith et al., 2007; O’Mara, 2011). surface, and N2O emissions from soils. Emissions from
This article reviews the direct effect of animal ma- nonruminant livestock systems are less than that of ru-
nure mitigation practices on emissions of the major non– minants and are mostly CH4 and N2O from manure stor-
carbon dioxide (non-CO2) GHG, methane (CH4) and age and land application (Hristov et al., 2013b).
nitrous oxide (N2O), focusing on experimental and field The contribution of manure management to global
evaluation data and excluding for the most part model- GHG emission was estimated by Steinfeld et al. (2006)
Losses of N2O from the pen surface of open-lot dairy fect of mitigation practices and their interactions within
or beef feedlot facilities, however, can be significant. The the livestock production system.
fact that a large amount, up to 50%, of the excreted N Due to the nature of the antagonistic processes re-
by beef cattle is not recovered in manure has been well sulting in CH4 and N2O emissions (CH4 is produced
documented for various geographic locations (Loh et al., under anaerobic conditions whereas production of N2O
2008; Cole and Todd, 2009). Most of these losses are as requires sufficient levels of oxygen), some practices that
ammonia (NH3), but N2O emissions are also significant result in the reduction of CH4 production increase N2O
(Leytem et al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2013) and depend on emissions. An example is the aeration of manure during
a variety of factors, including surface conditions (Aguilar storage to reduce CH4 emissions. This process may in-
et al., 2011). Manure management practices in beef feed- crease N2O emissions when aeration rate is sufficient to
lots vary, but usually pens are cleaned when animals are create an aerobic environment.
marketed (i.e., several times a year) or once a year (Egh- Opportunities to reduce N2O and CH4 emissions from
mosphere can form particulate matter that may return to from beef cattle feedlots with long term exposure were
soil through dry or wet deposition. This deposition can even greater, reaching 50% (Cole and Todd, 2009).
harm sensitive ecosystems and contribute to N runoff The relationship between manure NH3 volatiliza-
and groundwater pollution and be converted into N2O tion and N2O emission is also complex because 1)
through denitrification (Galloway et al., 2004; USEPA, emissions of both may be reduced by diet manipu-
2010; Hristov et al., 2013b). lation or manure management and 2) if a mitigation
Ammonia volatilization is generally the largest technology reduces NH3 losses, the preserved NH4+
pathway of loss for manure N (Harper et al., 2004; Lee may later increase soil N2O emissions (Petersen and
et al., 2011a), with losses typically accounting for 30 Sommer, 2011). On the other hand, gaseous losses of
to 70% of the NH4+ content of cattle manure (Thomp- N will reduce the availability of N for nitrification and
son and Meisinger, 2002). Nitrogen emissions can also denitrification processes and, consequently, N2O for-
be in the form of N2 (Harper et al., 2004) but losses mation (USEPA, 2010). Therefore, NH3 emission is
as N2 have not been well quantified. Thompson et al. considered an important component of the analysis of
(1987) estimated that 2 to 12% of applied manure in N2O mitigation practices presented in this review.
English grassland was lost to denitrification (N2 +N20)
with surface application and 7 to 21% was lost with ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AND HOUSING
injection of manure. The portion of manure N lost as
N2O is relatively low, generally below 2 to 3%, and Animal Housing. Structures used to house livestock
only in a few reports has it reached 10% (de Klein et do not directly affect the processes resulting in N2O and
al., 2001). Based on a N mass balance approach, Hris- CH4 emissions; however, the type of structure used de-
tov et al. (2011b) estimated that more than 25% of the termines the manure management methods used to han-
feed N input on a dairy farm was not accounted for in dle, store, process, and use the manure. Housing systems
milk and manure after 24 h following excretion and with solid floors that use hay or straw for bedding ac-
this was mostly attributed to NH3 volatilization; losses cumulate manure with higher DM, which is commonly
5074 Montes et al.
stored in piles creating conditions conducive for nitrifi- and reducing the production of N2O. Hassouna et al. (2010)
cation and denitrification and thus greater N2O emission. studied gaseous emissions from cattle housing in France
Külling et al. (2001, 2003) compared liquid manure with and found higher N2O emissions in buildings with straw-
stacked manure handling systems, and their results indi- based bedding and solid manure handling systems when
cate that farm yard manure and deep litter manure han- compared with liquid manure handling systems. Nitrous
dling systems tend to produce greater N2O emissions oxide emissions were detected in only 2 of the 14 liquid
than slurry-based systems. In these studies, quantitative manure systems studied. The same study found smaller
differences in N2O emissions from the manure han- differences between CH4 emissions from buildings using
dling systems were difficult to determine because pro- straw-based solid manure or liquid manure systems and
tein content in the diet and NH3 emission from manure attributed this result to the difficulty in discerning enteric
also varied. Greater CH4 emissions were reported from CH4 emissions from manure emissions because the former
farm yard manure followed by liquid slurry and deep produced most of the CH4 emitted from the buildings.
litter manure. Amon et al. (2001) compared composted, Hristov et al. (2012) investigated the effect of manure
anaerobically stacked, and slurry-based manure and management on barn floor NH3, CH4, N2O, and CO2
found higher NH3 emissions in composted manure with emissions from 12 commercial dairy farms in Pennsylva-
most of the losses occurring after manure was turned nia. Dairies participating in the study had flush (manure
during aeration. These authors found much greater N2O was flushed twice daily), 2 types of scrape (manure was
and CH4 emissions from anaerobically stacked manure scraped daily), and gravity-flow (manure was accumulat-
with no significant difference between slurry-based and ed under the building and removed several times during
straw-based manure systems. the year) manure systems. Barn floor NH3 emissions were
Housing systems with slatted floors accumulate ma- considerably lower for the flush manure systems (aver-
nure in liquid or slurry form with that manure stored for age of 167 mg/m2 per h) and highest for the gravity-flow
longer periods of time increasing the production of CH4 system (426 mg/m2 per h). Methane emissions were also
Manure greenhouse gas mitigation 5075
lowest for the flush (37 mg/m2 per h) and much higher the route of N excretion (i.e., feces vs. urine) in most
for the gravity-flow system (1,216 mg/m2 per h). Carbon farm animals (Hristov et al., 2013b). Studies with 15N-
dioxide emissions were not different among manure sys- labeled urine or feces have demonstrated that urinary N
tems (ranging from about 2,000 to 7,000 mg/m2 per h), is the primary source of NH4+ in cattle manure, contrib-
and N2O emissions were negligible in all systems. This uting from 88 to 97% of the NH3 emitted within the first
study showed that NH3, and particularly CH4, emissions 10 d of manure storage (Fig. 3; Lee et al., 2011a).
from manure are much greater from dairy barns where With urine being the main source of volatile N emis-
manure is stored for prolonged periods of time compared sions, manipulating the route of N excretion becomes
with barns where manure is removed daily. an important N2O and NH3 mitigation tool. Urea is the
In contrast to ruminants, housing plays a more im- main nitrogenous constituent of ruminant urine. In the
portant role on GHG mitigation in nonruminant livestock urine of high-producing dairy cows, urea N represents
production systems because most of the emission in these 60 to 80% or more of total urinary N (Reynal and Brod-
Table 1. Manure handling strategies offering non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities
Potential CH4 Potential N2O mitigating Potential NH3
Category Species1 mitigating effect2 effect2 mitigating effect2 Effective3 Recommended4
Dietary strategies
Reduced dietary protein AS ?5,6 Medium High Yes (N2O and NH3) Yes (N2O and NH3)
High fiber diets SW Low High ? Yes (N2O) Yes (N2O)
Grazing management
Grazing intensity7 AR ? High?7 ?7 Yes (N2O) Yes (N2O)
Housing
Biofiltration AS Low? ? High Yes (NH3 and CH4?) Yes (NH3 and CH4?)
Manure system8 DC, BC and SW High ? High Yes (CH4 and NH3) Yes (CH4 and NH3)
Manure treatment
Anaerobic digestion DC, BC and SW High High9 Increase?10 Yes (CH4 and N2O) Yes (CH4 and N2O)
land may increase immediately following soil application Reduced protein N in the animal diet produces ma-
(or during storage) due to the use of a greater application nure with a slower N mineralization rate that releases
rate for low- vs. high-protein manure to meet the crops N less plant-available N (Powell and Broderick, 2011).
requirements (Lee et al., 2012b). Therefore, changes in manure application rate recom-
Feeding and management can significantly affect N mendations are needed to reflect N cycling from modi-
excretions and volatilization losses from beef feedlots. fied diets. At equal N application rates, whole-crop bar-
Phase feeding is one example of an effective mitigation ley yield was not different between manures from dairy
practice for these types of production systems. Reduc- cows fed high- (16.8) or low-crude protein (14.8%)
ing dietary protein concentration during the produc- diets (Lee et al., 2013). To minimize N2O production
tion cycle to better meet the requirements of the animal in all cases, manure application rates should be coor-
can significantly lower N excretions (Cole et al., 2005, dinated with the amount of mineral fertilizer applied,
2006; Vasconcelos et al., 2007) and consequently losses and consideration should be given to application tim-
from the pen surface. Erickson and Klopfenstein (2010) ing and method to prevent N application in excess of
reported 12 to 21% lower N excretion and 15 to 33% plant requirements.
lower N volatilization losses of phase-fed cattle. Manure Low-protein diets must be formulated to meet or
management can also have a significant impact on N exceed the animal’s energy, metabolizable protein, and
losses. Pen cleaning frequency, for example, decreased AA requirements if feed intake and animal performance
N volatilization losses by 19 to 44% and increased ma- are to be maintained (Lee et al., 2011b). Diets severely
nure N by 26 to 41% (Erickson and Klopfenstein, 2010). deficient in RDP will reduce total tract fiber digestibil-
ity in ruminants, which may negatively affect DMI and
animal performance (Mertens, 1994; Lee et al., 2011b;
Aschemann et al., 2012). A meta-analysis by Nousiainen
et al. (2009) and Huhtanen et al. (2009) showed that diet
CP was the only dietary factor (of the factors studied in
that analysis) that was positively related to NDF digest-
ibility in dairy cows. Decreased ruminal degradability
of fiber will increase excretion of fermentable OM in
manure, which might increase manure CH4 emissions
although the latter effect has not been consistently re-
ported (Hindrichsen et al., 2005). On the other hand,
these effects may be counteracted by reduced enteric
CH4 production because fiber degradability in the ru-
men will decrease. Diets severely deficient in RDP will
Figure 3. Proportion of ammonia N emitted from manure originating have a negative impact on microbial protein synthesis
from fecal N and urinary N. In this experiment feces or urine were labeled
with 15N through a continuous infusion of 15NH4Cl into the rumen of
and animal productivity and therefore must not be rec-
lactating dairy cows (from Lee et al., 2011a). ommended as a mitigation practice.
5078 Montes et al.
Feed intake depression with protein- and AA-de- from cows fed tanniferous forage (although the effect in
ficient diets has also been demonstrated with pigs and the latter study was confounded by the CP content of the
poultry (Henry, 1985; Picard et al., 1993) and must be diets). Grainger et al. (2009) observed a 45 to 59% reduc-
avoided to maintain efficient animal production. Supple- tion in urinary N excretion (as percent of N intake) with
mentation of low-protein diets with synthetic AA may condensed tannins but also a 22 to 30% drop in milk N se-
alleviate undesirable effects on feed intake. Growing cretion. Similarly, Aguerre et al. (2010) observed a linear
swine fed a 14% CP diet containing supplemental lysine decrease in urinary N excretion (vs. a linear increase in
(0.73% Lys) had intake and growth performance similar fecal N excretion) in high-producing dairy cows fed diets
to swine fed a 16% protein diet (0.77% Lys; Baker et al., supplemented with 0 to 1.8% (DM basis) of a quebracho
1975). Analogous results were reported by Yen and Veum tannin extract. Ammonia emission from slurry from cows
(1982) who observed feed intake and ADG for growing receiving the tannin-supplemented diets was 8 to 49%
swine fed a protein deficient (13% CP) diet supplement- lower than emissions from the control slurry. Tannins also
which can have a negative impact on urinary N excre- emissions by reducing NH4+ deposition and consequent
tion and thus NH3 and N2O emissions. conversion to N2O (see earlier discussion).
Nitrous oxide emissions can be particularly high in Ammonia removal efficiency in swine and poultry
intensive pasture systems due to high N concentration houses from acid scrubbers and biotrickling filters (based
in urine as a result of the high CP content of pasture (22 on biofilms that degrade the odorous compounds) aver-
to 28% CP, DM basis, in New Zealand, for example), aged 96 and 70%, respectively (Melse and Ogink, 2005).
and there are many reports on the relationship between Shah et al. (2011) investigated the effectiveness of a cou-
the placement and chemical composition of urine and pled biofilter–heat exchanger in reducing NH3 emissions
soil nitrification and denitrification processes. Eckard (and recover heat) in a broiler house. The biofilter was
et al. (2010) pointed out that the effective N application effective in treating very high inlet NH3 concentrations
rate within a urine patch from a dairy cow on pasture (>96 mg/kg) with removal efficiencies greater than 79%
is between 800 and 1,300 kg N/ha, and N is deposited for empty bed residence times ranging from 4.3 to 29.1 s.
solubility and biodegradability of CH4 hinders effec- trial eutrophication categories because they had the low-
tiveness (Melse and Verdoes, 2005). Melse and Timmer- est NH3 emissions. Manure incineration combined with
man (2009) reported on the potential use of multipollut- liquid and solid separation and drying of the solids was a
ant scrubbers, combining acid scrubbers, biofilters, and promising management option yielding a high potential
water curtains to reduce not only NH3, odors, and GHG energy utilization rate and GHG reduction.
but also particulate matter from animal housing exhaust. Storage Covers. Several types of manure storage
covers have been reported in the literature including
MANURE STORAGE AND TREATMENT natural crusts on slurry manure stored with a high solids
content, straw, wood chips, oil layers, expanded clay pel-
Greenhouse gas emissions from stored manure are lets, wood, and semipermeable and sealed plastic covers.
primarily in the form of CH4 (due to anaerobic condi- The effectiveness of the cover depends on many factors,
tions) although N2O emissions can occur and NH3 vola- including permeability, cover thickness, degradability,
manure. In addition, when correctly operated, anaerobic Commercial farm digesters are typically designed
digesters are a source of renewable energy in the form to treat liquid manures. There are 4 basic commercial
of biogas, which is 60 to 80% CH4, depending on the farm-level anaerobic digestion vessel designs (Roos et al.,
substrate and operation conditions (Roos et al., 2004). 2004). The most common and simple covered lagoon di-
Anaerobic digesters also provide opportunities to reduce gestion systems are ambient (psychrophilic) temperature
pathogens and manure odor. systems that require manure with a solid content of 3% or
Three practical temperature ranges are generally less and a storage cover to maintain anaerobic conditions.
considered for anaerobic biogas systems: psychrophil- These systems typically create the largest type of digester
ic (15 to 25°C), mesophilic (30 to 38°C), and thermo- with the longest hydraulic retention time. Plug-flow di-
philic (50 to 60°C). These temperature ranges facilitate gesters and fixed domes use a vessel that receives manure
the growth of specific microbes. Thermophilic systems at one end and discharges from the opposite end with no
are more sensitive to environmental changes, such as mixing or agitation. These systems may be heated to a
In a follow-up report, Börjesson and Berglund Although it is possible to reduce CH4 emissions by over
(2007) further explored overall environmental impact 60% from swine manure using anaerobic digestion, the
when biogas systems replaced various energy produc- amount of CH4 produced and collected does not directly
ing reference systems. The investigation was based on translate into an equal amount of reduced CH4 emissions
Swedish conditions using an LCA approach that consid- because the untreated manure would not yield the same
ered both direct and indirect emissions. Greenhouse gas amount of CH4 gas. Most literature reviewed focused on
emissions per unit of heat were reduced 10 to 25% when research that compared digested manure with manures
biogas-based heat replaced fossil fuel-based heat. Emis- that received no treatment or a different treatment. In
sions from biogas systems contributed 60 to 75% and 25 this manner, the biogas removed was not considered
to 40% of the life cycle emissions of CO2 and CH4 in the in the emission comparisons of nondigested versus di-
reference and fuel-based systems, respectively. gested manure by many authors who used the assump-
During the anaerobic digestion process, N-containing tion that biogas produced during digestion is destroyed
fully mitigated (from 14 to 100% reduction in emissions) ding in some dairy production systems to reduce the cost
by lowering manure pH with sulfuric, hydrochloric, or of production and provide cow comfort, assuming udder
phosphoric acids, calcium chloride, alum, or monocal- health is not compromised (Husfeldt et al., 2012).
cium phosphate monohydrate. These authors concluded Due to the nature of the composting process, N losses
that strong acids are more cost effective at reducing ma- can be high and are influenced by a number of factors in-
nure pH than weaker acids or acidifying salts. However, cluding temperature, C to N ratio, pH, moisture, and ma-
strong acids are more hazardous and, therefore, acidify- terial consistency (Zeman et al., 2002). Compost can be a
ing salts and weaker acids may be more suitable for on- source of N2O emissions with both nitrification and deni-
farm use. Acidification of urine and, consequently, ma- trification processes occurring during composting. Bacil-
nure from cattle or monogastric farm animals has also lus species are the main players in the degradation of OM
been attempted using anionic salts, high dietary levels and betaproteobacterial NH3–oxidizing bacteria involved
of fermentable carbohydrates, organic (benzoic) acids, in the nitrification process (Maeda et al., 2011). Depend-
the CH4 reduction credits from composting. The au- Adom et al. (2012) found that N fertilizer input was the
thors also stated that it is possible to significantly reduce largest contributor to GHG emissions for feeds used by
emissions from compost piles by increasing the solids the dairy industry in the United States: about 65% due
content of the feedstocks and the C to N ratio. Overall, to N2O release on application and 35% from fertilizer
Brown et al. (2008) concluded that composting can be manufacture. These authors recommended farmer edu-
an effective method for reducing GHG emissions from cation in fertilizer best management practices to effec-
a range of waste materials, including animal manure. It tively reduce GHG emissions on farms.
must be noted, however, that NH3 losses during manure Application Method and Emissions. Components of
composting are significant. the microbial biomass in the soil use CH4 as a C source
and, with the exception of rice paddies, the soil is often a
LAND APPLICATION CH4 sink. Only when CH4 concentrations exceed the met-
abolic capacity of the soil or when the aerobic metabolism
the other treatments, including mineral fertilizer (0.3 to Controlling the amount of N available for nitrifica-
0.9%), a result attributed to the high C content of poultry tion and denitrification in soil as well as the availability
manure. These authors concluded that, compared with of degradable C and soil oxidation–reduction poten-
mineral N sources, manure application increases soil tial are options to reduce N2O emissions that can be
N2O flux in soils with low C content. Soil N2O emis- achieved through the manure application method. In the
sions can vary greatly, and emission factors of up to 12% first few weeks after application, manure injection often
of N input (for nitrate-based fertilizer) and 5% for ma- increases N2O emission compared with surface applied
nure have been reported (de Klein et al., 2001). Nyaka- manure (Dell et al., 2011). Dilution, solid separation,
tawa et al. (2011) investigated CH4 and N2O emissions and anaerobic digestion pretreatments of manure before
from soil receiving poultry litter or ammonium nitrate injection reduce the availability of degradable C and as
using surface soil incorporation and subsurface band a result tend to decrease N2O emission. A number of
application methods in conventional and no-tillage sys- authors have noted that wet soils tend to promote N2O
inhibitors, cyclohexylphosphoric triamide, and N-(n-bu- hibition of urea hydrolysis will affect all 3 pathways of
tyl) thiophosphoric triamide (nBTPT). Whereas no urea N loss in soil, but this has not been consistently observed
was found in the control pens, the treated pens retained (Khalil et al., 2009; Zaman and Blennerhassett, 2010).
significant amounts of urea for up to 14 d following treat- As stated earlier, nitrification inhibitors can increase
ment. Treating the pens weekly for 6 wk further increased soil NH4+ and thus potentially increase NH3 losses
urea conservation, reducing NH3 volatilization losses. whereas urease inhibitors prolong the stability of urea.
Nitrification inhibitors [the most widely used are If, however, nitrification inhibitor activity is decreased,
dicyandiamide (DCD) and nitrapyrine] were found to preservation of N as urea may not decrease consequent
reduce the amount of N2O produced under controlled losses of N as NO3– or N2O. This scenario is also ques-
experimental or field conditions. Applied over urine and tioned on the basis of different half-lives of urease and
feces deposited under intensive pasture-based systems nitrification inhibitors (de Klein and Monaghan, 2011).
in New Zealand, nitrification inhibitors were effective Advances in plant biotechnology and microbial enzy-
fluxes. A study from Denmark reported a strong correla- dividually in isolation but as a component of the live-
tion among soil conservation practices, cover cropping, stock production system (farm) as a whole.
and tillage (Petersen et al., 2011). These authors con- Optimizing the animal diet to improve N use efficien-
cluded that reduced tillage may be an N2O mitigation cy, balancing N input with production level, and main-
option in rotations with cover crops but that there was taining fiber digestibility while reducing enteric CH4 fer-
inconclusive evidence that the overall balance of N2O mentation, are important steps in reducing N2O and CH4
emissions was positively affected. Another example of emissions from manure. Due to the complex interaction
these interactions is the study by Garland et al. (2011). between nutrition, production, animal health, and eco-
These authors demonstrated that differences in cover nomic performance, diet modification to reduce N inputs
crop management had the capacity to affect GHG emis- should be done carefully to prevent reduced fiber digest-
sions; for example, mowing the cover crop produced ibility and maintain animal productivity.
larger peak emissions (14.1 g N2O N/ha per d; no-till The type of animal housing used establishes the
de Klein, C. A. M., R. R. Sherlock, K. C. Cameron, and T. J. van der Gerber, P., P. Chilonda, G. Franceschini, and H. Menzi. 2005. Geograph-
Weerden. 2001. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils in ical determinants and environmental implications of livestock pro-
New Zealand—A review of current knowledge and directions for duction intensification in Asia. Bioresour. Technol. 96:263–276.
future research. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 31:543–574. Gerber, P. J., A. N. Hristov, B. Henderson, H. Makkar, J. Oh, C. Lee, R.
de Klein, C. A. M., L. C. Smith, and R. M. Monaghan. 2006. Restrict- Meinen, F. Montes, T. Ott, J. Firkins, C. Dell Al Rotz, A. Adesogan,
ed autumn grazing to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from dairy W. Z. Yang, J. Tricarico, E. Kebreab, G. Waghorn, J. Dijkstra, and S.
pastures in Southland, New Zealand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. Oosting. 2013. Technical options for the mitigation of direct meth-
112:192–199. ane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock – A review. Animal
Dell, C. J., J. J. Meisinger, and D. B. Beegle. 2011. Subsurface applica- 7 (Suppl. 2):220–234.
tion of manure slurries for conservation tillage and pasture soils and Gillingham, A. G., S. F. Ledgard, S. Saggar, K. C. Cameron, H. J. Di, C.
their impact on the nitrogen balance. J. Environ. Qual. 40:352–361. De Klein, and M. D. Aspin. 2012. Initial evaluation of the effects of
Dhingra, R., E. Christensen, Y. Liu, B. Zhong, C. Fu, M. Yost, and J. dyciandiamide (DCD) on nitrous oxide emissions, nitrate leaching
Remains. 2011. Greenhouse gas emission reductions from domes- and dry matter production from dairy pastures in a range of locations
tic anaerobic digesters linked with sustainable sanitation in rural within New Zealand. In: L. D. Currie and C. L. Christensen, editors,
China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:2345–2352. Advanced nutrient management: Gains from the past – Goals for the
Lee, C., A. N. Hristov, K. S. Heyler, T. W. Cassidy, H. Lapierre, G. A. Melse, R. W., and M. Timmerman. 2009. Sustainable intensive livestock
Varga, and C. Parys. 2012b. Effects of metabolizable protein supply production demands manure and exhaust air treatment technolo-
and amino acids supplementation on nitrogen utilization, produc- gies. Bioresour. Technol. 100:5506–5511.
tion and ammonia emissions from manure in dairy cows. J. Dairy Melse, R. W., and A. W. van der Werf. 2005. Biofiltration for mitigation
Sci. 95:5253–5268. of methane emission from animal husbandry. Environ. Sci. Tech-
Lee, C., A. N. Hristov, K. S. Heyler, T. W. Cassidy, M. Long, B. A. Corl, nol. 39:5460–5468.
and S. K. R. Karnati. 2011b. Effects of dietary protein concentra- Melse, R. W., and N. Verdoes. 2005. Evaluation of four farm-scale sys-
tion and coconut oil supplementation on nitrogen utilization and tems for the treatment of liquid pig manure. Biosyst. Eng. 92:47–57.
production in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 94:5544–5557. Mertens, D. R. 1994. Regulation of forage intake. In: G. C. Fahey Jr., M.
Lee, J., H. Park, and W. Choi. 2002. Selective photocatalytic oxidation Collins, D. R. Mertens, and L. E. Moser, editors, Forage quality, eval-
of NH3 to N2 on platinized TiO2 in water. Environ. Sci. Technol. uation, and utilization. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI. p. 450–493.
36:5462–5468. Miguez, F. E., and G. A. Bollero. 2005. Review of corn yield response
Leytem, A. B., R. S. Dungan, D. L. Bjorneberg, and A. C. Koehn. 2011. under winter cover cropping systems using meta-analytic methods.
Crop Sci. 45:2318–2329.
Emissions of ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous ox-
Misselbrook, T. H., J. M. Powell, G. A. Broderick, and J. H. Grabber.
ide from dairy cattle housing and manure management systems. J.
Sommer, S. G., O. P. Søren, P. Sørensen, H. D. Poulsen, and H. B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Inventory of
Møller. 2007. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions and nitro- U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2008. USEPA,
gen turnover during liquid manure storage. Nutr. Cycling Agro- Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinven-
ecosyst. 78:27–36. toryreport.html (Accessed 27 September 2012.)
Sommer, S. G., G. Q. Zhang, A. Bannink, D. Chadwick, T. Missel- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Inventory
brook, R. Harison, N. J. Hutchings, H. Menzi, G. J. Monteny, J. of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2009. USE-
Q. Ni, O. Oenema, and J. Webb. 2006. Algorithms determining PA, Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/
ammonia emission from buildings housing cattle and pigs and ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_Report.pdf
from manure stores. Adv. Agron. 89:261–335. (accessed on 21 July 2011).
Sørensen, P., and J. Eriksen. 2009. Effects of slurry acidification with Vander Pol, M., A. N. Hristov, S. Zaman, and N. Delano. 2008. Peas can
sulphuric acid combined with aeration on the turnover and plant replace soybean meal and corn grain in dairy cow diets. J. Dairy
availability of nitrogen. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 131:240–246. Sci. 91:698–703.
Spiehs, M. J., B. L. Woodbury, D. D. Tarkalson, B. J. Wienhold, and VanderZaag, A. C., R. Gordon, V. Glass, and R. Jamieson. 2008. Float-
R. A. Eigenberg. 2010. Long term effects of annual additions ing covers to reduce gas emissions from liquid manure storages: A
of animal manure on soil chemical, physical, and biological review. Appl. Eng. Agric. 24:657–671.