Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) is unique among the sectors considered in this volume, since the mitigation potential is derived from both an enhancement of removals of greenhouse gases (GHG), as well as reduction of emissions through management of land and livestock (robust evidence; high agreement). The land provides food that feeds the Earth’s human population of ca. 7 billion, fibre for a variety of purposes, livelihoods for billions of people worldwide, and is a critical resource for sustainable development in many regions. Agriculture is frequently central to the livelihoods of many social groups, especially in developing countries where it often accounts for a significant share of production. In addition to food and fibre, the land provides a multitude of ecosystem services; climate change mitigation is just one of many that are vital to human well-being (robust evidence; high agreement). Mitigation options in the AFOLU sector, therefore, need to be assessed, as far as possible, for their potential impact on all other services provided by land. [Section 11.1]

/pdf/agriculture-forestry-and-other-land-use-afolu-4vwhm7hk8n.pdf

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)

The goal of this review was to analyze published data related to mitigation of enteric methane (CH 4 ) emissions from ruminant animals to document the most effective and sustainable strategies. Increas- ing forage digestibility and digestible forage intake was one of the major recommended CH 4 mitigation practices. Although responses vary, CH 4 emissions can be reduced when corn silage replaces grass silage in the diet. Feeding legume silages could also lower CH 4 emissions compared to grass silage due to their lower fiber concentration. Dietary lipids can be effec- tive in reducing CH 4 emissions, but their applicabil- ity will depend on effects on feed intake, fiber digest- ibility, production, and milk composition. Inclusion of concentrate feeds in the diet of ruminants will likely decrease CH 4 emission intensity (Ei; CH 4 per unit animal product), particularly when inclusion is above 40% of dietary dry matter and rumen function is not impaired. Supplementation of diets containing medium to poor quality forages with small amounts of concen- trate feed will typically decrease CH 4 Ei. Nitrates show promise as CH 4 mitigation agents, but more studies are needed to fully understand their impact on whole-farm greenhouse gas emissions, animal productivity, and animal health. Through their effect on feed efficiency and rumen stoichiometry, ionophores are likely to have a moderate CH 4 mitigating effect in ruminants fed high-grain or mixed grain-forage diets. Tannins may also reduce CH 4 emissions although in some situations intake and milk production may be compromised. Some direct-fed microbials, such as yeast-based products, might have a moderate CH 4 -mitigating effect through increasing animal productivity and feed efficiency, but the effect is likely to be inconsistent. Vaccines against rumen archaea may offer mitigation opportunities in the future although the extent of CH 4 reduction is like- ly to be small and adaptation by ruminal microbes and persistence of the effect is unknown. Overall, improv- ing forage quality and the overall efficiency of dietary nutrient use is an effective way of decreasing CH 4 Ei. Several feed supplements have a potential to reduce CH 4 emission from ruminants although their long-term effect has not been well established and some are toxic or may not be economically feasible.

/pdf/special-topics-mitigation-of-methane-and-nitrous-oxide-3picl514fh.pdf

Special topics--Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options.

The livestock sector supports about 1.3 billion producers and retailers, and contributes 40-50% of agricultural GDP. We estimated that between 1995 and 2005, the livestock sector was responsible for greenhouse gas emissions of 5.6-7.5GtCO(2)e yr(-1). Livestock accounts for up to half of the technical mitigation potential of the agriculture, forestry and land-use sectors, through management options that sustainably intensify livestock production, promote carbon sequestration in rangelands and reduce emissions from manures, and through reductions in the demand for livestock products. The economic potential of these management alternatives is less than 10% of what is technically possible because of adoption constraints, costs and numerous trade-offs. The mitigation potential of reductions in livestock product consumption is large, but their economic potential is unknown at present. More research and investment are needed to increase the affordability and adoption of mitigation practices, to moderate consumption of livestock products where appropriate, and to avoid negative impacts on livelihoods, economic activities and the environment.

Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector

Animal production is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide. Depending on the accounting approaches and scope of emissions covered, estimates by various sources (IPCC, FAO, EPA or others) place livestock contribution to global anthropogenic GHG emissions at between 7 and 18 percent. The current analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential of nutritional, manure and animal husbandry practices for mitigating methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) – i.e. non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) – GHG emissions from livestock production. These practices were categorized into enteric CH4, manure management and animal husbandry mitigation practices. Emphasis was placed on enteric CH4 mitigation practices for ruminant animals (only in vivo studies were considered) and manure mitigation practices for both ruminant and monogastric species. Over 900 references were reviewed; and simulation and life cycle assessment analyses were generally excluded. In evaluating mitigation practices, the use of proper units is critical. Expressing enteric CH4 energy production on gross energy intake basis, for example, does not accurately reflect the potential impact of diet quality and composition. Therefore, it is noted that GHG emissions should be expressed on a digestible energy intake basis or per unit of animal product (i.e. GHG emission intensity), because this reflects most accurately the effect of a given mitigation practice on feed intake and the efficiency of animal production. EntErIC CH4 MItIgAtIon prACtICEs Increasing forage digestibility and digestible forage intake will generally reduce GHG emissions from rumen fermentation (and stored manure), when scaled per unit of animal product, and are highly-recommended mitigation practices. For example, enteric CH4 emissions may be reduced when corn silage replaces grass silage in the diet. Legume silages may also have an advantage over grass silage due to their lower fibre content and the additional benefit of replacing inorganic nitrogen fertilizer. Effective silage preservation will improve forage quality on the farm and reduce GHG emission intensity. Introduction of legumes into grass pastures in warm climate regions may offer a mitigation opportunity, although more research is needed to address the associated agronomic challenges and comparative N2O emissions with equivalent production levels from nitrogen fertilizer. Dietary lipids are effective in reducing enteric CH4 emissions, but the applicability of this practice will depend on its cost and its effects on feed intake, production and milk composition. High-oil by-product feeds, such as distiller’s grains, may offer an economically feasible alternative to oil supplementation as a mitigation practice, although their higher fibre content may have an opposite effect on enteric CH4, depending on basal diet composition. Inclusion of concentrate feeds in the diet of ruminants will likely decrease enteric CH4 emissions per unit of animal product, particularly when above 40 percent of dry matter intake. The effect may depend on type of ‘concentrate’ inclusion rate, production response, impact on fibre digestibility, level of nutrition, composition of the basal diet and feed processing.

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production - A review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions

A quarter of all anthropogenic methane emissions in the United States are from enteric fermentation, primarily from ruminant livestock. This study was undertaken to test the effect of a methane inhibitor, 3-nitrooxypropanol (3NOP), on enteric methane emission in lactating Holstein cows. An experiment was conducted using 48 cows in a randomized block design with a 2-wk covariate period and a 12-wk data collection period. Feed intake, milk production, and fiber digestibility were not affected by the inhibitor. Milk protein and lactose yields were increased by 3NOP. Rumen methane emission was linearly decreased by 3NOP, averaging about 30% lower than the control. Methane emission per unit of feed dry matter intake or per unit of energy-corrected milk were also about 30% less for the 3NOP-treated cows. On average, the body weight gain of 3NOP-treated cows was 80% greater than control cows during the 12-wk experiment. The experiment demonstrated that the methane inhibitor 3NOP, applied at 40 to 80 mg/kg feed dry matter, decreased methane emissions from high-producing dairy cows by 30% and increased body weight gain without negatively affecting feed intake or milk production and composition. The inhibitory effect persisted over 12 wk of treatment, thus offering an effective methane mitigation practice for the livestock industries.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/34/10663.full.pdf

An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric methane emission from dairy cows with no negative effect on milk production

In Australia, agriculture is responsible for ~17% of total greenhouse gas emissions with ruminants being the largest single source. However, agriculture is likely to be shielded from the full impact of any future price on carbon. In this review, strategies for reducing ruminant methane output are considered in relation to rumen ecology and biochemistry, animal breeding and management options at an animal, farm, or national level. Nutritional management strategies have the greatest short-term impact. Methanogenic microorganisms remove H2 produced during fermentation of organic matter in the rumen and hind gut. Cost-effective ways to change the microbial ecology to reduce H2 production, to re-partition H2 into products other than methane, or to promote methanotrophic microbes with the ability to oxidise methane still need to be found. Methods of inhibiting methanogens include: use of antibiotics; promoting viruses/bacteriophages; use of feed additives such as fats and oils, or nitrate salts, or dicarboxylic acids; defaunation; and vaccination against methanogens. Methods of enhancing alternative H2 using microbial species include: inoculating with acetogenic species; feeding highly digestible feed components favouring ‘propionate fermentations’; and modifying rumen conditions. Conditions that sustain acetogen populations in kangaroos and termites, for example, are poorly understood but might be extended to ruminants. Mitigation strategies are not in common use in extensive grazing systems but dietary management or use of growth promotants can reduce methane output per unit of product. New, natural compounds that reduce rumen methane output may yet be found. Smaller but more permanent benefits are possible using genetic approaches. The indirect selection criterion, residual feed intake, when measured on ad libitum grain diets, has limited relevance for grazing cattle. There are few published estimates of genetic parameters for feed intake and methane production. Methane-related single nucleotide polymorphisms have yet to be used commercially. As a breeding objective, the use of methane/kg product rather than methane/head is recommended. Indirect selection via feed intake may be more cost-effective than via direct measurement of methane emissions. Life cycle analyses indicate that intensification is likely to reduce total greenhouse gas output but emissions and sequestration from vegetation and soil need to be addressed. Bio-economic modelling suggests most mitigation options are currently not cost-effective.

S. G. Wiedemann

Papers

Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review