10.1186/2251-6832-4-41

Laboratory evaluation of surface amendments for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle feedlots

HTML PDF
  • Orlando A Aguilar*1,
  • Ronaldo Maghirang2,
  • Steven L Trabue3,
  • Charles W Rice4,
  • Larry E Erickson5,
  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technological University of Panama, Panama, PA
  2. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, US
  3. USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Laboratory of Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, IA, 50011, US
  4. Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, US
  5. Department of Chemical Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, US
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2013-11-27

How to Cite

Aguilar, O. A., Maghirang, R., Trabue, S. L., Rice, C. W., & Erickson, L. E. (2013). Laboratory evaluation of surface amendments for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle feedlots. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 4(1 (December 2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-4-41
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 20

PDF views: 129

Abstract

Abstract Pen surface amendments for mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), from beef cattle feedlots, were evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions. Amendments were organic residues (i.e., sorghum straw, prairie grass, woodchip), biochar from those organic residues and from beef cattle manure, and activated carbon. Manure samples were collected from several randomly selected pens from two beef cattle feedlots in Kansas and used in the experiments, either as dry (0.10 g · g −1 wet basis water content) or moist (0.35 g · g −1 wet basis). For each amendment, four different treatment levels (i.e., amounts of material) were placed on top of manure samples in glass containers and analyzed for GHG emissions using a photo-acoustic infrared multi-gas analyzer. From measured concentrations, emission rates were determined. For the dry manure conditions, all amendment materials showed significant reduction of N 2 O and CO 2 emissions compared to the control (i.e., no amendment). For the moist manure conditions, none of the amendments showed significant effects on GHG emissions during the first 8 days; at days 10 and 15 after application, however, the biochar materials performed significantly better than the control (i.e., no surface amendment) in reducing N 2 O and CH 4 emissions. No significant difference was observed in GHG emissions when the amendments were placed on top or mixed within the top surface layer of the manure.

Keywords

  • Biochar,
  • Feedlot emission,
  • Greenhouse gas emission,
  • Greenhouse gas control,
  • Organic residue,
  • Surface amendment
HTML PDF

References

  1. Mosier et al. (1998) Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle (pp. 225-248) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009740530221
  2. Stackhouse et al. (2011) Greenhouse gas and alcohol emissions from feedlot steers and calves (pp. 899-906) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0354
  3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report: Working group I: The Physical Science Basis
  4. . 2007.
  5. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html
  6. . Accessed 7 October 2010
  7. Raupach and Fraser (2011)
  8. Woodbury et al. (2001) Seasonal and spatial variations of denitrifying enzyme activity in feedlot soil (pp. 1635-1642)
  9. Ma et al. (2008) Soil formate regulates the fungal nitrous oxide emission pathway (pp. 6690-6696) https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00797-08
  10. Maeda et al. (2010) Source of nitrous oxide emissions during the cow manure composting process as revealed by isotopomer analysis of and amoA abundance in betaproteobacterial ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (pp. 1555-1562) https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01394-09
  11. Aguilar (2013) Dissertation
  12. Woodbury et al. (2006) An inexpensive laboratory and field chamber for manure volatile gas flux analysis (pp. 767-772) https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20480
  13. Malla et al. (2005) Mitigating nitrous oxide and methane emissions from soil in rice–wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic plain with nitrification and urease inhibitors (pp. 141-147) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.09.003
  14. Menendez et al. (2006) 3, 4-dimethylpyrazol phosphate effect on nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, ammonia, and carbon dioxide emissions from grasslands (pp. 973-981) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0320
  15. Parkin and Kaspar (2006) Nitrous oxide emissions from corn–soybean systems in the midwest (pp. 1496-1506) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0183
  16. Weiske et al. (2001) Effect of the new nitrification inhibitor DMPP in comparison to DCD on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and methane (CH4) oxidation during 3 years of repeated applications in field experiments (pp. 57-64) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012669500547
  17. Weiske et al. (2001) Influence of the nitrification inhibitor 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) in comparison to dicyandiamide (DCD) on nitrous oxide emissions, carbon dioxide fluxes and methane oxidation during 3 years of repeated application in field experiments (pp. 109-117) https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740100386
  18. Adams et al. (2004) Effect of organic matter addition to the pen surface and pen cleaning frequency on nitrogen mass balance in open feedlots (pp. 2153-2163)
  19. Chiyoka et al. (2011) Nitrous oxide emissions from chernozemic soils amended with anaerobically digested beef cattle feedlot manure: a laboratory study (pp. 492-502) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.035
  20. Cayuela et al. (2010) Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions during initial decomposition of animal by-products applied as fertilisers to soils (pp. 235-242) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.04.026
  21. Predotova et al. (2011) Effects of cuvette surface material on ammonia-, nitrous oxide-, carbon dioxide-, and methane-concentration measurements (pp. 347-349) https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201000420
  22. Bremer (2006) Nitrous oxide fluxes in turfgrass (pp. 1678-1685) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0387
  23. Unknown (2008)
  24. Milliken and Johnson (2009) Taylor & Francis https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1584883340
  25. Aguilar-Chávez et al. (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions from a wastewater sludge-amended soil cultivated with wheat (triticum spp. L.) as affected by different application rates of charcoal (pp. 90-95) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.04.022
  26. Cayuela et al. (2010) Bioenergy by-products as soil amendments? Implications for carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions (pp. 201-213)
  27. Taghizadeh-Toosi et al. (2011) Biochar incorporation into pasture soil suppresses in situ nitrous oxide emissions from ruminant urine patches (pp. 468-476) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0419
  28. Bruun et al. (2011) Application of biochar to soil and N2O emissions: potential effects of blending fast‒pyrolysis biochar with anaerobically digested slurry (pp. 581-589) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01377.x
  29. Rogovska et al. (2011) Impact of biochar on manure carbon stabilization and greenhouse gas emissions (pp. 871-879) https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0270
  30. Zhang et al. (2012) Effects of biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and greenhouse gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: a field study of 2 consecutive rice growing cycles (pp. 153-160) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.11.020
  31. Zhang et al. (2010) Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake Plain, China (pp. 469-475) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.003
  32. Scheer et al. (2011) Effect of biochar amendment on the soil-atmosphere exchange of greenhouse gases from an intensive subtropical pasture in Northern New South Wales (pp. 47-58) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0759-1
  33. Hofstra and Bouwman (2005) Denitrification in agricultural soils: summarizing published data and estimating global annual rates (pp. 267-278) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-005-3109-y
  34. Li (2007) Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from soils: scientific basis and modeling approach (pp. 344-352) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00133.x
  35. Joseph et al. (2010) An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil (pp. 501-515) https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10009
  36. Peng et al. (2009) Adsorption of nitrous oxide on activated carbons (pp. 3079-3081) https://doi.org/10.1021/je9001625
  37. Paul (2007) Academic Press
  38. Barbarick (2006)
  39. Robertson et al. (2007) Nitrogen transformation (pp. 341-359) Academic Press https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-047514-1.50017-2
  40. Erickson and Klopfenstein (2001) Managing N inputs and the effect on N losses following excretion in open-dirt feedlots in Nebraska (pp. 830-835) https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2001.363
  41. Kameyama et al. (2012) Influence of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar application on nitrate leaching in calcaric dark red soil (pp. 1131-1137) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0453
  42. Yao et al. (2012) Effect of biochar amendment on sorption and leaching of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate in a sandy soil (pp. 1467-1471) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.06.002
  43. Nunell et al. (2012) Conversion of biomass from an invasive species into activated carbons for removal of nitrate from wastewater (pp. 87-95) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.001
  44. Mizuta et al. (2004) Removal of nitrate-nitrogen from drinking water using bamboo powder charcoal (pp. 255-257) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.015