Dana Olijhoek and Peter Lund Department of Animal Science · 2017-03-21 · AARHUS UNIVERSITY Methane – Dana Olijhoek March 2017 Methane production by ruminants Dana Olijhoek and

AARHUSUNIVERSITY

Methane – Dana Olijhoek March 2017

Methane production by ruminantsDana Olijhoek and Peter LundDepartment of Animal ScienceAU-Foulum

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Outline

› Methane emission numbers› Methanogenesis: why? By who?› Measurement techniques› Mitigation strategies

2

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


CLIMATE CHANGE ??

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Global methane (CH4) trends

Increase in world population!14% of the increase was in only 23 years!!

4

NO GREENHOUSE GASSES !!

5

-18 ˚C

CO2-EQ

› 1 kg Carbondioxide (CO2) = 1 kg CO2-eq.› Fossile fuels

› 1 kg Methane (CH4) = 25 kg CO2-eq.› Digestion› Manure

› 1 kg Nitrous oxide (N2O) = 298 kg CO2-eq.› N metabolism in manure and soil

6

(100-years timespan, IPCC)

THE COST OF PRODUCING MILK

7

02468

1012141618

Mio

. To

n C

O2e

CO2

Metan

Lattergas

Bligaard (2017)

COWS AND METHANE IS HOT

8

9

SPIN!!

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Global greenhouse gas sources

› Sinks: › Atmosphere: CH4 + OH → CH3 + H2O → ... (83%)› Microbial uptake in soil (~5%)

› Excess: 12%11

Moss et al., 2000

Natural wetlands; 37%

Rice growing; 16%

Oil industry; 14%

Livestock, enteric; 11%

Livestock, manure; 4%

Combustion; 6%

Garbage; 6%

Coal mines; 5% Sea and lakes; 1%

~70% anthropogenic source~30% natural source

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Enteric methane production Denmark

12Nielsen et al. 2014

Dairy cattle; 56.9

Non dairy cattle; 29.5

Sheep and goats; 1,2

Horses; 2,4

Swine; 9,8

Poultry; 0.04

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Comparison of countries

13

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Yield level is important

14

ad

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Output per cow, kg FPCM per year

kg C

O2-

eq. p

er k

g FP

CM

Gerber et al., 2011

Intensive

Multipurpose

Extensive

Kg ECM per cow

Kg

CO

2-eq

. per

kg

ECM

1 symbol = 1 country

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Emission of methane

12

1-5%

13% intestine89% via lungs

11% via rectum 95-99%

87% rumen

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Why is it a problem?

› Global warming potential: 28 (IPCC, 2014)› 2-12% loss of gross energy (feed)

› CH4 GE value: 55 MJ/kg (e.g. glucose 15.6, fat 39.3)

16

Gross energy

Faecal energy

Digestible energy

Urine + methane energy

Metabolizable energy

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Why do cows produce CH4...?

17

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Hydrogen!

18

H2CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Why do cow’s produce CH4...?

› Surplus H2 needs to be removed (excreted or oxidized)› Inhibits fermentation processes

CHO fermentation:

› C6H12O6 + 2H2O → 2CH3COOH + 2CO2 + 4H2 acetic acid

› C6H12O6 + 2H2 → 2CH3CH2COOH + 2H2O propionic acid

› C6H12O6 → CH3CH2CH2COOH + 2CO2 + 2H2 butyric acid

19

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Diversity in the rumen

› Microbes (1012 microbes mL-1 in the rumen fluid)

› Bacteria

› Protozoa

› Fungi

› Archaea

› Viruses

20

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Diversity in the rumen

› Microbes

› Bacteria

› Protozoa

› Fungi

› Archaea

› Viruses

Digest feed CHO (fibre, starch and sugar) and protein

Mainly fibre rich diets

Mainly methanogens

Do not contribute to any fermentation

Produce hydrogen

Protozoa foraging on organic material including fungi

21

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Microbial community

22

Feed Cow

Microbial diversity is more related to the cow than to the feed

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Animal variation

HIGH METHANE

LOW METHANE

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Where does H2 goes to?

24

CHO → acetate CHO → butyrate

CHO → propionateBiohydrogenation of fatty acids

Acetogenebacteria

S-reducingbacteria MethanogensH2

N-reducing microbes AA → VFA

Microbial matter

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Energy efficiency

› The fermentation pathways differ in their energetic efficiency› ΔG is the difference in free energy with a chemical reaction, i.e. a reaction is

favourable when ΔG is low› ΔG = Gibbs free energy change

25

Reaction ΔG Substrate availability

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O -67.4 High

CO2 + 4H2 → CH3COO- + H+ + 2H2O -8.8 High

SO42- + 4H2 + H+→ HS- + 4H2O -84.4 Low

NO3- + H2 + 2H+→ NO2- + 2H2O -130 Low

NO2- + 3H2 + 2H+→ NH4+ + 2H2O -371 Low(Ungerfeld & Kohn, 2006)

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Nitrate (NO3-) as mitigation strategy

› 4 cows, Latin Square design› Calcium nitrate (Bolifor CNF)› Treatments with nitrate dose (g NO3-/kg DM):

› Control: 0› Low: 5› Medium: 14› High: 21

26

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Nitrate study: results

27

26.5a 24.9a,b 23.0b

20.3c

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Control Low Medium High

CH4

prod

uctio

n (L

/kg

DMI)

Treatment

CH4

-6% -13% -23%

SEM 1.79P

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Nitrate study: results

Hemoglobin (Fe2+)

NO2- (absorbed from rumen)

Methemoglobin (Fe3+)

Clinical signs of methemoglobinemia: methemoglobin at 30-40% of Hb

28

Olijhoek et al., 2016

1.30a 1.31a1.50a 1.57b

0,00,20,40,60,81,01,21,41,61,8


Met

hem

oglo

bin

(% o

f Hb)

Treatments

Methemoglobin (% of Hb)SEM 0.08P

Met-haemoglobin

1,25 1,25 1,49 1,58

30

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

Kontrol Lavt Medium Højt Klinisk 1960

Met-HB (% of HB)

Control Low Medium High Clinical 1960exp

Nitrate i milk (mg/kg)

0,11

0,38

1,351,53

0,00,20,40,60,81,01,21,41,61,8

Kontrol Lavt Medium Højt

P < 0,001


0,11 0,38 1,35 1,53

50

150

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Kontrol Lavt Medium Højt Drikkevand OstemælkControl Low Medium High Water Cheesemilk

NITRATE IN MILK (MG/KG)

N2O (256 X CO2)

Petersen et al. (2015)

N2O

co

nce

ntra

tion

(uL/

L)

Fee

dinta

ke(kg

DM

/ 15 min)

Control

Low

Medium

High

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Measurement techniques

33

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Measurement techniques

34

SF6 tracerOpen circuit chambers GreenFeed

http://www.google.dk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=8nloMss12XeJCM&tbnid=iFRi4jj5cvyhsM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.electronicproducts.com/Sensors_and_Transducers/Sensors/Researchers_develop_sensors_that_measure_cow_39_s_flatulence_and_other_bathroom_habits.aspx&ei=Nz08UpKNG8TF0QXCmYGgBQ&psig=AFQjCNEAuq7mJu9tySouuK8KM3whO1JNdg&ust=1379765937450323

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Respiration chambers

› Considered as a reference method› Animals are kept in closed chambers (slight under-pressure)› Continuous air flow› Gas flow rate (L/min) measured› Gases measured: CO2, O2, CH4, H2, H2S

› Concentration in inflow and outflow air

35

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Welfare is important

36

Feed

inta

ke (

kg fe

ed) D

UR

ING

EX

PER

IMEN

T

Feed intake (kg feed) BEFORE EXPERIMENT

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


GreenFeed

37

C-Lock

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride) technique

38Storm et al. 2012

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Reducing (mitigating) methane emission

39

Mitigation strategies:1. Inhibit the methanogens specifically2. Reduce the substrate (H2) source3. Promote other H2 consuming processes/organisms4. Increase productivity5. Combination of 1-3

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Reducing (mitigating) methane emission

40

1. Inhibit the methanogens specifically:› 2-bromoethanesulphonate (BES)› Plant secondary metabolites: condensed tannins, essential oils› Vaccination› Long chained (unsaturated) fatty acids (see further later on)

› Inhibitor sensitivity differs among methanogens…!

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Reducing methane emission

41

› 2. Reduce the H2 source› Inhibit H2 producing protozoa (defaunation)› Antibiotic treatment:

› E.g. monensin (ionophore): targets H2 producing Gram+ bacteria and protozoa

› Works… but controversial approach...!

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Reducing methane emission (1)3. Promote other H2 consuming processes

› More dietary starch (concentrate) and less cellulose-rich roughage

› Less H2 production› Risk of increased lactate production (rumen acidosis)

42

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Reducing methane emission (2)

3. Promote other H2 consuming processes

› Promote reductive acetogenesis: CO2 + 4H2 → CH3COO- + H+ + 2H2O› The process is thermodynamically less favorable than methanogenesis› Acetogens have lower H2 affinity than methanogens› An enigma why the process can dominate in e.g. Kangaroos

› Dietary nitrate/sulphate (electron acceptors) addition

› Works… but problematic…?!?› Production/emission of N2O (greenhouse gas)› Production of hydrogensulphide (H2S; toxic and odorous compound) and

nitrite (NO2- ; toxic)

43

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Reducing methane emission

4. Increase productivity of the animal› By higher feed quality, management, genetics› Less CH4/kg product (meat or milk)› ”Dilution of maintenance”

5. Dietary fat (combining strategies)

44

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Methane reduction through fat

45

Beauchemin (2007)

Methane reduced 5-6% per 1% fat addedPotential: 10-25% reduction

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Effects of dietary fat on CH4 production

› Long-chained fatty acids are not fermented in the rumen; no substrate input for

the methanogens

› Bio-hydrogenation (saturation) of unsaturated fatty acids is an alternative H2 sink

› Can inhibit methanogens directly, especially medium-chained fatty acids

› Reduces the number of protozoa (H2 producers)

Rapeseed plant

Rapeseed oil

Extruding processWhole seeds46

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Effects of dietary fat on CH4 production

But:

› Unsaturated fatty acids are also toxic for cellulolytic bacteria – reduced fibre

digestion…!?!

› Reduction in DMI?

› What about milk composition and quality…?!?

47

FAT X FORAGE – COW

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Early grass-fat

Early grass+fat

Late grass-fat

Late grass+fat

Maize-fat

Maize+fat

CH4/kg DM

-5%

-3%

-5%

Brask (2013)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

grass silage early

grass silage early +

rapeseed

grass silage late

grass silage late +

rapeseed

mais silage mais silage + rapeseed

Lite

r met

ane/

kg V

S

90 days

60 days

30 days

FAT X FORAGE – BIOGAS POTENTIAL

+17%+17%

+9%

Møller (2013)

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


GHG from feed + CH4 from cow, kg CO2/kg ECM

-0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

Grass ration

Maize ration

Growing Processing Transport LUC C in soil CH4 cow

+ 16 %

More from feed Less CH4 from cowDue to C in soil

Mogensen (2013)

FORAGE: CONCENTRATE RATIO

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

50:50 80:20

Methane L/d

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

50:50 80:20

Methane L/d

High quality GS Low quality GS

Hellwing (2012)51

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


GHG from feed + CH4 from cow, kg CO2/kg ECM

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

80% roughage

50% roughage

Growing Processing Transport LUC C in soil CH4 cow

+ 13%

More from feed Less from CH4 cow

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


WUNDERDRUGS

› Nitrate

› Oregano

› Garlic

› Essential oils

› 3 NitroOxyPropanol

› Saponins

› Tanins

› Sea weed

› ….

25-32 % reduction

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL

Kristensen (2017)

Chart1

mælkmælk

svinsvin

fjerkræfjerkræ

planteplante

gennemsnitgennemsnit

konv

øko

CO2 eq per ha

7255

4591

5331

3241

5170

3192

1250

1434

4027

3551

Produktion-tilgang

kildeKristensen et al 2011Dourmad et al 2014Leinonen et al 2012Knudsen et al 2014DK

produktmælksvinægplante

enhed1 kg EKM leveret1 kg tilv (levende)1 kg æg produceret1 kg ts - høstetmælksvinekødægplante

systemkonvøkokonvøkokonv-burøkokonvøkokonvøkosumkonvøkokonvøkokonv-burøkokonvøko

udledningCO2 eq per enhed1.21.272.923.162.923.420.4250.47LCA1.21.272.923.162.923.420.4250.47

% i Dk87987492637570100DK-del1.0441.24462.16082.90721.83962.5650.29750.47

DK udledningCO2 eq per enhed1.041.242.162.911.842.570.300.47

1 mj=0,28 Kwh; 0,655 Co2 pr kwhenergiCO2 eq per enhed0.140.200.300.330.330.420.080.12

DK landbrugCO2 eq per enhed0.901.041.862.581.512.150.220.35

arealm2 per enhed1.782.374.139.1449.61.742.44

% DK709680877370100100

DK areal1.252.283.307.952.926.721.742.44

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha72554591563232415170319212501434

økologi% af konv pr ha63%58%62%115%

DKprodukt / ha80264395302712583425148857474098




enhed1 kg EKM leveret1 kg tilv (levende)1 kg æg produceret1 kg ts - høstet

systemkonvøkokonvøkokonv-burøkokonvøkokonvøkosum

2015 DSproduktDK prouduktionmio kg sl180110

mio kg FU-enhed478648323701322015

ha596110783106410100949245317926322453179

UdledningGJ CO2 eq4.330.504.410.030.330.031.260.0710.330.6410.97

økologi% af konv6%


produktionFU4786483237013220155799201

526923832356000

økoøko

scenarierudviklingudvikling

tilgang½

produkt44ha26744075242344086219619147182632


økologi% af konv26%

reduktion% af 2015reduktion% af 201545%400%96%400%53%400%85%400%72%400%9%

produktproduktionFU21401932227553116604954803

407223271765757

77%98%75%96%

Produktion-tilgang

LCA

DK-del

CO2 eq per kg

Areal-tilgang

kildeKristensen et al 2011Dourmad et al 2014Leinonen et al 2012Knudsen et al 2014Beregninger

produktmælksvinægplanteDanmark



udledningCO2 eq per enhed1.21.272.923.162.923.420.4250.47

% i Dk87987492637570100




0.75333333330.8225196850.6372602740.81556962030.51698630140.62719298250.51176470590.7446808511

arealm2 per enhed1.782.374.139.1449.61.742.44

% DK709680877370100100

DK areal1.252.283.307.952.926.721.742.44

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha725545915632324151703192125014344027.03015959073551.2975435062


DKprodukt / ha80264395302712583425148857474098






areal2015Dk areal1000 ha651111615853811345224531792632

økologi% af konv7%

0.26538931920.62011173180.25071341210.04469273740.02160619650.04469273740.46229107220.2905027933

GJ=10-9 kgUdledningGJ CO2 eq4.720.513.460.030.270.031.420.079.880.6410.514027.03015959073551.2975435062

økologi% af konv6%

produktionFU5224719.10112359487869186138010061181507119056517241213115

571258818714411934126730356

øko47864832369.736842105313.157894736822015

scenarierudvikling

tilgang½

areal44* arealha31844459132293297820819167162632

27%

UdledningGJ CO2 eq2.312.043.330.100.150.101.220.307.012.549.553657.65868477073551.2975435062


reduktion% af 20159%

arealproduktionFU2552166.934189411951476.793248941788740.920096854024299315476195620690852459

4503643.7274383518289831469346473149

% af 201579%98%76%96%

DK areal

Resultatopgørelse for heltidsbedrifter efter tid, bedriftstype, årsværk og regnskabsposter

Enhed: -konvøkoøko stat

2015heltid1. POPULATION, ANTAL BEDRIFTER2. STIKPRØVE, ANTAL BEDRIFTER3. JORDBRUGSAREAL, HA, PRIMOha i alt

Malkekvæg, konventionel drift2860333154.4441584650977.154875576

Malkekvæg, økologisk drift32682197.664417.6111724.470144078

Andet kvæg, konventionel drift4423184.337260.654929.0721062287

Andet kvæg, økologisk drift6615118778813507.3360926529

Svin, konventionel drift2520445165.6417312615195.701056733

Svin, økologisk drift3014163.348998496.7179658329

Fjerkræ, konventionel drift24556147.736186.553345.6484268113

Pelsdyr, konventionel drift12615576.596466.5142209.608388902

Planteproduktion, konventionel drift2351306259608909897645.404720579

Planteproduktion, økologisk drift9718273.926568.346079.475797436

Potteplanter219994.91073.11581.9494929549

Væksthusgrøntsager56184.7263.2388.0058769413

Frilandsgrøntsager11141146.516261.523972.4831606425

Frugt og bær1773133.85982.68819.4679308096

Planteskole1112724.92763.94074.5039638225

1767735.82453139179808

DK

i alt1767735.8

konv1664062.924531391.4741864625

øko103672.91798081.7343780294

DK2632947

1.4894459907

DK

Enhed: -mio kg

Mælk ab landmand i alt (mio. kg)Indvejet mælk på mejerier (mio. kg)Økologisk mælk ab landmand (mio. kg)Konv

20155348.585269.91483.354786.56

9%

Slagtninger og produktion af svin efter tid, kategori og enhed

Enhed: -

Slagtninger og eksport af levende dyr (1.000 stk.)Gennemsnitlig slagtet vægt (kg.)

2015Svin, i alt30874..

Polte9450%

Søer533176.30%

Orner9176.40%

Slagtesvin1816484.31531225.285%

For producent192.50%

Kasserede36..

Slagtninger hos Producent2484.32023.20%

Eksport af levende svin i alt1213322.9277845.715%

konvøko

DK1811094.11801014.110080

1%

Ægproduktion og produktionsformer efter tid og enhed

Enhed: -mio kgproduktion

Buræg (mio kg)Æg fra fritgående høns (mio kg)Skrabeæg (mio. kg)Æg fra volierehønsehold (mio. kg)Økologiske æg (mio. kg)

20153141301524%

Konv48

Slagtninger og produktion af fjerkræ efter enhed, tid og kategori

Enhed: -1000 stk

Slagtninger af kyllingerSlagtninger af hønsSlagtninger af ænderSlagtninger af gæsSlagtninger af kalkuner

Slagtninger og eksport af levende dyr (1.000 stk.)201595681.411.839.186.7

korrigeret til mio æg"172.22652

æg + kyllunger konv220.22652mio kg

6%

Ren øko






% i Dk87987492637570100




arealm2 per enhed1.782.374.139.1449.61.742.44

% DK709680877370100100

DK areal1.2462.27523.3047.95182.926.721.742.44

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha7255.21669341894591.24472573845631.96125907993241.02718881265169.86301369863191.964285714312501434.4262295082

økologi% af konv pr ha0.6328197930.57547043380.61741757511.1475409836

DKprodukt / ha8025.68218298554395.21800281293026.63438256661257.57690082753424.65753424661488.09523809525747.12643678164098.3606557377



mio kg FU-enhed47864832369.736842105313.157894736817215

ha596.3356109.89216782.961052631610.462894736850.22410.081023492452.5206526316179.43505473682631.95570736842453179


økologi% af konv0.0587161581

produktionFU47860004830002369736.8421052613157.8947368421172000150005879310.34482759200819.672131148

52690002382894.736842111870006080130.01695873

arealDk areal1000 ha651111615853811345224531792632


GJ=10-9 kgUdledningGJ CO2 eq4.72314606740.50962816463.46365617430.02592821750.27400273970.02553571431.41750.07459016399.87830498150.635682260310.5139872418


produktionFU5224719.10112359487869.1983122361861380.1452784510060.6152066199181506.84931506811904.76190476196517241.37931035213114.754098361

5712588.299435831871440.76048507193411.611219836730356.13340871

øko

scenarierudvikling

tilgang½

produkt7ha65111154332453278854320277182745


økologi% af konv0.14241222230.9613261095

produktproduktionFU5224719.10112359487869.1983122361643462.4697336640242.4608264795154109.58904109647619.04761904764528735.632183912225409.83606557

5712588.299435831683704.93056014201728.6366601446754145.46824948

1.08418832780.70657965061.07876276291.1108554339

Figurer

mælksvinfjerkræplantegennemsnit

systemkonvøkokonvøkokonvøkokonvøkokonvøko

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha7255.21669341894591.24472573845631.96125907993241.02718881265169.86301369863191.964285714312501434.42622950824027.03015959073551.2975435062

7255.21669341895631.96125907995169.863013698612504027.0301595907

4591.24472573843241.02718881263191.96428571431434.42622950823551.2975435062

DK prouduktionmio kg sl180110

mio kg FU-enhed47864832369.736842105313.157894736822015

ha596.3356109.89216782.961052631610.462894736864.2410.081009492452.5366526316179.4350547368

UdledningGJ CO2 eq4.3265440.50454184.40960631580.03391052630.3321120.0321751.261250.064262295110.32951231580.6348896214

42%79%43%5%3%5%12%10%

0.41885268810.79469215280.42689395020.05341168790.03215175990.05067810040.12210160180.1012180589

7255.21669341894591.24472573845631.96125907993241.02718881265169.86301369863191.964285714312501311.4754098361

konvøkoKonvØko

mælk725545917255.2166934189mælk4279

svin533132414591.2447257384svin435

fjerkræ517031925631.9612590799fjerkræ35

plante125014343241.0271888126plante1210

gennemsnit402735515169.8630136986

3191.9642857143

1250

1311.4754098361

Figurer

mælk

svin

fjerkræ

plante

Metan+lattergas

Udledning af metan og lattergas ved konventionelt og økologisk jordbrug opdelt efter driftsgrene og i gennemsnit, kg CO2 eq pr ha

konv

øko

CO2 eq per ha

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL

Kristensen (2017)

Chart1

konvmælkkonvmælk

økoøko

konvsvinekødkonvsvinekød

økoøko

konv-burægkonv-buræg

økoøko

konv plantekonv plante

økoøko

LCA

DK-del

CO2 eq per kg

1.2

1.044

1.27

1.2446

2.92

2.1608

3.16

2.9072

2.92

1.8396

3.42

2.565

0.425

0.2975

0.47

0.47

Produktion-tilgang



enhed1 kg EKM leveret1 kg tilv (levende)1 kg æg produceret1 kg ts - høstetmælksvinekødægplante

systemkonvøkokonvøkokonv-burøkokonvøkokonvøkosumkonvøkokonvøkokonv-burøkokonvøko

udledningCO2 eq per enhed1.21.272.923.162.923.420.4250.47LCA1.21.272.923.162.923.420.4250.47

% i Dk87987492637570100DK-del1.0441.24462.16082.90721.83962.5650.29750.47




arealm2 per enhed1.782.374.139.1449.61.742.44

% DK709680877370100100

DK areal1.252.283.307.952.926.721.742.44



DKprodukt / ha80264395302712583425148857474098







mio kg FU-enhed478648323701322015

ha596110783106410100949245317926322453179


økologi% af konv6%


produktionFU4786483237013220155799201

526923832356000

økoøko

scenarierudviklingudvikling

tilgang½

produkt44ha26744075242344086219619147182632



reduktion% af 2015reduktion% af 201545%400%96%400%53%400%85%400%72%400%9%

produktproduktionFU21401932227553116604954803

407223271765757

77%98%75%96%

Produktion-tilgang

Areal-tilgang

LCA

DK-del

CO2 eq per kg

DK areal






% i Dk87987492637570100




0.75333333330.8225196850.6372602740.81556962030.51698630140.62719298250.51176470590.7446808511

arealm2 per enhed1.782.374.139.1449.61.742.44

% DK709680877370100100

DK areal1.252.283.307.952.926.721.742.44

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha725545915632324151703192125014344027.03015959073551.2975435062


DKprodukt / ha80264395302712583425148857474098






areal2015Dk areal1000 ha651111615853811345224531792632

økologi% af konv7%

0.26538931920.62011173180.25071341210.04469273740.02160619650.04469273740.46229107220.2905027933

GJ=10-9 kgUdledningGJ CO2 eq4.720.513.460.030.270.031.420.079.880.6410.514027.03015959073551.2975435062

økologi% af konv6%

produktionFU5224719.10112359487869186138010061181507119056517241213115

571258818714411934126730356

øko47864832369.736842105313.157894736822015

scenarierudvikling

tilgang½

areal44* arealha31844459132293297820819167162632

27%

UdledningGJ CO2 eq2.312.043.330.100.150.101.220.307.012.549.553657.65868477073551.2975435062


reduktion% af 20159%

arealproduktionFU2552166.934189411951476.793248941788740.920096854024299315476195620690852459

4503643.7274383518289831469346473149

% af 201579%98%76%96%

DK

Resultatopgørelse for heltidsbedrifter efter tid, bedriftstype, årsværk og regnskabsposter

Enhed: -konvøkoøko stat

2015heltid1. POPULATION, ANTAL BEDRIFTER2. STIKPRØVE, ANTAL BEDRIFTER3. JORDBRUGSAREAL, HA, PRIMOha i alt

Malkekvæg, konventionel drift2860333154.4441584650977.154875576

Malkekvæg, økologisk drift32682197.664417.6111724.470144078

Andet kvæg, konventionel drift4423184.337260.654929.0721062287

Andet kvæg, økologisk drift6615118778813507.3360926529

Svin, konventionel drift2520445165.6417312615195.701056733

Svin, økologisk drift3014163.348998496.7179658329

Fjerkræ, konventionel drift24556147.736186.553345.6484268113

Pelsdyr, konventionel drift12615576.596466.5142209.608388902

Planteproduktion, konventionel drift2351306259608909897645.404720579

Planteproduktion, økologisk drift9718273.926568.346079.475797436

Potteplanter219994.91073.11581.9494929549

Væksthusgrøntsager56184.7263.2388.0058769413

Frilandsgrøntsager11141146.516261.523972.4831606425

Frugt og bær1773133.85982.68819.4679308096

Planteskole1112724.92763.94074.5039638225

1767735.82453139179808

DK

i alt1767735.8

konv1664062.924531391.4741864625

øko103672.91798081.7343780294

DK2632947

1.4894459907

Ren øko

Enhed: -mio kg

Mælk ab landmand i alt (mio. kg)Indvejet mælk på mejerier (mio. kg)Økologisk mælk ab landmand (mio. kg)Konv

20155348.585269.91483.354786.56

9%

Slagtninger og produktion af svin efter tid, kategori og enhed

Enhed: -

Slagtninger og eksport af levende dyr (1.000 stk.)Gennemsnitlig slagtet vægt (kg.)

2015Svin, i alt30874..

Polte9450%

Søer533176.30%

Orner9176.40%

Slagtesvin1816484.31531225.285%

For producent192.50%

Kasserede36..

Slagtninger hos Producent2484.32023.20%

Eksport af levende svin i alt1213322.9277845.715%

konvøko

DK1811094.11801014.110080

1%

Ægproduktion og produktionsformer efter tid og enhed

Enhed: -mio kgproduktion

Buræg (mio kg)Æg fra fritgående høns (mio kg)Skrabeæg (mio. kg)Æg fra volierehønsehold (mio. kg)Økologiske æg (mio. kg)

20153141301524%

Konv48

Slagtninger og produktion af fjerkræ efter enhed, tid og kategori

Enhed: -1000 stk

Slagtninger af kyllingerSlagtninger af hønsSlagtninger af ænderSlagtninger af gæsSlagtninger af kalkuner

Slagtninger og eksport af levende dyr (1.000 stk.)201595681.411.839.186.7

korrigeret til mio æg"172.22652

æg + kyllunger konv220.22652mio kg

6%

Figurer






% i Dk87987492637570100




arealm2 per enhed1.782.374.139.1449.61.742.44

% DK709680877370100100

DK areal1.2462.27523.3047.95182.926.721.742.44

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha7255.21669341894591.24472573845631.96125907993241.02718881265169.86301369863191.964285714312501434.4262295082


DKprodukt / ha8025.68218298554395.21800281293026.63438256661257.57690082753424.65753424661488.09523809525747.12643678164098.3606557377



mio kg FU-enhed47864832369.736842105313.157894736817215

ha596.3356109.89216782.961052631610.462894736850.22410.081023492452.5206526316179.43505473682631.95570736842453179



produktionFU47860004830002369736.8421052613157.8947368421172000150005879310.34482759200819.672131148

52690002382894.736842111870006080130.01695873

arealDk areal1000 ha651111615853811345224531792632


GJ=10-9 kgUdledningGJ CO2 eq4.72314606740.50962816463.46365617430.02592821750.27400273970.02553571431.41750.07459016399.87830498150.635682260310.5139872418


produktionFU5224719.10112359487869.1983122361861380.1452784510060.6152066199181506.84931506811904.76190476196517241.37931035213114.754098361

5712588.299435831871440.76048507193411.611219836730356.13340871

øko

scenarierudvikling

tilgang½

produkt7ha65111154332453278854320277182745


økologi% af konv0.14241222230.9613261095

produktproduktionFU5224719.10112359487869.1983122361643462.4697336640242.4608264795154109.58904109647619.04761904764528735.632183912225409.83606557

5712588.299435831683704.93056014201728.6366601446754145.46824948

1.08418832780.70657965061.07876276291.1108554339

mælksvinfjerkræplantegennemsnit

systemkonvøkokonvøkokonvøkokonvøkokonvøko

DK landbrugCO2 eq kg / ha7255.21669341894591.24472573845631.96125907993241.02718881265169.86301369863191.964285714312501434.42622950824027.03015959073551.2975435062

7255.21669341895631.96125907995169.863013698612504027.0301595907

4591.24472573843241.02718881263191.96428571431434.42622950823551.2975435062

DK prouduktionmio kg sl180110

mio kg FU-enhed47864832369.736842105313.157894736822015

ha596.3356109.89216782.961052631610.462894736864.2410.081009492452.5366526316179.4350547368

UdledningGJ CO2 eq4.3265440.50454184.40960631580.03391052630.3321120.0321751.261250.064262295110.32951231580.6348896214

42%79%43%5%3%5%12%10%

0.41885268810.79469215280.42689395020.05341168790.03215175990.05067810040.12210160180.1012180589

7255.21669341894591.24472573845631.96125907993241.02718881265169.86301369863191.964285714312501311.4754098361

konvøkoKonvØko

mælk725545917255.2166934189mælk4279

svin533132414591.2447257384svin435

fjerkræ517031925631.9612590799fjerkræ35

plante125014343241.0271888126plante1210

gennemsnit402735515169.8630136986

3191.9642857143

1250

1311.4754098361

mælk

svin

fjerkræ

plante

Andel af udledning af metan+lattergas i Danmark indenfor konventionelt og økologisk jordbrugopdelt efter driftsgrene

Udledning af metan og lattergas ved konventionelt og økologisk jordbrug opdelt efter driftsgrene og i gennemsnit, kg CO2 eq pr ha

konv

øko

Udledning af metan + lattergas ved konventionelt og økologisk jordbrug opdelt efter driftsgrene og i gennemsnit, kg CO2 eq pr ha

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


The future

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Same milk production in DK

Same # of cows in DK (12500 EKM)

Biogas

Manure

Management

Breeding

Feeding

Tech

nolo

gy

Change in methane in 2030 (% of 2015)

Lund & Kristensen (2017)

AARHUSUNIVERSITY


Thank you for your attention!

57

Methane production by ruminantsOutlineCLIMATE CHANGE ??Global methane (CH4) trendsNo greenhouse gasses !!CO2-EQTHE COST OF PRODUCING MILKCOWS AND METHANE IS HOTSPIN!!Slide Number 10Global greenhouse gas sourcesEnteric methane production DenmarkComparison of countriesYield level is importantEmission of methaneWhy is it a problem?Why do cows produce CH4...?Hydrogen!Why do cow’s produce CH4...?Diversity in the rumenDiversity in the rumenMicrobial communityAnimal variationWhere does H2 goes to?Energy efficiencyNitrate (NO3-) as mitigation strategyNitrate study: resultsNitrate study: resultsSlide Number 29Slide Number 30Nitrate in milk (mg/kg)N2O (256 x CO2)Measurement techniquesMeasurement techniquesRespiration chambersWelfare is importantGreenFeedSF6 (sulphur hexafluoride) techniqueReducing (mitigating) methane emissionReducing (mitigating) methane emissionReducing methane emissionReducing methane emission (1)Reducing methane emission (2)Reducing methane emissionMethane reduction through fatEffects of dietary fat on CH4 productionEffects of dietary fat on CH4 productionFat x forage – cowFat x forage – biogas potentialGHG from feed + CH4 from cow, kg CO2/kg ECM�FORAGE: CONCENTRATE RATIOGHG from feed + CH4 from cow, kg CO2/kg ECM�WUNDERDRUGSORGANIC VS CONVENTIONALORGANIC VS CONVENTIONALThe futureThank you for your attention!

Documents

Dana Olijhoek and Peter Lund Department of Animal Science · 2017-03-21 · AARHUS UNIVERSITY Methane – Dana Olijhoek March 2017 Methane production by ruminants Dana Olijhoek and