1. Agustin del Prado (BC3)
agustin.delprado@bc3research.org
GHG emissions associated with manure management from
livestock systems in a Mediterranean country. A case study:
Spain.
Del Prado Agustin 1*, Alvaro‐Fuentes Jorge2, Arriaga Haritz3,
Báez Dolores4, Bernal Maria Pilar5, Cantero Carlos6, Estellés
Fernando7, Merino Pilar3, Moral Raúl8, Pardo Guillermo1,
Salcedo Gregorio9, Calvet Salvador7, Sanz‐Cobeña
Alberto10,
(1) BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (BC3), Alameda Urquijo 4, 48008, Bilbao
(2) ESTACIÓN EXPERIMENTAL DE AULA DEI (CSIC), Zaragoza
(3) NEIKER‐Tecnalia, Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development,
Derio
(4) INGACAL‐Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias de Mabegondo, Abegondo, A Coruña
(5) CENTRO DE EDAFOLOGÍA Y BIOLOGÍA APLICADA DEL SEGURA CSIC, Murcia
(6) UNIVERSIDAD DE LLEIDA, Lleida
(7) ICTA. Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia
(8) Miguel Hernandez University, EPS‐Orihuela, Ctra Beniel Km 3.2, 03312 Orihuela
(9) DPTO. TECNOLOGIA AGRARIA, I.E.S. “La Granja”, Heras, Cantabria
(10) ETSI AGRÓNOMOS (UPM), Madrid
http://redremedia.wordpress.com/ (BLOG)
A. del Prado is funded by Spanish National R+D+i Plan (grant no. CGL2009‐10176) and Basque Department of Education,
Universities and Research (grant no. PC2010‐33A)

2. swine cattle
poultry other
Source: PROBIOGAS project
http://213.229.136.11/bases/ainia_probiogas.nsf/0/42EBC9523D85C2FCC12575380034A6A1/$FILE/Inf_cuantificacion_ganadero_07‐10‐2009.pdf
Distribution of manure in Spain
23.430.166 t 14.146.063t
3.024.831t 8.323.058t

3. Contribution of manure management to agricultural GHG

4. Overall objectives of the REMEDIA manures working group
• Synthesis of Scientific
evidence in Spain
• Select farm typologies for
different livestock sectors
• Modeling of different
methods to reduce GHG
from manure management
(up to the farm‐gate)

5. Synthesis
e.g. soil‐based mitigation options

6. Farm typologies
First case study: dairy farming (Under confinement)
Future case studies: dairy‐grazing, pigs, poultry…

7. Case study: a “typical” confinement dairy farm
Based on Del Prado et al., in press (Sci. Total Env.)
Purchased feed
3 applications
(slurry)/yr
A. Injection
B. N inhibitor
Soil‐plant
storage
housing
C. Frequent manure
Removal (5 applic)
treatment
D. Reducing CP intake
E. Anaerobic Digestion
Overall GHG emissions from production of 1kg (corrected) milk (cradle‐to‐farm)
How much can we reduce overall GHG through manure management?

8. total (cow‐1 yr‐1) (ha‐1) (t milk‐1)
purchased feed
(t‐1)
LU 74 1.4 2.2
Followers 44 0.8 1.3
milk (t) 392 7.3 12
purchased feed (t) 323 6.0 9 0.8
Electricity used (kwh) 15720 291 462 40 49
Diesel used (L) 11881 220 349 30 37
manure (m3) 2200 40.7 64.7 6 7
net margin (€) 41K 755 1199 104 126
Main characteristic of a confinement dairy farm
Based on Del Prado et al., in press (Sci. Total Env.)
‐2010 weather conditions (Atlantic area in N Spain)
‐Loam soil
‐Manure management: open pit, slurry‐based, 3 slurry applications to grass&clover

9. + off‐farm GHG emissions (feed, fertilisers)+ on‐farm energy use
‐Dairy LCA: Del Prado et al., in press (Sci. Total Env.): LANDAIRY+NGAUGE (Brown et al., 2005)
‐Mitigation measures (e.g. nitrif. Inhibitors, based on SIMSDAIRY: del Prado et al. 2010)
‐Arable (Gallejones et al., in prep)
‐Compost and AD: Pardo et al., (2013) (e.g. RAMIRAN 2013)
‐Soil C modelling (Roth C: Coleman et al., 1997)
Modelling framework

10. Results: mitigation strategies as a single measure
GHG NH3 NO3‐
1.16 (‐13%) 13.0 (‐21%)

11. Results: mitigation strategies as a combination of measures
GHG NH3 NO3‐
single mitigation effects are not necessarily additive

12. 12
FLOWS OF MATTER

13. Results: main impacts: injection of slurry (A)
‐63%
+30%+45%
SOIL

14. Results: main impacts: nitrification inhibitors (B)
‐3%
NI
SOIL

15. Results: main impacts: frequent removal of slurry (C)
‐1%
‐11%
+6%
‐77%
+30%
SOIL
Energy use (GHG)

16. Results: main impacts: reducing crude protein (D)
‐7%
CP
‐8%
(Hardstandings)
(storage)
‐5% (GHG)
‐1%
SOIL

17. Results: main impacts: anaerobic digestion (E)
+12%
(storage,
hardstandings)
‐80%
+21%
‐28%
+20%
DM increase?
0.22kg CO2 eq/kg milk
Avoid through AD
Aprox. 20% of total C footprint
SOIL

18. Herbage productivity
Baseline‐slurry accumulates and releases more
inorganic N in the long‐term than digestate 1 yr 10 yr
Benefit of digestate
Long‐term effect (speculation) (digestate vs slurry at field level)

19. N2O emissions from slurry/digestate application
Leached N from slurry/digestate application
1 yr 10 yr
1 yr 10 yr
penalty of digestate
N2O
penalty of digestate
NO3‐
Long‐term effect (speculation) (digestate vs slurry at field level)

20. Total GHG‐ What if we include the effect on soil C sequestration
‐14% ‐11%
Benefit of AD after including soil C changes
(No C) (with C)
Total GHG emissions
(up‐to‐farm‐gate)
Digestate is applying less C than undigested slurry
Simulated with RothCarbon

21. Summary
• Manure management can be an effective way to reduce the
overall GHG impact of a livestock product (milk) in confinement
dairy systems
• Anaerobic digestion and frequent removal of manure are ways to
reduce the GHG impact but may generate pollution swapping
• Animal diet changes targeting better NUE has a more modest
potential to reduce overall GHG emissions but is likely to generate
no pollution swapping
• Uncertainties are likely to be large (e.g. we must make an effort to
improve long‐term estimates).

22. http://redremedia.wordpress.com/
Thanks