MITIGATION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

MITIGATION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires Bárbaro, Néstor Omar Rubio, Roberto Gratton, Roberto

Néstor Omar Bárbaro ambiente@rec. unicen. edu. ar // barbaro@cae. cnea. gov. ar TE: 02293 -434209 // 011 -67798202 Roberto Gratton rgratton@rec. unicen. edu. ar Alfredo Rebori vdecano@econ. unicen. edu. ar Roberto Rubio Gustavo Arguello rubio@vet. unicen. edu. ar Análisis cromatográfico - INFIQC (UN Córdoba) Huber A. Arislur Tareas de taller Martín Pérez Bordogaray Tareas de campo Joaquín Claverie Tareas de campo Karina E. García Infografía y bibliografía José I. Gere Tareas de laboratorio e infografía Sergio A. Guzmán Infografía y edición de informes Javier Housspanosiain Estación meteorológica Martín Manetti Análisis cromatográfico - INFIQC (UN Córdoba) Claudio Santiago Tareas de taller Nicodemo Scali Tareas de taller Leonel Silva Tareas de laboratorio Karen Evelin Williams Tareas de campo e infografía Horacio Gonda Investigador del núcleo PROANVET Fernando Milano Investigador del núcleo PROANVET Guillermo Milano Investigador del núcleo FISFARVET Eduardo Ponza Investigador en economía del núcleo FISFARVET Sergio Sánchez Bruni Investigador área farmacología; CONICET/FISFARVET

Preliminary approach to establish a proposal of emission mitigation and research program in Argentina

1. Argentinian emissions follow a different distribution pattern than world emissions of GHG. ØAbout a half of the Argentinian anthropogenic emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) come from farming activities. ØThe CH 4 and N 2 O emitted as a consequence of livestock and agriculture slightly exceed (in C equivalent) the total resulting from fossil combustible burning. ØThe emissions of enteric fermentation, CH 4 , represented 24. 9, 23. 0, 20. 9 y 20. 4% of total emissions of GHG during 1990, 1994, 1997 y 2000, respectively. ØCattle contribution to total Argentinean CH 4 emission is 95%.

Distribution of GHG emissions CO 2 CH 4* N 2 O * (%) (%) Argentina 48. 0 29. 3 22. 8 Brazil 54. 2 25. 3 20. 5 1191. 0 Paraguay 48. 5 27. 8 23. 7 42. 0 Uruguay 18. 4 41. 0 40. 6 Region 52. 0 26. 5 21. 5 1569 World global 73. 1 17. 2 9. 7 36848. 6 Countries * in CO 2 equivalent Total country * (Tg ) 295. 7

Importance of enteric emissions Countries (1994) Participation of CH 4 in global world Eq. C 02 Enteric CH 4 of Argentina in relation to total CH 4 emissions: CH 4 global (Tg) (%) (Year 1994) CH 4 total Country (%) CH 4 ent. region (%) CH 4 ent. Global (%) 82. 7 1. 3 68. 9 22. 4 3. 6 Brazil 276. 6 4. 4 71. 2 73. 4 11. 7 Uruguay 14. 2 0. 2 78, 9 4. 2 0, 7 Region 373. 5 5. 9 71. 0 100, 0 16. 0 Global 6340. 93 100. 0 Argentina Population = 38 M 100. 0 Cattle => Bovine = 50 M Ovine = 13. 6 M

2. National livestock is based on grazing production systems. 3. The maintenance of grazing production systems is important because: Ø Characteristics of product Ø Grazing system is ecological important, because: ü It enhance soil quality conservation (crop-cattle rotation, soil carbon sink, water resources conservation). ü Low inputs.

Agriculture and cattle production offer many possibilities of emission mitigation and GHG sink reinforcement. 4. 5. It is possible to establish and reinforce synergic actions: -Agriculture productivity -Natural resources conservation -Ecosystem services -GHG emissions

Options for GHG mitigation

Basic principles for mitigation options Ø Take into account cattle production system characteristics Ø Enhance initial activities in relation to a continuous improvement process. Ø Ensure the absence of negative direct or indirect impacts of new proposed inputs. Ø Enhance the use of available technologies, in particular, soft technologies.

Selection of mitigation options Ø Increase of production efficiency: ü Management inputs. ü Forages and protein supplements. ü Nutritional factors additives as promotion of increase the metabolic efficiency. Ø Genetic improvement Ø Nutritional Management for fermentative modifications in rumen Ø Rumen ecology. Ø Research in forage us a natural way of emission mitigation.

Mitigation of GHG by increasing production efficiency

Theoretical considerations to evaluate emissions View Focus Lacking aspects Ø Emissions involved in animal feed Lineal CH 4 Ø Integration of production system Ø Synergism and antagonism of other Cattle farm activities Ø Effect of GHG sinks and emissions besides enteric CH 4 ØEcological effects of different production systems

Theoretical considerations to evaluate emissions Focus View Production Systems CH 4 health Breeding System Animal production genetic Forage production Lacking aspects Other Animal feed ØSynergism and antagonism of other farm activities ØEffect of GHG sinks and emissions besides enteric CH 4 ØEcological effects of different production systems

Mitigation Strategies Ø Increase of productivity by increasing productivity rate (kg per time) through: üImprovement of pasture quality and quantity. üIntegrated improvement of grazing system. Ø Improvement of animal health by farmer adoption of adequate care procedures. Ø Improving cow/calf ratio, through: üImprovement of herd management üBetter utilization of grazing forage. üEnsure pregnancy.

Mitigations practices in the Pampas Region New Proposals

Long-term purpose Ø Set down scientific basis for strategies designed to mitigate GHG emissions, take into account other features, such as the preservation of the Region's ecosystem services and social characters. Ø Contribute to the formation of a multidisciplinary team, including researchers coming from different scientific areas and organisms.

Area of present project Ø Departments of Olavarría, Azul, Tandil and Ayacucho Ø The area includes three main sub-regions: ü Very flat low lands (the “Pampa Deprimida”) ü Foothills undulate plains, ü Hills Ø The Float Pampas and the Hills mainly devoted to free grazing cattle breeding, while free grazing and dairy cattle breeding, as well as extensive agriculture, spare the foothills sub-region.

Present project purpose Ø Improve knowledge and systematize key data for a reliable estimate of the GHG emissions and uptakes related with land management and status in departments of Pampas Region.

Present project activities The present Project schedules the following activities: Ø By using remote sensing techniques and site studies, to develop a description of the area in terms of landscape units properly characterized by their basic geomorphology, status and energy balance Ø To perform studies on agricultural systems and on grazed grasslands in representative sites, having in mind both the effect of pasture quality over enteric fermentation and the carbon uptake by the soil ØTo evaluate CH 4 emissions related to the management of dairy cattle and feedlots manure, and to depositions of free grazing cattle Ø To evaluate N 2 O emissions in grazing and agricultural soils

Others activities Alternative or complementary technique addressed to verify the reliability of the inventory methodology Ø Ø Some improvements in the collection system for CH 4 enteric and N 2 O soil emissions Ø Some studies about CH 4 manure emissions

Roberto Rubio For more information contact me at rubio@vet. unicen. edu. ar

FIRST MEASUREMENTS OF METHANE EMITTED BY GRAZING CATTLE OF THE ARGENTINEAN BEEF SYSTEM GRUPO UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL CENTRO DE LA PROVINCIA DE BUENOS AIRES

And • Farmers • “La Bernarda” All data collections and climate measurements were taken from a commercial farm

Steps • Validation of ERUCT technique for use it on animals. – SF 6 capsules where provided by NIWA and calibration was done at UNCPBA. – Sample collection set were designed, constructed and tried at UNCPBA. • Experiments – Pasture – Results

Now we are using • Stainless steel vessel which conserved the sample for many weeks. • Air inflow regulators are of our design allowing collection periods up to 10 days.

Problems

Pasture – components and quality Groups of components (kg/ha) of the dry matter in the two paddocks of Experiment-1. RL: Range Land, IP: Implanted Pasture. NDF ADF Quality of the herbage allowance for the two experiments. Neutral Detergent fiber (NDF, %DM), acid detergent fiber (ADF, %DM), crude protein (CP, % DM), dry matter digestibility (DMD, %DM), metabolizable energy (in MJ) per kg of DM (ME) and not structural carbohydrates (NSC, %DM)

Average LWs evolution (kg) during Experiment-1 a (circles) and 1 b (triangles)

Figure 4. 1. Average LWs evolution (kg) during Experiment-1 a (circles) and 1 b (triangles)

Animal live weights gain (LWG) LWG during Experiment-1. The longest vertical bars contains the 595% percentile of the LWG values, the rectangles the 25 -75 % percentile. The short horizontal central bar is the median and the dot is the average value. LWG during Experiment-2. The values statistically represented are moving weighed averages calculated for each animal by using a three terms binomial filter as explained in the text. Symbols are the same of Figure 5.

Average = 163 g CH 4 / day

Calculated Eg and Ym Value of Eg and Ym for the three weeks of Experiments-1 a , 1 b, and for Experiment-2. Specific Em is given by Em /dm/dt. Note: the values of Em for the first week correspond to a single measurement.

Conclusion • Ym => 0. 056 Approximately the same used in Argentine Inventory Ym = 0. 06 • FE => discussion • More research is need in local conditions with adaptation.

Theoretical calculations of production efficiency, in beef production system

Parameters to be considered i. Dietary quality of grazed forage. ii. Weight gain. iii. Efficiency of the breeding system (calf/dam system).

Theoretical calculations Annual emissions Category CH 4 (kg/animal) Pregnant Cow 55 Non Pregnant cow 50 Heifers 45 Animal and dietary parameters Weaning live weight Kg. 180 Gain weight Kg. /day 0. 6 % 60 Kg. 400 Dietary Digestibility Slaughter Weight Beef production system

Theoretical calculations Calf/cow (%) CH 4 (Kg/year) CH 4 / Kg. CH 4 cow % of Total Steers Cow Total 50 76 112 188 0. 470 59. 8 60 76 96 171 0. 428 55. 8 70 76 84 159 0. 399 52. 5 80 76 75 151 0. 376 49. 7 Slaughter Beef production system

Aplication I: Emission in relation to produced meat weigth Emission of methane per Kg of produced meat (breeding and fattening) Diet Digestibility 60% Kg of methane/ Kg of Produced meat 0, 450 0, 400 250 0, 350 0, 300 450 0, 200 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 Daily weight gain 1, 0 1, 2

Application II: Emission in relation to weaning rate (%) Emission of methane per Kg of produced meat (breeding and fattening) Diet digestibility 60%, daily weight gain : 0, 6 Kg Kg of methane/ Kg of Produced meat 0, 490 0, 470 0, 450 55% 0, 430 65% 0, 410 75% 0, 390 0, 370 250, 0 300, 0 350, 0 400, 0 Slaughter weight 450, 0

Mixing strategies in breeding and growing and fattening systems.

Mitigation Strategies : calculated emissions Weaning Rate Live Weight Gain /day (g/d) Digestibility of diet (%) Emission / Kg Produced meat Absolute Reduction 50 400 55 0. 614 0 60 400 55 0. 573 0. 041 6. 68% 400 55 0. 543 0. 071 11. 56% 600 55 0. 461 0. 153 24. 92% 55 0. 421 0. 193 31. 43% 65 0. 329 0. 285 46. 42% 75 0. 278 0. 336 54. 72% 70 800 Reduction %

Argentina Superficie 1. 068. 302 millas 2 2. 766. 890 km 2 Nueva Zelanda Superficie 103. 738 millas 2 268. 680 km 2