Greenhouse gas emissions from pig slurry during storage and after field application in northern European conditions

被引:40
|
作者
Rodhe, Lena K. K. [1 ]
Abubaker, Jamal [2 ]
Ascue, Johnny [1 ]
Pell, Mikael [2 ]
Nordberg, Ake [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] JTI Swedish Inst Agr & Environm Engn, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Microbiol, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
[3] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Energy & Technol, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSIONS; METHANE EMISSIONS; ANAEROBIC-DIGESTION; AMMONIA EMISSIONS; ANIMAL MANURES; SOIL; OXIDATION; WATER; TEMPERATURE; EXCHANGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.09.010
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Different mitigation techniques for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from pig slurry in storage and after field application were evaluated and specific emissions factors derived. Fluxes of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were measured for one year in a pilot-scale storage plant comparing uncovered pig slurry (NC) with slurry covered by straw (SC) or plastic sheet cover (PC). In spring and autumn, stored slurry was band spread (BS) in the field without or with immediate incorporation by harrowing (BS + HA). Closed chamber techniques were used for gas sampling. Complementary soil core experiments in the laboratory examined the influence of soil moisture and temperature on emissions from slurry application. Annual CH4 emissions (g CH4-C kg(-1) VS) from storage were 5.3 for NC, 5.8 for SC and 2.8 for PC, corresponding to CH4 conversion factors (MCFs) of 2.6, 2.8 and 1.4%, respectively. N2O emissions from storage were low except from SC, where they comprised 31.7 g N2O-N m(-2) year(-1), corresponding to an N2O emissions factor (EFN2O) of 0.66% of total N (Tot-N) in slurry. N2O emissions after field application varied depending on soil conditions, with soil moisture content having a significant influence according to soil core experiments. Overall, cumulative N2O-N emissions in spring were 1.35% of Tot-N in slurry for BS and 0.46% for BS + HA. Corresponding N2O-N emissions in autumn were 0.77 and 0.97%. The MCFs observed in storage were considerably lower than the default IPCC value of 10%, while EFN2O was in the suggested IPCC range for storage and field. (C) 2012 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:379 / 394
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Greenhouse gas emissions from covered slurry compared with uncovered during storage
    Berg, W
    Brunsch, R
    Pazsiczki, I
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2006, 112 (2-3) : 129 - 134
  • [2] Greenhouse gas emissions from storage and field application of anaerobically digested and non-digested cattle slurry
    Rodhe, Lena K. K.
    Ascue, Johnny
    Willen, Agnes
    Persson, Birgitta Vegerfors
    Nordberg, Ake
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 199 : 358 - 368
  • [3] Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage - A review
    Kupper, Thomas
    Hani, Christoph
    Neftel, Albrecht
    Kincaid, Chris
    Buhler, Marcel
    Amon, Barbara
    VanderZaag, Andrew
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 300
  • [4] Effect of Cattle Slurry Separation on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions during Storage
    Fangueiro, David
    Coutinho, Joao
    Chadwick, David
    Moreira, Nuno
    Trindade, Henrique
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2008, 37 (06) : 2322 - 2331
  • [5] Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Slurry Storage: Impacts of Temperature and Potential Mitigation through Covering (Pig Slurry) or Acidification (Cattle Slurry)
    Misselbrook, Tom
    Hunt, John
    Perazzolo, Francesca
    Provolo, Giorgio
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2016, 45 (05) : 1520 - 1530
  • [6] Effects of dairy cow breed and dietary forage on greenhouse gas emissions from manure during storage and after field application
    Uddin, M. E.
    Larson, R. A.
    Wattiaux, M. A.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 270
  • [7] Efficiency of different strategies for pig slurry bioacidification to reduce ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions during long term storage
    Gomez-Munoz, B.
    Jensen, L. S.
    Regueiro, I.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2025, 13 (02):
  • [8] Soil, slurry and application effects on greenhouse gas emissions
    Severin, M.
    Fuss, R.
    Well, R.
    Garlipp, F.
    Van den Weghe, H.
    PLANT SOIL AND ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 61 (08) : 344 - 351
  • [9] Use of reverse osmosis concentrate for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from pig slurry
    Im, Seongwon
    Kang, Sungwon
    Jang, Duksoo
    Kim, Gyeongchul
    Kim, Dong-Hoon
    FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [10] Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from pig slurry by acidification with organic and inorganic acids
    Dalby, Frederik R.
    Guldberg, Lise B.
    Feilberg, Anders
    Kofoed, Michael V. W.
    PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (05):