Field scale measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from land applied swine manure

Highlights

Fall/Spring GHG emissions from a corn field & swine manure application were measured.

Flux chamber method was used for farm-scale measurements.

Four flux estimation models were evaluated for GHG emissions.

GHG flux estimates that were not significantly (p<0.05) different between models.

Spring reapplication of swine manure resulted in higher GHGs emissions.

Abstract

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from swine production systems are relatively well researched with the exception of emissions from land application of manure. GHGs inventories are needed for process-based modeling and science-based regulations. Thus, the objective of this observational study was to measure GHG fluxes from land application of swine manure on a typical corn field. Assessment of GHG emissions from deep injected land-applied swine manure, fall and reapplication in the spring, on a typical US Midwestern corn-on-corn farm was completed. Static chambers were used for flux measurement along with gas analysis on a GC-FID-ECD. Measured gas concentrations were used to estimate GHGs flux using four different models: linear regression, nonlinear regression, first order linear regression and the revised Hutchinson and Mosier (HMR) model, respectively for comparisons. Cumulative flux estimates after manure application of 5.85 × 10⁵ g·ha^-1 (1 ha= 0.01 km²) of CO₂, 6.60 × 10¹ g·ha^-1 of CH₄, and 3.48 × 10³ g·ha^-1 N₂O for the fall trial and 3.11 × 10⁶ g·ha^-1 of CO₂, 2.95 × 10³ g·ha^-1 of CH₄, and 1.47 × 10⁴ g·ha^-1 N₂O after the spring reapplication trial were observed. The N₂O net cumulative flux represents 0.595% of nitrogen applied in swine manure for the fall trial.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Climate change / Emissions / Greenhouse gases / Land application / Swine manure

References

[1] Akdeniz N, Jacobson L D, Hetchler B P, Bereznicki S D, Heber A J, Koziel J A, Cai L, Zhang S, Parker D B. Odor and odorous chemical emissions from animal buildings: Part 2–Odor emissions. Transactions of the ASABE, 2012, 55(6): 2335–2345

[2] Cai L, Koziel J A, Zhang S, Heber A J, Cortus E L, Parker D B, Hoff S J, Sun G, Heathcote K Y, Jacobson L D, Akdeniz N, Hetchler B P, Bereznicki S D, Caraway E A, Lim T T. Odor and odorous chemical emissions from animal buildings: Part 3– Chemical emissions. Transactions of the ASABE, 2015, 58(5): 1333–1347

[3] Heber A J, Lim T T, Ni J Q, Tao P C, Schmidt A M, Koziel J A, Hoff S J, Jacobson L D, Zhang Y, Baughman G B. Quality assured measurements of animal building emissions: particulate matter concentrations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2006, 56(12): 1642–1648

[4] Heber A J, Ni J Q, Lim T T, Tao P C, Schmidt A M, Koziel J A, Beasley D B, Hoff S J, Nicolai R E, Jacobson L D, Zhang Y. Quality assured measurements of animal building emissions: gas concentrations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2006, 56(10): 1472–1483

[5] Maurer D L, Koziel J A, Harmon J D, Hoff S J, Rieck-Hinz A M, Andersen D S. Summary of performance data for technologies to control gaseous, odor, and particulate emissions from livestock operations: air management practices assessment tool (AMPAT). Data in Brief, 2016, 7: 1413–1429

[6] Bender M R, Wood C W. Above and below ground measurements of greenhouse gases from swine effluent amended soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2007, 38(17–18): 2479–2503

[7] Hernandez-Ramirez G, Brouder S M, Smith D R, Van Scoyoc G E. Greenhouse gas fluxes in an eastern Corn Belt soil: weather, nitrogen source, and rotation. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2009, 38(3): 841–854

[8] Baek B H, Todd R, Cole N A, Koziel J A. Ammonia and hydrogen sulphide flux and dry deposition velocity measurements using vertical gradient method at a commercial beef cattle feedlot. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 2006, 6(2/3): 189–203

[9] Sharpe R R, Harper L A. Nitrous oxide and ammonia fluxes in a soybean field irrigated with swine effluent. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2002, 31(5): 1491–1501

[10] Parker D, Ham J, Woodbury B, Cai L, Spiehs M, Rhoades M, Trabue S, Casey K, Todd R, Cole A. Standardization of flux chamber and wind tunnel flux measurements for quantifying volatile organic compound and ammonia emissions from area sources at animal feeding operations. Atmospheric Environment, 2013, 66: 72–83

[11] Parkin T B, Venterea R T. Chapter 3. Chamber-based trace gas flux measurements. In: Follett R F, ed. Sampling Protocols. 2010, 3–1–3–39.

[12] Chan A S K, Parkin T B. Effect of land use on methane flux from soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2001, 30(3): 786–797

[13] Jarecki M K, Parkin T B, Chan A S K, Hatfield J L, Jones R. Greenhouse gas emissions from two soils receiving nitrogen fertilizer and swine manure slurry. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2008, 37(4): 1432–1438

[14] Livingston G P, Hutchinson G L, Spartalian K. Trace gas emission in chambers: a non-study-state diffusion model. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2006, 70(5): 1459–1469

[15] Lovanh N, Warren J, Sistani K. Determination of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from land application of swine slurry: a comparison of three application methods. Bioresource Technology, 2010, 101(6): 1662–1667

[16] Pedersen A R, Petersen S O, Schelde K. A comprehensive approach to soil-atmosphere trace-gas flux estimation with static chambers. European Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 61(6): 888–902

[17] Parkin T B, Venterea R T, Hargreaves S K. Calculating the detection limits of chamber-based soil greenhouse gas flux measurements. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2012, 41(3): 705–715

[18] Sistani K R, Warren J G, Lovanh N, Higgins S, Shearer S. Greenhouse gas emissions from swine effluent applied to soil by different methods. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2010, 74(2): 429–435

[19] Tenuta M, Mkhabela M, Tremorin D, Coppi L, Phipps G, Flaten D, Ominski K. Nitrous oxide and methane emission from a coarse-textured grassland soil receiving hog slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2010, 138(1–2): 35–43

[20] Venterea T R. Theoretical comparison of advanced methods for calculating nitrous oxide fluxes using non-study state chambers. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2013, 77(3): 709–720

[21] Association of Official Agricultural Chemists International. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists International, 2000

[22] American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 1998

[23] Bajracharya R M, Lal R, Kimble J M. Diurnal and seasonal CO₂-C flux from soil as related to erosion phases in central Ohio. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2000, 64(1): 286–293

[24] Jacinthe P A, Lal R. Effects of soil cover and land-use on the relations flux-concentration of trace gases. Soil Science, 2004, 169(4): 243–259

[25] Hutchinson G L, Mosier A R. Improved soil cover method for field measurement of nitrous oxide fluxes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1981, 45(2): 311–316

Acknowledgements

Project was funded by National Pork Board Project #10-163, Developing a process-based model for estimating air emissions from swine operations. Authors would like to thank Dr. Tim Parkin and Otis Smith of the USDA-ARS (Ames, IA) for sharing their expertise in static chamber sampling and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from soils.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0915-9 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2017 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg