GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK IN CHINA AND MITIGATION OPTIONS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CARBON NEUTRALITY

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2023486

REVIEW

Zhiping ZHU¹, Yue WANG¹, Ting YAN^1,², Zherui ZHANG¹, Shunli WANG¹, Hongmin DONG¹(

)

¹. Institute of Environmental and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
². College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China

Download: PDF(1834 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Livestock is major greenhouse gas source in agriculture in China.

● Greenhouse gas emissions in livestock shows an upward trend during 1994 to 2014.

● Main mitigation options are improving productivity, feed quality and manure recycling.

● Strengthening monitoring and standards is necessary for capacity building.

Animal husbandry is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. Mitigating the emissions from the livestock sector is vital for green development of agriculture in China. Based on National Communication on Climate Change of United Nations, this study aims to investigate the characteristics of GHG emissions of animal husbandry during 1994 to 2014, introduce major emission reduction technologies and their effectiveness, and investigate options for emission reduction for the livestock sector in China. It proposes that control of pollution and carbon emissions can be realized through increased animal productivity, improved feed quality and recycling of animal manure. This paper thus concludes with suggestions of green and low-carbon development of animal husbandry, including the research and development of new technology for emission reduction and carbon sequestration of the livestock sector, enhancement of monitoring and evaluation, and establishment of emission reduction and carbon sequestration standards.

Keywords animal husbandry emission reduction solutions feed improvement greenhouse gases emission manure management

Corresponding Author(s): Hongmin DONG

Just Accepted Date: 22 February 2023 Online First Date: 15 March 2023

Cite this article:

Zhiping ZHU,Yue WANG,Ting YAN, et al. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK IN CHINA AND MITIGATION OPTIONS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CARBON NEUTRALITY[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 15 March 2023. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.15302/J-FASE-2023486.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2023486
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y/V/I/0

Tab.1 GHG emissions from livestock in China during 1994–2014 (Mt CO₂ eq)

Fig.1 Emissions from different greenhouse gas sources in livestock production during 1994?2014.

Fig.2 Greenhouse gas emissions from different livestock species between 2005 and 2014.

Fig.3 Evolution in greenhouse gas emission intensities from major livestock and poultry products.

1	Q C Chao . The scientific connotation of “carbon peaking and carbon neutrality” and China’s policy measures. Environment and Sustainable Development, 2021, 46(2): 14−19 (in Chinese)
2	J D, He D Q, Cao X N, Duan T, Zhao Q F, Li Y, Xiao Z M, Liu H S, Chen C B Ding . Give full play to national strategic S&T force to provide vigorous support for carbon peak and carbon neutrality goals. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2022, 37(4): 415−422 (in Chinese)
3	M, Crippa E, Solazzo D, Guizzardi F, Monforti-Ferrario F N, Tubiello A Leip . Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2021, 2(3): 198–209 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
4	X, Xu P, Sharma S, Shu T S, Lin P, Ciais F N, Tubiello P, Smith N, Campbell A K Jain . Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2021, 2(9): 724–732 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
5	M, Herrero B, Henderson P, Havlík P K, Thornton R T, Conant P, Smith S, Wirsenius A N, Hristov P, Gerber M, Gill K, Butterbach-Bahl H, Valin T, Garnett E Stehfest . Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(5): 452–461 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925
6	Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Intergovernmental . Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. IPCC, 2000
7	A N, Hristov J, Oh J L, Firkins J, Dijkstra E, Kebreab G, Waghorn H P S, Makkar A T, Adesogan W, Yang C, Lee P J, Gerber B, Henderson J M Tricarico . Special topics—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science, 2013, 91(11): 5045–5069 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6583 pmid: 24045497
8	C, Arndt A N, Hristov W J, Price S C, McClelland A M, Pelaez S F, Cueva J, Oh A, Bannink A R, Bayat L A, Crompton J, Dijkstra M A, Eugène E, Kebreab M, Kreuzer M, McGee C, Martin C J, Newbold C K, Reynolds A, Schwarm K J, Shingfield J B, Veneman D R, Yáñez-Ruiz Z T Yu . Strategies to mitigate enteric methane emissions by ruminants—A way to approach the 2.0 °C target. AgriRxiv, 2021, doi:
9	R J, Eckard C, Grainger Klein C A M de . Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livestock Science, 2010, 130(1−3): 47−56
10	B A, Åby Å T, Randby H, Bonesmo L Aass . Impact of grass silage quality on greenhouse gas emissions from dairy and beef production. Grass and Forage Science, 2019, 74(3): 525–534
11	R, Na H, Dong Z, Zhu Y, Chen H Xin . Effects of forage type and dietary concentrate to forage ratio on methane emissions and rumen fermentation characteristics of dairy cows in China. Transactions of the ASABE, 2013, 56(3): 1115–1122
12	Y, Wang X, Li J, Yang Z, Tian Q, Sun W, Xue H Dong . Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from beef cattle feedlot production: a system meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018, 52(19): 11232–11242 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02475 pmid: 30119602
13	K A, Beauchemin M, Kreuzer F, O’mara T A McAllister . Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2008, 48(2): 21–27 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07199
14	A, Cieślak C R, Soliva A, Potkański M, Szumacher-Strabel M R L, Scheeder A Machmüller . Effect of plant oils on methane emission and biohydrogenation in vitro. International Congress Series, 2006, 1293: 180−183
15	Z P, Zhu H M, Dong S, Wei J Z, Ma P Y Xue . Impact of changes in livestock manure management on greenhouse gas emissions in China. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2020, 39(04): 743−748 (in Chinese)
16	E, Dinuccio P, Balsari W Berg . GHG emissions during the storage of rough pig slurry and the fractions obtained by mechanical separation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2008, 48(2): 93–95 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07239
17	F, Gioelli E, Dinuccio P Balsari . Residual biogas potential from the storage tanks of non-separated digestate and digested liquid fraction. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(22): 10248–10251 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.08.076 pmid: 21963905
18	Y, Wang H, Dong Z, Zhu P J, Gerber H, Xin P, Smith C, Opio H, Steinfeld D Chadwick . Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from swine manure management: a system analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51(8): 4503–4511 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06430 pmid: 28318241
19	K, Groenestein J, Mosquera der Sluis S Van . Emission factors for methane and nitrous oxide from manure management and mitigation options. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 2012, 9(suppl. 1): 139–146
20	Y, Wang H, Dong Z, Zhu L, Li T, Zhou B, Jiang H Xin . CH4, NH3, N2O and NO emissions from stored biogas digester effluent of pig manure at different temperatures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 217: 1–12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.10.020
21	L L, Li H M, Dong Z P, Zhu Y Wang . Effects of acidification on gas emission from raw pig slurry and biogas liquid during storage. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2016, 35(04): 774−784 (in Chinese)
22	S R, Shin S, Im A, Mostafa M K, Lee Y M, Yun S E, Oh D H Kim . Effects of pig slurry acidification on methane emissions during storage and subsequent biogas production. Water Research, 2019, 152: 234–240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.005 pmid: 30677634
23	M A, Chowdhury Neergaard A, de L S Jensen . Potential of aeration flow rate and bio-char addition to reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions during manure composting. Chemosphere, 2014, 97: 16–25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.030 pmid: 24210550
24	E, Agyarko-Mintah A, Cowie Zwieten L, Van B P, Singh R, Smillie S, Harden F Fornasier . Biochar lowers ammonia emission and improves nitrogen retention in poultry litter composting. Waste Management, 2017, 61: 129–137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.009 pmid: 28041672
25	Y, Fukumoto K, Suzuki K, Kuroda M, Waki T Yasuda . Effects of struvite formation and nitratation promotion on nitrogenous emissions such as NH3, N2O and NO during swine manure composting. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(2): 1468–1474 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.089 pmid: 20952186
26	T, Liu Y, Yang D, Liu S, Yu Z, Guo J, Hu J, Zhao Z, Zhou S Hou . Identification of specific volatile flavor substances in meat duck pectoral muscles. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2022, 53(2): 402−413 (in Chinese)

[1]	Jianlin SHEN, Yong LI, Yi WANG, Yanyan LI, Xiao ZHU, Wenqian JIANG, Yuyuan LI, Jinshui WU. SOIL NITROGEN CYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN THE SUBTROPICAL HILLY REGION OF CHINA: EVIDENCE FROM MEASUREMENTS AND MODELING[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(3): 407-424.
[2]	David R. CHADWICK, John R. WILLIAMS, Yuelai LU, Lin MA, Zhaohai BAI, Yong HOU, Xinping CHEN, Thomas H. MISSELBROOK. Strategies to reduce nutrient pollution from manure management in China[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(1): 45-55.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed