China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Biofertilizers and Biopesticides: A Holistic Approach for Sustainable Agriculture
Published in Prasenjit Mondal, Ajay K. Dalai, Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources, 2017
P. Balasubramanian, P. Karthickumar
Organic farming practices aim to enhance biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity so as to achieve optimal natural systems that are ecologically and economically sustainable (Samman et al., 2008). Manure management is a decision-making process aimed at combining profitable agricultural production with minimal nutrient losses from manure. The selection of manure management and treatment options increasingly depends on environmental regulations for preventing pollution of land, water, and air (Karmakar et al., 2007).
Physico-chemical assessment of on-farm bioconversion of organic waste in dairy farms in context to sustainability and circular bioeconomy
Published in Environmental Technology, 2023
Pramod K. Pandey, B. Dharmaveer Shetty, Patrick Wickam, Peiman Aminabadi, Zhao Chen, Kelly Mai, Jeffery W. Stackhouse, Michele T. Jay-Russell
While manure is considered superior to chemical fertilizers for increasing crop productivity and soil fertility over an extended time period [63,64], substantial emphasis is given recently to quantifying the toxic release of heavy metals in cropland livestock manure [65–67]. Research studying the release of eight heavy metals from livestock manure in 215 countries (for 15 years) concluded that mercury, copper and zinc are the main toxins. These toxins not only negatively affect the plants but also grazing cattle and humans when toxin-contaminated product is ingested [68,69]. Therefore, additional safeguards may be needed in order to control the influx of heavy metals from manure into cropland. Manure treatment methods, such as composting, anaerobic digestion, heat treatment and liquid–solid separation, are likely to reduce various toxins including chemical fractions of heavy metals [70–72]; therefore, the decision-making process for improving manure management and controlling heavy metals in the environment should consider addressing these issues and potential options.
Modelling methane emission mitigation by anaerobic digestion: effect of storage conditions and co-digestion
Published in Environmental Technology, 2019
Veronica Moset, R. Wahid, A. Ward, H.B. Møller
IPCC [7] also provides default MCFs values as a function of manure management system and temperature. However, for anaerobically digested manure, IPCC [7] default values are very vague i.e. between 0% and 100% in all temperatures ranges, and IPCC recommends the use of country-specific values. Some countries like France applied an ‘emission reduction rate associated with methanisation’ to all manure which passes through anaerobic digestion, which basically consists of 85% reduction in the potential of CH4 emissions. In the German IPCC 2016 report, two MCFs were used: 1% for gas-tight storage of digested material and 10% for non-gas-tight storage. These MCFs are based on the assumption that anaerobic digestion of animal manure is carried out by co-digestion; the addition of a co-substrate increases the dry matter content of the mixture and creates a crust which simulates conditions of untreated manure. Denmark has a new methodology for 2017 to estimate CH4 emission from digested and untreated manure storage, in which specific emission factors for each fraction of VS (called degradable and non-degradable VS) are provided [8]. Although these assumptions can be reasonably accurate for each country, a more general criterion to use MCF in different conditions is missing. For this purpose more experimental data are needed.
Low-ILUC-risk rapeseed biodiesel: potential and indirect GHG emission effects in Eastern Romania
Published in Biofuels, 2021
Marnix L. J. Brinkman, Floor van der Hilst, André P. C. Faaij, Birka Wicke
Intensification of extensive livestock production can impact GHG emissions through changes in feed composition and energy use [60–62]. In addition, the conversion of grassland to cropland leads to land-use change GHG emissions. To calculate the GHG impacts of the livestock intensification that was included in the scenarios we used the method developed by Gerssen-Gondelach et al. [32], who based it on multiple reviews [56]. As this method was already applied to the Eastern European context, only the Romanian-specific data differed from the previous study. The GHG emission calculations were limited to cattle as there is insufficient data available to include the effects of sheep production intensification. The GHG emissions for cattle include their most important emission sources: enteric fermentation, feed production, manure management and energy consumption, for both milk and beef production. The data on beef and milk productivity intensification in each scenario are presented in Table 2. Specific data on the emission sources of cattle production are presented in Table S4 in the Supplementary material. This shows the CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation are responsible for the majority of GHG emissions; these rapidly decline with increasing intensification. The methane emissions of manure management, however, increase significantly with increased intensification. Sustainable intensification in the high+ scenario was implemented using a 10% lower GHG emission impact compared to the high scenario, following the data of Gerssen-Gondelach et al. [32]. Multiplying beef and milk production by the respective GHG emissions per unit product gave the total emissions for each scenario. The GHG emissions of ILUC mitigation were then calculated as the difference between the total GHG emissions in each scenario and the baseline GHG emissions.