CO2 Target Implications for Agriculture

Scott Lovell Dairygold Co-op, Agri Trading

Talk Summary
EU & Irish targets on Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Economists v Irish Agriculture Changing Ag practises to produce GHG offsets -Tillage -Dairy -Beef What will be the Irish approach?

EU Targets
March 2008 EU Leaders committed to target of unilateral reduction in GHG of 20% by 2020 compared to 1990 Aim to reach agreement on how to reach targets by Dec 08.

Irelands GHG story in 2007

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Million tons of CO2 equivalent produced Agriculture Energy Transport Industry Residential Waste

EU burden sharing proposals

Emissions traded sector (energy/heavy industry) Must drop by 21% Will be managed at EU level Non ETS sector (agriculture, transport, residential, some industry) Must drop by 10% across EU Ireland given a higher target of -20% because of high GDP

What this means for Ireland

Non ETS sector produced 48.3 m tonne CO2 in 2005 Must drop by 9.7 m tonne (-20%)

What this means for Irish Agriculture

Reduction from 19.6 m tonne in 2005 to 17.05 in 2020 Key questions -Can Irish agriculture deliver this? -How will achieving the reductions impact on how agriculture develops during this time

Economics argue
Relevant measure is the impact on income -Gross Value Added (contribution to GDP) -Agriculture's GVA per employee is low -High emissions from agriculture (28%) relative to GDP ( 2.5%) -Concerted effort of other sectors to ensure agriculture takes the hit

Why is Agriculture different

There are some technological solutions in Agriculture but global reduction in demand is not achievable Reducing Irish herds are likely to increase herds internationally, leaving no change to the global problem

GHG Policies targeted to reduce production

May nip farmer and agricultural industry confidence in the bud to proceed with expansion plans Emissions trading scheme for agriculture justified on grounds of global need for food -Emissions trading needs to be international -Needs to be confined to Agriculture i.e. no trading with energy sector.

Agricultural Emissions
Covers agriculture gases Methane from enteric fermentation Nitrous oxide from animal urine and dung Nitrous oxide from synthetic fertilisers

Percentage of emissions as CH4, N2O and CO2 from Agriculture in Ireland in 2005
60 50 40 30 CO2 Equivalents 20 10 0 Methane Nitrous Oxide Carbon Dioxide

CSO 2007

Changing Agricultural Practices

Potential to produce GHG offsets in 2 ways: 1) Reduce Direct GHG Emissions 2) Sequester Carbon

Reduce Direct GHG Emissions

Precision nitrogen fertilizer use reduces N2O and CO2 Inhibitors and diet manipulation can reduce lower N2O emissions Clover can reduce fertiliser Inputs Fuel use reductions lower CO2 emissions Biofuel reduces use of CO2 intensive fossil fuels

Sequester Carbon
No or low tillage Diversified rotations Winter cover crops Change soil inputs Improved grazing practices Convert marginal agricultural land to grassland or forest

Tillage
Available bio-fuels from crops at present Pure Plant Oil and Bio-diesel from oilseed rape Bio-ethanol from wheat/beet Targets EU target of 5.75% by 2010 (now only 4%) National target of >10% by 2020

Bio-fuels
Expansion of existing first generation production would lead to possible CO2 savings of 0.27 MT Significantly greater production and GHG mitigation potential from 2nd generation Bio-fuels

Energy Crops
Significant Potential for GHG mitigation from energy crops Relatively new crops. Research needed to Optimise the agronomy of these species How best to farm these species Maximise energy & GHG benefit

Forestry
Mitigation strategy using sinks is to replace terrestrial carbon thats been lost to the atmosphere from forests, vegetation and soils and reduce future forest losses

Emissions of CO2 equivalents in a Dairy System

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Enteric Fertiliser Conc Dung Fuel %

Casey and Holden 2005

Strategies for decreasing CH4 emissions from dairying

1.Increasing the length of the grazing season 2.Increasing genetic merit 3.Improving pasture digestibility 4.Feeding oils 5.Replacing roughage with concentrates 6.Increasing clover in swards 7.Replacing grass silage with maize/whole crop cereal silage 8.Other supplementary factors

Increasing the length of the grazing season

Overall reduction of 0.17% in CO2 equivalents on-farm per one day increase in grazing season length A 70 day increase in grazing would result in ~12% decrease in GHG emissions and ~9500 greater profit (for a 50 cow herd)

Increasing genetic merit

Decreases CH4 production per kg of milk in a quota scenario because (a) less cows required to produce the quota (b) less replacements required If quotas are relaxed cow numbers will increase but the absolute increase in methane output from the national dairy herd would be lower A profitable strategy for dairy farmers

Improving pasture quality

Theoretically it should reduce enteric CH4 production because of a less fibrous forage resulting in a more propionate type rumen fermentation Data so far not encouraging

Feeding oils
Feeding 4% oil in the diet would decrease enteric methane output per cow per day by 23% A number of questions arise (a) Does the effect persist over a full lactation? (b) What are the effects on cow performance? (c) Is type of oil important milk composition? (d) Is it a profitable strategy?
Beauchemin et al. 2008

Replacing roughage with concentrates

Increased concentrate supplementation has been shown to decrease enteric CH4 production Reduction of ~6% per Kg milk Profitable?

Lovett et al. 2006

Increasing clover in swards

Legume based forages compared to grasses reduce enteric CH4 production per unit of DMI possibly because of lower fibre and faster rate of passage Need further data (a) Do they reduce diet digestibility? (b) What proportion of the forage mixture should they constitute to be effective?

Replacing grass silage with maize/whole crop cereal silage

In theory this strategy should reduce enteric CH4 because of greater starch intake resulting in greater propionate production, and a faster rate of passage (less fermentation in the rumen) This strategy may be limited by other negative environmental impacts

Other supplementary factors with potential to decrease enteric CH4

Fumaric and Malic acid (substrates for succinate/propionate) Saponins (reduce protozoa) Enzymes (improve fibre digestibility) Yeast (?) Iononphores (antibacterial effects shifting fermentation towards propionate)

Nitrous Oxide
Sources: Soils Animal excreta Legumes Fertiliser Why is it important? GHG potential A loss of N from the soil/plant/animal system = reduced efficiency

N2O mitigation options

Nitrification (DCD) & urease inhibitors in pasture and tillage Reduction in N excreted from animals Clover pastures Increasing N efficiency: Use of alternative land-spreading strategies, timing of slurries, amendment of slurries

Additional Strategies for decreasing CH4 emissions from beef cattle

1. 2. 3. 4. Ad libitum concentrates to finishing cattle 24-month steers 17-month bulls 34-month steers 24-month steers Coconut oil in finishing concentrate rations

Ad libitum concentrates to finishing cattle

Indoor finishing heifers and steers Increase rate of concentrates to ad libitum Carcass gain + 0.19 kg/day Finishing duration -33 days No increase in capital facilities (?) 3408 t CH4 less = 78384 t CO2 equivalent Farm profit reduced (high cost of concentrates)

24-month steers 17-month bulls

Spring-born male calves (100000) More concentrates; less grass (much) and silage; lighter carcass 4324 t CH4 less = 99452 t CO2 equivalent Farm profit reduced (high cost of concentrates)

34-month steers 24-month steers

Spring-born late-maturing steers (63500) Less concentrates; less grass; less silage; lighter carcass 3809 t CH4 less = 87607 t CO2 equivalent Farm profit improved (cost reduction > revenue reduction)

Coconut oil in finishing concentrate rations

24-month spring-born winter-finished steer Reduced duration to finish by 17 days 870 t CH4 less = 18253 t CO2 equivalent Benefit > cost (to farmer) Could apply this to other systems

(Padraig Foley, DAFF/UCD)

Irish approach?
Follow New Zealand example-That are practical in terms overall economics, product safety, and animal safety, and will produce sustainable results that are accepted by the international regulatory authorities and our customers.

Irish approach?
Cut national herd? Irish beef, milk, grain etc. replaced by other countries

Irish approach
Carbon tax in programme for government Revenue neutral? 20 per ton CO2 in 2010 Rising to 38 per ton CO2 in 2020 45-86 Dairy Cow 22-43 Beef Animal

Conclusions
Challenging targets for Ireland Political agendas will push agriculture There are strategies available that will decrease GHG emissions in agriculture Need to ensure those that simultaneously increase technical efficiency, farm profit and GHG reductions are strategies adopted