Search Results
Comparison of ammonia emissions related to nitrogen use efficiency of livestock production in Europe
The increasing global demand for food and the environmental effects of reactive nitrogen losses in the food production chain, increase the need for efficient use of nitrogen (N). Of N harvested in agricultural plant products, 80% is used to feed livestock. Because the largest atmospheric loss of reactive nitrogen from livestock production systems is ammonia (NH3), the focus of this paper is on N lost as NH3 during the production of animal protein. The focus of this paper is to understand the key factors explaining differences in Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) of animal production among various European countries. Therefore we developed a conceptual framework to describe the NUE defined as the amount of animal-protein N per N in feed and NH3–N losses in the production of milk, beef, pork, chicken meat and eggs in The Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Denmark. The framework describes how manure management and animal-related parameters (feed, metabolism) relate to NH3 emissions and NUE. The results showed that the animal product with the lowest NUE had the largest NH3 emissions and vice versa, which agrees with the reciprocal relationship between NUE and NH3 within the conceptual framework. Across animal products for the countries considered, about 20% of the N in feed is lost as NH3. The significant smallest proportion (12%) of NH3–N per unit of Nfeed is from chicken production. The proportions for other products are 17%, 19%, 20% and 22% for milk, pork, eggs and beef respectively. These differences were not significantly different due to the differences among countries. For all countries, NUE was lowest for beef and highest for chicken. The production of 1 kg N in beef required about 5 kg N in feed, of which 1 kg N was lost as NH3–N. For the production of 1 kg N in chicken meat, 2 kg N in feed was required and 0.2 kg was lost as NH3. The production of 1 kg N in milk required 4 kg N in feed with 0.6 kg NH3–N loss, the same as pork and eggs, but those needed 3 and 3.5 kg N in feed per kg N in product respectively. Except for beef, the differences among these European countries were mainly caused by differences in manure management practices and their emission factors, rather than by animal-related factors including feed and digestibility influencing the excreted amount of ammoniacal N (TAN). For beef, both aspects caused important differences. Based on the results, we encourage the expression of N losses as per N in feed or per N in product, in addition to per animal place, when comparing production efficiency and NUE. We consider that disaggregating emission factors into a diet/animal effect and a manure management effect would improve the basis for comparing national NH3 emission inventories. © 2018 The Authors
Measures to increase the nitrogen use efficiency of European agricultural production
Inputs of nitrogen to agricultural production systems are necessary to produce food, feed and fibre, but nitrogen (N) losses from those systems represent a waste of a resource and a threat to both the environment and human health. The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of an agricultural production system can be seen as an indicator of the balance between benefits and costs of primary food, feed and fibre production. Here, we used modelling to follow the fate of the virgin N input to different production systems (ruminant and granivore meat, dairy, arable), and to estimate their NUE at the system scale. We defined two ruminant meat production systems, depending on whether the land places constraints on farming practices. The other production systems were dairy, granivore and arable production on land without constraints. Two geographic regions were considered: Northern and Southern Europe. Measures to improve NUE were identified and allocated to Low, Medium and High ambition groups, with Low equating to the current situation in Europe for production systems that are broadly following good agricultural practice. The NUE of the production systems was similar to or higher in Southern than Northern Europe, with the maximum technical NUEs if all available measures are implemented were for North and South Europe, respectively, 82% and 92% for arable systems, 71% and 80% for granivores, 50% and 36% for ruminant meat production on constrained land, 53% and 55% for dairy production on unconstrained land and 46% and 62% for ruminant meat production on unconstrained land. The values for NUE found here tend to be higher than reported elsewhere, possibly due to the accounting for long-term residual effects of fertiliser and manure in our method. The greatest increase in NUE with the progressive implementation of higher ambition measures was in unconstrained granivore systems and the least was in constrained ruminant meat systems, reflecting the lower initial NUE of granivore systems and the larger number of measures applicable to confined livestock systems. Our work supports use of NUE as an indicator of the temporal trend in the costs and benefits of existing agricultural production systems, but highlights problems associated with its use as a sustainability criteria for livestock production systems. For arable systems, we consider well-founded the NUE value of 90% above which there is a high risk of soil N depletion, provided many measures to increase NUE are employed. For systems employing fewer measures, we suggest a value of 70% would be more appropriate. We conclude that while it is feasible to calculate the NUE of livestock production systems, the additional complexity required reduces its value as an indicator for benchmarking sustainability in practical agriculture. © 2020 The Authors