OPTIONS FOR ABATEMENT Purpose: To provide participants with an understanding of the range of options available to land managers to increase carbon storage and reduce emissions from agricultural systems. Source: University of Melbourne (UoM) June 2013 Indicative Abatement from CFI Australia’s Annual Emissions 565 Mt CO2-e yr-1 DCCEE 2011 Indicative Abatement from CFI Non-Forest sinks • Options for increasing and managing • Soil carbon • Biochar Soil carbon Many AUS soils have low soil C levels old and weathered nature. Warm and dry climate Large losses of soil C since conversion of native vegetation to agriculture AUS farmers have adopted practices that reduce soil disturbance Adoption of no-till and conservation farming practices Adoption levels 90% in some areas Rapid increases in last 5-10 years Soil carbon loss can be reduced or soil carbon increased by: Promotion of more plant growth Adding organic matter from offsite sources Garnaut Climate Change review update 2011 Soil carbon Potential to increase soil carbon at any location depends: Soil type Water and nutrient availability Temperature Management history Mitigation options with potential but little data: Addition of large amounts of organic materials Maximising pasture phases in mixed cropping systems Shift from annual to perennial species Considerable uncertainties for all of these opportunities Few studies have tracked effects of management changes on soil carbon over an extended period Risks – drought can reverse potential increases in soil carbon Garnaut Climate Change review update 2011, Chapter 4 Can we quantify changes in soil carbon? • Will not be able measure in short-term • Will need to couple Soil organic carbon (Mg C/ha) – Modelling and – Measured points in time as means of validation 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 Time (years) 20 Source: Jeff Baldock Final Thoughts • Building soil carbon is good practice • Trading soil C is a separate discussion – Non-Kyoto offsets may be lower priced – Rate of change in Soil C is slow (decades) – Reaches a saturation point, not permanently increasing – Rainfall and management are significant determinant of input vs losses of soil carbon Biochar Lehmann (2007) Front Ecol Env 5: 381 Biochar Biochar can be produced from biological sources wood, agricultural crop residues, green waste, biosolids Gas produced in the biochar production process: Production of electricity, conversion to liquid fuels Biochar has a greater stability than the material from which it is made Potential long-term carbon store Biochar can improve soil fertility Potential biosequestration benefits through enhanced plant growth Garnaut Climate Change review update 2011, Chapter 4 Biochar Mitigation potential of biochar depends on life-cycle emissions from: production of biochar feedstock and changes in land-use production, transport and storage of biochar displacement of fossil fuel emissions Economic viability of biochar production and application cost of feedstock and pyrolysis impact on crop yield and fertiliser requirements returns from renewable energy and a carbon price Garnaut Climate Change review update 2011, Chapter 4 Biochar – life cycle analysis Different models to calculate production emissions Waste biomass streams have greatest potential Energy crops can be GHG positive, emit more GHG than they sequester Agric residues have potential for GHG reductions, moderate potential to be profitable Assumption: 80% of biochar is stable in soil! Roberts et al (2010) Env Sci Tech 44: 827 Biochar Mallee species Integrated tree processing: Produce eucalyptus oil, bioenergy & biochar only profitable if bioenergy production is close to plantation due to high production cost (harvesting & transport) & low product price for wood energy In US: Bioenergy & biochar production economically attractive at emissions permit price >US$37 Polglase et al (2008) Biochar Biochar is a promising theoretical concept multiple environmental benefits reduced fossil fuel emissions C storage in soil potentially improved soil fertility HOWEVER • Most of the theoretical benefits need validation in the field • Beware of perverse outcomes (sustainability issues) • Economy of scale need to be tested • Industry needs to develop Forest sinks Management of afforestation and reforestation for generating offset credits Managed existing forests Conservation forests Native forests cover 147 M ha of land in AUS = 20% of land mass • 23 M ha in conservation reserves • 9.4 M ha in public land timber production permitted • Rest public land other purposes and private land Forests (pre 1990) 136 Mt CO2-e yr-1 for 100 yrs, assumes C stocks at 40% capacity, timber harvesting ceases in 14 M ha CSIRO: if native forest harvesting is to cease = 47M t CO2 eq yr Risks: • Fire, Diseases • Forests close to “carbon carrying capacity” Managed existing forests Total carbon in total tree biomass (above-ground plus roots) of Sequestration and emissions native forests, 2000 to 2004, by forest vegetation group in forests in 2005 Native forests stored 24.1 billion t of CO2 in biomass in 2004 46 yr of total AUS emissions Almost no change (a decrease of 0.7%) between 1989 and 2004 in native forest total tree woody biomass some increases: woody thickening, increased extent (fire freq) some decreases: broadscale clearing, firewood, mortality (fire) Only 0.06% of C stored in native forests was harvested (3.8 M t CO2) ~43.5 M t CO2 new growth in 2005 ~31.9 M t CO2 of net sequestration State of Forests Report (2008) Non forest re-vegetation Rangeland rehabilitation in Arid Australia Vast areas of wooded land – red centre Arid and semi arid rangelands 70% of AUS land mass - 550 M ha Restoration of rangelands by reducing grazing pressure or palatable shrubs like saltbush, tagasaste, perennial shrubs 286 Mt CO2-e yr-1 20-50 yrs (improve degraded rangeland all grazing land 358 M ha = 0.2 t C ha-1yr-1) CFI methodology for rangeland rehabilitation is being developed at present Non forest re-vegetation - biofuels Biofuels First generation biofuels = 1% of global transport fuel consumption (sugarcane, corn, sugar beets, potatoes…) To satisfy global demand = 75% of worlds agricultural land Second generation biofuels: Waste biomass, lignocellulosic material, algae, Pongamia, Jatropha Opportunity for Mallee species (coppiced) Research needed to identify best cropping systems for AUS Reforestation and afforestation Plantation and production forests Doubling the plantation estate could increase C sequestration in plantations In AUS to 50 Mt CO2 by 2020 C storage by forest ecosystems: 1. Storage of C in forest biomass and soil 2. Storage of C in forest products – paper, furniture, construction 3. Displacement – use of biofuels to replace fossil fuels 4. Substitution – use of wood products that replace fossil fuel intensive products (concrete, steel, aluminium, plastic) Reforestation and afforestation Carbon storage in forests and wood products, Australia Large amounts of carbon are stored in wood products that are in service and in landfill Emission and storage of carbon in the manufacture of building materials (kg/m3) Concrete, steel and aluminium have large emissions during production processes Large substitution benefits State of Forests Report (2008) Reforestation and afforestation Environmental carbon plantings Revegetation of cleared or degraded land Potentially available land = 200 M ha • climatic suitability • soil suitability • species characteristics • profitability compared to current land-use • rainfall interception Reforestation and afforestation Environmental carbon plantings Total carbon in live biomass for 20 y.o. environmental plantings (t CO2-e ha-1yr-1) normalised for 20 yrs Polglase et al. (2008) Reforestation and afforestation Carbon forest plantings CSIRO (2009): at a C price of $20/t CO2 & incentives for biodiversity benefits = 350 M t CO2 yr-1 • • • • • Mixed native species Mallees Other benefits for biodiversity, NRM or farm productivity Planted in blocks, widely spaced rows, along stream banks Corridor for native species At least 20 businesses & non for profit organisations are offering carbon forest offsets in Australia: Greening Australia, Greenfleet, Landcare Carbon Smart, CO2 Australia… http://www.carbonoffsetguide.com.au/ Opportunities in a wider range of climate zones In areas where agric. production is marginal and plantations fail Diversification of income for farmers Reforestation and afforestation Agroforestry Farming practices and forestry options Integration of trees and shrubs into farming landscapes for conservation and profit Using trees to improve the environmental, social and economic values of their land Greenhouse Gas Sources • Options for reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions • Already registered as CFI offset methods • In research towards imminent development as a CFI method • Longer term research to develop options for the future Options for abatement – Methane – CFI methods • Methane from – – – – Piggeries biodigesters Piggery manure Dairy anaerobic ponds Dairy cows through feeding high-oil by-products • Savanna burning • Methane from landfill – – – – Avoided emissions to fuel manufacture Avoided emissions through composting Capture and combustion of landfill gas Diverting waste to an alternative waste treatment facility Full details on these methodologies can be found at: www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farminginitiative/methodology-development/determinations.aspx Options for abatement – Enteric Methane Technologies to Reduce Enteric Methane Emissions Animal Manipulation Diet Manipulation Rumen Manipulation Forage quality Animal Breeding Residual Feed Intake Biological Control Plant Breeding Bacteriophages bacteriocins Efficiency Reductive Acetogenesis Dietary Supplements Management Systems Dietary Oils Alternative livestock systems Vaccination Probiotics Unproductive Animals Enzymes Chemical Defaunation Dicarboxylic acids Plant Secondary Compounds Tannin & Saponin Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – Nitrous Oxide Technologies to reduce Nitrous Oxide emissions Animal Soils Physical interventions Restricted Grazing Feed Conversion Efficiency Breeding Plant breeding eg. tannins Dietary Interventions Chemical Intgerventions Balancing Protein: Energy Salt Nitrification inhibitor in urine Fertiliser Rate Waterlogging / drainage Source Irrigation Timing Compaction Effluent Management Controlled Release Nitrification Inhibitors Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – Enteric Methane Mitigation % “Silver bullet” 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Biological control Vaccination Dietary Supplements Rumen manipulation Breeding BMPs Herd Management Low Immediate High Medium Likely Impact High Timeline Longer Term Confidence Low Eckard, Grainger & de Klein 2010 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide “Silver bullet” 25 Biological control Animal Breeding Mitigation % 20 15 Nitrification Inhibitors 10 BMPs 5 Diet Plant Breeding Soil Microbial Manipulation Secondary plant compounds Herd Management 0 Low Immediate High Likely Impact Medium High Timeline Longer Term Confidence Low De Klein & Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – Methane – Short Term • Feeding – Feed quality • Pasture improvement • C3 pastures, legumes – Dietary supplements • Grain • Tannins • Oils – 1% fat = 3.5% decrease CH4 /kg DMI – Out for public consultation for dairy cows Eckard et al. 2010; Moate et al. 2010 Options for abatement – Methane – Short Term • Improving efficiency – Improved feed conversion efficiency – Cross-breeding/ hybrid vigour – Earlier mating and earlier finishing – Improved fertility and weaning rates – Improved health Eckard et al. 2010 Options for abatement - Methane • Longer Term Research – Animal Breeding • Feed conversion efficiency • Reduced methanogenesis – Plant Breeding • Improved energy to protein ratio • Tannin, oils, sugars Eckard, Grainger & de Klein 2010 Options for abatement - Methane • Longer Term research – Rumen manipulation/ biological control • Vaccination • Competitive or predatory microbes • Microbial inhibitors Eckard, Grainger & de Klein 2010 Options for abatement – nitrous oxide • Nitrogen Fertiliser Rate • Match to plant demand • Similar with effluent 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Environment 11.7 8.1 30 Annual N2O emission (kg N/ha.y) P redicted P asture G row th (t D M /ha.y) Productivity 13.3 6.0 8.5 11.2 U rea N itrate Urea Nitrate 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 A nnual N F ertiliser R ate (kg N /ha.y) 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Nitrogen Fertiliser Rate (kg N/ha.y) Eckard et al. 2006 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Nitrogen Fertiliser Rate Nitrous oxide-N (kg/ha) 10 Cotton 8 Wheat-VetchCotton Wheat-Cotton 6 4 2 0 0 100 N rate 200 300 Grace et al. 2007 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Nitrogen Fertiliser Source • In wet soils – N2O (nitrous oxide) from NO3-N (nitrate) source – Denitrification or leaching • In dry soils • Nitrogen Placement • Band, ridges • Within paddock Annual N2O emission (kg N/ha.y) – N2O (nitrous oxide) from NH3 (ammonia) 30 – Volatilisation from urea Urea 25 Nitrate 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Nitrogen Fertiliser Rate (kg N/ha.y) Eckard et al. 2006 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Nitrogen Source and Timing 1.8 Control Ammonium nitrate Urea 1.6 1.4 Nitrous Oxide loss (kg N/ha) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Autumn Winter Spring Summer Eckard et al. 2002 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Fertiliser Formulation – Urease inhibitors • Reduces NH3 (ammonia) volatilisation – eg. Agrotain®, Green UreaTM – Nitrification inhibitors • Reduces N2O (nitrous oxide) and NO3 (nitrate) leaching • Temperature sensitive ENTEC® – eg. DCD, Nitrapyrin, DMPP De Klein & Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Fertiliser Formulation – Nitrification Inhibitor sprays on pasture • 50% less N2O – for 50 days mid-spring • 25% less N2O – for 25 days in summer Kelly et al;. 2008 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Fertiliser Formulation – Controlled Release/Coated Fertilisers • Polymer or oil-based coating – Controlled pattern/rate of release – Slow Release Fertilisers • Reduced solubility – Chemical – Physical mixing • Slower release of N De Klein & Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Soil Water / irrigation management Granli and Bøckman (1994) Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Soil Management – Limited grazing on wet soils/ use of feedpads – Soil structure • Reduce waterlogging with N • Reduce soil compaction with N – Stubble management • Retain stubble • Conservation tillage and controlled traffic • Build soil organic matter – Reduce fallow • Loss of unutilised N • Cover crops De Klein & Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – Nitrous oxide • Longer term – Plant breeding • Tannin content • Less N required – Animal breeding • More N efficient – Microbial manipulation • Soil • Animal rumen De Klein & Eckard 2008 Options for abatement – N2O • Urine Management • Ruminants excrete 75 to 95% of N intake • Immediate – Balancing ME:CP – Feed tannins – Animal numbers • Reduce hot-spots – Inhibitors • Inhibitor spray • Longer Term Research – Breeding • Improve animal FCE • Improve plant – ME:CP – tannins Grainger et al. 2009; De Klein & Eckard 2008 © Copyright 2013 The University of Melbourne, The Carbon Market Institute and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Carbon Farming Futures, Extension and Outreach Program