1. Technical mitigation options in dairy Pilot project on the feasibility of generatingcarbon credit through dairy productivity gainsSecond Project Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 January 2013 Carolyn OpioFAO-Rome

2. Main sources of emissions in dairy10.0 9.0 Post-farm, CO2 8.0 Direct & embeddedKg CO2e/kg FPCM 7.0 energy, CO2 6.0 LUC - Soybean, CO2 5.0 Feed CO2 4.0 Feed N2O 3.0 2.0 Manure N2O 1.0 Manure CH4 0.0 NENA WorldSSAW. EuropeE. EuropeRussian Fed.LAC E & SE Asia OceaniaSouth Asia Enteric CH4 N. America 3. Mitigation options Huge variation; significant potential to reduce emissions Key areas of intervention CH4 from enteric fermentation CH4 and N2O from manure management N2O (manure and synthetic N) from feed production CO2 from feed production, processing and transport 4. Enteric methane: entry points Management practices Animal health Dairy herd Reproduction Improved genetics Increasing animal productivityEnteric CH4Individual cow Improved feed quality Improved feed use efficiency Improving rumen efficiency Rumen microbesrumen manipulation feed additives (fats, oils) 5. Enteric CH4: improving animal productivity 0.60 0.50 Enteric methane/kg milk 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.000 5 1015 20 25 30 Milk /cow/dayImproved nutrition, reproductive performance, animal health, management, geneticso reduces maintenance overhead associated with each unit of producto fewer animals to produce same quantity of product 6. Enteric CH4: improving diet quality10,00040 Improved diet quality 9,000 Increase concentrate ratio in diet35 8,000 higher quality forages e.g. legumes, silage30 feed processing 7,000(grinding, chopping, chemical treatmentKg milk per animal/year25 6,000e.g. urea) - digestibility Percentage 5,00020 Grazing mgt to improve quality ofpastures, animal productivity 4,00015 3,00010 2,0005 1,000improved feed digestibility0 0 Increase in DM intake and utilizationSSA N. AmericaEast AsiaOceaniaRussian Fed.LACNENAW. Europe South AsiaE. Europeimproved productivityreduced methane production per unit ofAverage milk yield Share of concentrate in dietoutput 7. Enteric CH4 :improving feed use efficiency global Feed use for maintenance vs. productive functions 0.60 140 0.50120 100 0.40MJ.animal-1 year-1 Methane per kg milk 80 0.30 60 40 0.20 20 0.100NENA SSA Oceania LACEast & SE Asia South Asia W. Europe E. Europe Russian Fed. 0.00 N. America0.00 0.501.00 1.50 2.00 feed efficiency (kg milk/kg feed)MaintenanceActivityPregnancy Milk production better nutrition, management, animal breeding, animalhealth 8. Enteric CH4 : improving feed use efficiencyKaptumo, kenya0.14 methane per kg milk (kg/kg milk)0.120.100.080.060.040.020.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.004.00 5.006.00 7.00 8.00Feed efficency (kg milk/kg dm) HH survey: 100 HHs mixed farming, semi-grazing and stall-fed milk production: 5-15 litres per day 9. Manure N20 and CH4 emissions N2O emissions N availability in manure Climatic conditions soil type, temperature CH4 emissions Quantity of manure produced: animal numbers, feed intake and digestibility Methane producing potential of manure Manure management system 10. Methane conversion factor: share of volatile solids convertedto CH4 11. Proportion of feed nitrogen retained in dairy75-95% of N ingested in feed is excreted 12. Manure N20 and CH4: entry points1. Changes to manure storage and handling techniques: solid, drylot, slurry, lagoons, etc2. Feeding practices that influence manure attributes (in turn determine amount of N excreted and volatile solids that can be converted to CH4) protein content of feed ration digestibility of feed feed conversion ratio indicator of feed use efficiency 13. Relationship between productivity and N-excretion10,0004.00 9,0003.50kg milk per animal per year 8,000 Nex per kg milk protein3.00 7,000 6,0002.50 5,0002.00 4,0001.50 3,0001.00 2,000 1,0000.500 0.00 LAC OceaniaNENASSAEast Asia W. Europe E. Europe South Asia Russian Fed. N. AmericaAverage milk yield kg of Nex per kg of milk protein higher milk levels decreases N excreted per kg milk outputo high feed digestibility, high feed conversion ratio 14. Mitigation of CH4 and N2O from manure Balanced feeding: N-adjusted feeding strategy inline with animalrequirements and physiological stage Manure management: Transitions between MMS alternatives canreduce methane and N2O emissions; covering manure storage anaerobic digesters (biogas production) waste application: timing and application technique Benefits source of energy fertilizer environmental benefit: reduction in leaching, odor, etc 15. Mitigation in feed production, N2O andCO2 improved pasture management and establishment optimizing stocking numbers rotational grazing fertilization improved pastures species and fodder banks Rangeland rehabilitation improved fertilizer use - organic and synthetic Precision agriculture to match N to crop demand, soil type, etc Timing of application when required by crop 16. Conclusions Efficiency gains are importanto Reducing emissions per unit of animal product by cutting on unproductive emissions through breeding, animal health, improved nutrition Implementation of mitigation options will depend on the cost-effectiveness of technical options Need to pay attention to emission interactions and trade-offs betweendifferent management strategies and emission types