DOCSLIB.ORG

Tamarack Grazing Allotment Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tamarack Grazing Allotment Management Plan United States Department of Agriculture Tamarack Grazing Allotment Management Plan Final Environmental Assessment Grant and Wheeler Counties Heppner Ranger District July 2017 Responsible Official Ann Niesen Heppner District Ranger Heppner Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest 117 S. Main Street, PO Box 7, Heppner, OR 97836 For More Information Contact Tim Collins Project Team Lead Heppner Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest 117 S. Main Street, PO Box 7, Heppner, OR 97836 Phone: (541) 676-2114 Front Cover Image of Stalling Butte Pasture by Tim Collins. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Final Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Allotment Location ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action ......................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.7 Decisions Framework ....................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 11 2.1 Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) ...................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... 15 3.1 Range.................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................... 49 3.4 Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................. 62 3.5 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 77 3.6 Botanical Resources .......................................................................................................................... 81 3.7 Invasive Plants ................................................................................................................................... 95 3.8 Heritage Resources ........................................................................................................................... 98 3.9 Social And Economics ..................................................................................................................... 100 3.10 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................... 102 3.11 Other Required Disclosures ........................................................................................................... 105 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 109 APPENDIX A: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND APPLICABLE PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................... 119 BMP RANGE-3 (RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS) ................................................. 120 PacFish Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 123 Wildlife Project Design Feature ................................................................................................................ 123 Standards for Invasive Species Prevention ............................................................................................... 123 APPENDIX B: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE PROJECTS ..................................... 125 APPENDIX C: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................ 133 Umatilla National Forest i Tamarack Grazing Allotment Management Plan LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS, AND TABLES Map 1-1: Tamarack Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................... 2 Table 1-1: History and Present use of Livestock Grazing on the Tamarack-Monument Allotment ...................... 3 Map 1-2: Tamarack Allotment Map ...................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1-2: Forest Plan Management Areas within the Tamarack Allotment ......................................................... 5 Map 1-3: Management Areas within the Tamarack Allotment ............................................................................. 7 Table 2-1: Tamarack Allotment current management ..........................................................................................12 Table 2-2: Current Miles of Riparian Fence on the Tamarack Allotment ............................................................12 Table 2-3: Alternative 3 Proposed Miles of Riparian Fence on the Tamarack Allotment. ...................................13 Map 2-1: Proposed Fences and Spring Sites in Alternative 3 ...............................................................................14 Table 2-4: Comparison of Alternatives by Actions Proposed ..............................................................................14 Table 3-1: Miles of Riparian Fence on the Tamarack Allotment. ........................................................................17 Table 3-2: Umatilla National Forest Management Indicator Species (USDA 1990, page 2-9). ...........................22 Table 3-3: Federally ESA listed and Region 6 Sensitive Species .........................................................................32 Table 3-4: Summary of Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife Species and R6 Sensitive Wildlife Species ...............................................................................................................48 Table 3-5: USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). ................................................................................48 Table 3-6: Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). .....................49 Table 3-7: Watersheds and subwatersheds within
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant Supply Chains – a Global
    5. Discussion This section discusses the key drivers of variation in emissions from major process- es in the ruminant supply chain that contribute significantly to the carbon footprint of ruminant species, highlighting differences among species and world regions. The section also discusses some of the parameters and assumptions that could strongly influence the results. 5.1 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC FERMENTATION Regardless of the species, the largest source of GHG emissions in ruminant produc- tion is CH4, with more than 90 percent originating from enteric fermentation and the rest from manure. Globally, enteric fermentation from cattle, buffalo, and small ruminants contributes 2 448 million tonnes CO2-eq, of which 76 percent is emitted by cattle and 14 percent and 10 percent by buffalo and small ruminants, respec- tively. The production of enteric CH4 from ruminants is mainly affected by feed intake and feed quality which, in turn, defines the total energy and nutrient intake and consequently animal performance. Many of these factors are interrelated, some of which affect net emissions and others emission intensity. At animal level, net emissions are influenced by feed intake and digestibility, while emission intensity is a function of net emissions, yield per animal, health and genetics. At herd level, factors affecting net emissions are similar to those cited above, while emission intensity is determined by issues such as reproductive and mortality rates, herd structure, management, etc. The following sections discuss some of the important factors that drive the variation in enteric CH4. Productivity. Productivity is an important factor in explaining the variation of emissions among different production typologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Methane Emissions and Dietary Interventions for Mitigation
    sustainability Review Towards Sustainable Livestock Production: Estimation of Methane Emissions and Dietary Interventions for Mitigation Pragna Prathap 1 , Surinder Singh Chauhan 1 , Brian Joseph Leury 1, Jeremy James Cottrell 1 and Frank Rowland Dunshea 1,2,* 1 Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (S.S.C.); [email protected] (B.J.L.); [email protected] (J.J.C.) 2 Faculty of Biological Sciences, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The increasing need for sustainable livestock production demands more research in the field of greenhouse gas (GHG), particularly methane (CH4), measurement and mitigation. Dietary interventions, management, and biotechnological strategies to reduce the environmental impacts and economic implications of enteric CH4 emissions are needed. While the use of biotechnological interventions and management strategies can be challenging on a routine basis, feed additive supple- mentation appears to be the most researched, developed, and ready to use strategy to mitigate enteric CH4 emissions. This paper discusses various recently developed feeding strategies to reduce enteric CH4 emissions in livestock. Additionally, the manuscript reviews various technologies developed for CH4 estimation since the accurate and reliable estimation of CH4 emissions can be a limiting step Citation: Prathap, P.; Chauhan, S.S.; in the development and adoption of any mitigation strategy. Leury, B.J.; Cottrell, J.J.; Dunshea, F.R. Towards Sustainable Livestock Keywords: climate change; livestock production; methane estimation; nutritional strategies; in vitro Production: Estimation of Methane fermentation; gas chambers Emissions and Dietary Interventions for Mitigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production Within the United States
    Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States ICF International February 2013 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States Prepared by: ICF International 1725 I St NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 For: U.S. Department of Agriculture Climate Change Program Office Washington, DC February 2013 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States Preparation of this report was done under USDA Contract No. AG-3142-P-10-0214 in support of the project: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States. This draft report was provided to USDA under contract by ICF International and is presented in the form in which it was received from the contractor. Any views presented are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of or endorsed by USDA. For more information, contact the USDA Climate Change Program Office by email at [email protected], fax (202) 401-1176, or phone (202) 720-6699. Cover Photo Credit: (Middle Photo) California Bioenergy LLC, Dairy Biogas Project, Bakersfield, CA. How to Obtain Copies: You may electronically download this document from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Web site at: http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/mitigation_technologies/GHGMitigationProduction_Cost.htm For Further Information Contact: Jan Lewandrowski, USDA Project Manager ([email protected])
    [Show full text]
  • Sheep and Goat Production: Basic Differences, Impact on Climate and Molecular Tools for Rumen Microbiome Study
    Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(1): 684-706 ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 3 Number 1 (2014) pp. 684-706 http://www.ijcmas.com Review Article Sheep and goat production: basic differences, impact on climate and molecular tools for rumen microbiome study A.R.Agrawal1, S. A. Karim2, Rajiv Kumar2, A.Sahoo2 and P. J. John1 1Department of Zoology, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India 2Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Tonk, Rajasthan, India *Corresponding author e-mail: A B S T R A C T Small ruminants are able to utilize the lingo-cellulosic materials and convert them to animal products of high nutritional value viz. meat, milk, wool/fur, hide and manure. However ruminants are also contributing towards green house gas emission. Like large ruminants, these fore gut fermenters also harbor a dense and diverse microbial population belonging to different group of flora and fauna. The mammalian system is K e y w o r d s devoid of enzymes cellulase to degrade structural carbohydrate while ruminants are able to degrade them by the enzymes elaborated by symbiotic microbes inhabiting in Sheep; the rumen. Importance of small ruminants in Indian economy lies in their smaller size, Goats; Rumen which is easy to graze and manage. Sheep and goat production is an integral microbiome; component of rural economy of India and serves as major source of economic Green House sustenance for weaker segments of the society in the hot semiarid and arid region. gas; Sheep and goats are closely related since both belong to subfamily Caprinae whereas Differences they are separate species.
    [Show full text]
  • Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-Containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-Based Production Systems
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2019 Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-Containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-Based Production Systems Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Ballesteros, Raúl David Guevara, "Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-Containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-Based Production Systems" (2019). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7666. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7666 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENTERIC METHANE AND NITROGEN EMISSIONS IN BEEF CATTLE GRAZING A TANNIN-CONTAINING LEGUME RELATIVE TO FEEDLOT AND TRADITIONAL PASTURE-BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS by Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Range Science Approved: _________________________ _________________________ Juan J. Villalba, Ph.D. Jennifer W. MacAdam, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member _________________________ _________________________ Eric Thacker, Ph.D. Richard S. Inouye, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice Provost for Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2019 ii Copyright © Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros 2019 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-based Production Systems by Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros, Master of Science Utah State University, 2019 Major Professor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Methane Production in Ruminant Animals: Implication for Their Impact on Climate Change
    Concepts of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences DOI: ISSN: 2637-4749 10.32474/CDVS.2019.02.000142Review Article Methane Production in Ruminant Animals: Implication for Their Impact on Climate Change Mebrate Getabalew1, Tewodros Alemneh2* and Dawit Akeberegn3 1College of Agricultural and Natural Resource Science, Department of Animal Science, Debre Berhan University, Ethiopia 2Woreta Town Office of Agriculture and Environmental Protection, South Gondar Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia 3Debre Berhan City Municipality Office, Meat Inspection and Hygiene, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia *Corresponding author: Tewodros Alemneh, Woreta Town Office of Agriculture and Environmental Protection, South Gondar Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia Received: Published: January 03, 2019 April 04, 2019 Abstract Agriculture accounts for about 47%-56% of the total anthropogenic methane (CH4) emission. It is known that from the agricultural sector, ruminant livestock (dairy, beef, goats, and sheep) substantially contributes to the increase in CH4 production through continuous natural rumen fermentation process. Methane emission is now the second contributor to global warming, which it has 23 times more influence than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Many factors affect the amount of ruminant CH4 production, including level of feed intake, type and quality of feeds, energy consumption, animal size, growth rate, level of production, and environmental temperature. Methane also produced from manure of animals depending on the physical form of the faeces, the amount of digestible material, the climate, and the time they remained intact. The major part of methanogenesis in ruminants occurs in the large fermentative chamber, which is rumen. Ruminal digestion of feed by microorganisms, under anaerobic conditions, results in the production of acetate, propionate and butyrate (volatile fatty acids) which are used by the animal as energy source, and production of ruminal gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and CH4, which eliminated through eructation.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology for the Reduction of Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminants Through the Use of 100% Natural Feed Supplement
    VCS Methodology VM0041 METHODOLOGY FOR THE REDUCTION OF ENTERIC METHANE EMISSIONS FROM RUMINANTS THROUGH THE USE OF 100% NATURAL FEED SUPPLEMENT Version 1.0 22 November 2019 Sectoral Scope 15 VM0041, Version 1.0 Sectorial Scope 15 This methodology was developed by Document Prepared by MOOTRAL SA Author: Elsa Zoupanidou (Mootral SA) Mootral would like to acknowledge the many contributions by colleagues at Mootral SA: Maria Sünkel, Deepashree Kand, Hilde Vrancken, Matthias Miller, and Oliver Riede. Appreciation is extended to Isabelle Botticelli (Mootral SA) and Michael Mathres (Mootral SA) who provided useful suggestions and support over the entire period of the development of the Methodology. We are grateful to Silvana Claassen (Climate Neutral Group), Sergi Cuadrat (Allcot AG), and Mercedes Garcia Madero (Allcot AG) for their contribution and suggestions for improvements. Finally, we thank our reviewers, whose comments and suggestions contributed to greatly increase the clarity and effectiveness of this manuscript. 2 VM0041, Version 1.0 Sectorial Scope 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Sources ................................................................................................................ 4 2 Summary Description of the Methodology ....................................................... 4 3 Definitions ............................................................................................................ 5 4 Applicability Conditions ..................................................................................... 6 5 Project
    [Show full text]
  • Ch4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation
    Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories CH4 EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC FERMENTATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was written by Michael J. Gibbs and David Conneely (ICF Incorporated), Don Johnson (Colorado State University), Keith R. Lasse (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand), and M. J. Ulyatt (New Zealand Pastoral Agriculture Research Institute). ABSTRACT Livestock are produced throughout the world, and are a significant source of global methane (CH4) emissions. The amount of methane emitted is driven primarily by the number of animals, the type of digestive system, and the type and amount of feed consumed. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Guidelines) recommend that CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation be estimated by multiplying the number of animals for each animal type by an appropriate emissions factor. The IPCC Guidelines recommend two general methods to estimating emissions factors. The Tier 1 method involves using default emissions factors, while the Tier 2 method involves using country-specific information to calculate the emissions factors. The Tier 2 method is more accurate than the Tier 1 method because it incorporates country-specific information. The Tier 2 method is recommended to estimate methane emissions for countries with large cattle or sheep populations. The key challenge to using the Tier 2 method lies in data collection. Generally, collecting data for Tier 2 requires a high level of effort. Below is a description of the data needed for Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 To estimate emissions using Tier 1 method, data on the number of animals for each livestock group are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Essays on Modeling the Economic Impacts of a Foreign Animal
    ESSAYS ON MODELING THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF A FOREIGN ANIMAL DISEASE ON THE UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL SECTOR A Dissertation by AMY DEANN HAGERMAN Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2009 Major Subject: Agricultural Economics ESSAYS ON MODELING THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF A FOREIGN ANIMAL DISEASE ON THE UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL SECTOR A Dissertation by AMY DEANN HAGERMAN Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Bruce A. McCarl Committee Members, David A. Bessler Yanhong Jin Bo Norby Head of Department, John P. Nichols December 2009 Major Subject: Agricultural Economics iii ABSTRACT Essays on Modeling the Economic Impacts of a Foreign Animal Disease on the United States Agricultural Sector. (December 2009) Amy DeAnn Hagerman, B.S., Oklahoma State University; M.S., Texas A&M University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Bruce A. McCarl Foreign animal disease can cause serious damage to the United States (US) agricultural sector and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), in particular, poses a serious threat. FMD causes death and reduced fecundity in infected animals, as well as significant economic consequences. FMD damages can likely be reduced through implementing pre-planned response strategies. Empirical studies have evaluated the economic consequences of alternative strategies, but typically employ simplified models. This dissertation seeks to improve US preparedness for avoiding and/or responding to an animal disease outbreak by addressing three issues related to strategy assessment in the context of FMD: integrated multi region economic and epidemic evaluation, inclusion of risk, and information uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Early Life Nutrition on Rumen Microbial Community Development and Impact on Lifetime Performance in Ruminants
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. THE EFFECT OF EARLY LIFE NUTRITION ON RUMEN MICROBIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT ON LIFETIME PERFORMANCE IN RUMINANTS A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Veterinary Sciences At Massey University Palmerston North New Zealand Omar Cristobal Carballo 2019 Abstract Manipulation of the rumen microbiota in adult ruminants has been intended to improve animal performance and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but results have only shown a short- or non-lasting effect after intervention. Changes in the ruminal microbiota during rumen development have recently shown promising results in the short-term. Therefore, the purpose of the present body of work was to determine how dietary management and chemical interventions, during rumen development, modify the ruminal microbial community composition, and whether these changes affect rumen fermentation and development, and consequently, performance in the young ruminants. The objectives of this thesis were to: (i) evaluate the impact of early weaning on rumen development and function in artificially-reared lambs; (ii) characterize the impact of early weaning in lambs on the rumen microbiota in the first 16 weeks of life and examine the relationships between rumen microbiota composition and rumen fermentation profiles, rumen development and blood metabolites; (iii) assess whether contrasting feeding regimes in the first 7 months of life lead to an imprint in the rumen microbial community structure, fermentation profiles and methane emissions in the rumen of calves; (iv) and evaluate the effect of methane inhibitors on the rumen microbial community composition, fermentation pathways, and gas emissions in calves.
    [Show full text]
  • Methane Production by Ruminants: Its Contribution to Global Warming Angela Moss, Jean-Pierre Jouany, John Newbold
    Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming Angela Moss, Jean-Pierre Jouany, John Newbold To cite this version: Angela Moss, Jean-Pierre Jouany, John Newbold. Methane production by ruminants: its contri- bution to global warming. Annales de zootechnie, INRA/EDP Sciences, 2000, 49 (3), pp.231-253. 10.1051/animres:2000119. hal-00889894 HAL Id: hal-00889894 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00889894 Submitted on 1 Jan 2000 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ann. Zootech. 49 (2000) 231–253 231 © INRA, EDP Sciences Review article Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming Angela R. MOSSa*, Jean-Pierre JOUANYb, John NEWBOLDc a ADAS Nutritional Sciences Research Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ, UK b INRA, Centre de Recherches de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France c Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB, UK (Received 15 November 1999; accepted 5 April 2000) Abstract —The aim of this paper is to review the role of methane in the global warming scenario and to examine the contribution to atmospheric methane made by enteric fermentation, mainly by rumi- nants.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock and Poultry
    www.afabjournal.com Copyright © 2013 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology REVIEW Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock and Poultry C. S. Dunkley1 and K. D. Dunkley2 1Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 2School of Science and Math, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Tifton, GA ABSTRACT In 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that only 6.4% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions originated from agriculture. Of this amount, 53.5% comes from animal agriculture. Agri- cultural activities are the largest source of N2O emissions in the U.S. accounting for 69% of the total N2O emissions for 2009. In animal agriculture, the greatest contributor to methane emissions is enteric fermen- tation and manure management. Enteric fermentation is the most important source of methane in beef and dairy production, while most of the methane from poultry and swine production originates from manure. The main cause of agricultural nitrous oxide emissions is from the application of nitrogen fertilizers and animal manures. Application of nitrogenous fertilizers and cropping practices are estimated to cause 78% of total nitrous oxide emissions. Based on the life cycle assessment of beef cattle, 86.15% of the GHGs are emitted during the production stage, while 68.51% of emissions take place during the production of pork and 47.82% of GHG emissions occur during the production stage of broiler chickens. The majority of the emissions from the beef cattle production comes from enteric fermentation while manure management is the major source during swine production and propane use during broiler poultry production. Keywords: greenhouse gas, LCA, poultry emissions, beef emissions Agric.
    [Show full text]