Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes from plasma-treated pig slurry applied to winter wheat

The use of livestock waste as an organic fertiliser releases significant greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change. Innovative fertiliser management practices, such as treating slurry with plasma induction, have the potential to reduce losses of carbon and nitrogen to the environment. The existing research on the effectiveness of plasma-treated slurry at reducing nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions, however, is not comprehensive, although must be understood if this technology is to be utilised on a large scale. A randomised block experiment was conducted to measure soil fluxes of N2O and CH4 from winter wheat every two hours over an 83-day period using automated chambers. Three treatments receiving a similar amount of plant-available N were used: (1) inorganic fertiliser (IF); (2) pig slurry combined with inorganic fertiliser (PS); (3) plasma-treated pig slurry combined with inorganic fertiliser (TPS). Cumulative N2O fluxes from TPS (1.14 g N m−2) were greater than those from PS (0.32 g N m−2) and IF (0.13 g N m−2). A diurnal pattern in N2O fluxes was observed towards the end of the experiment for all treatments, and was driven by increases in water-filled pore space and photosynthetically active radiation and decreases in air temperature. Cumulative CH4 fluxes from PS (3.2 g C m−2) were considerably greater than those from IF (− 1.4 g C m−2) and TPS (− 1.4 g C m−2). The greenhouse gas intensity of TPS (0.2 g CO2-eq kg grain−1) was over twice that of PS (0.07 g CO2-eq kg grain−1) and around six times that of IF (0.03 g CO2-eq kg grain−1). Although treating pig slurry with plasma induction considerably reduced CH4 fluxes from soil, it increased N2O emissions, resulting in higher non-CO2 emissions from this treatment. Life-cycle analysis will be required to evaluate whether the upstream manufacturing and transport emissions associated with inorganic fertiliser usage are outweighed by the emissions observed following the application of treated pig slurry to soil

Measuring and modelling the impact of outdoor pigs on soil carbon and nutrient dynamics under a changing climate and different management scenarios

A mixed agricultural system that integrates livestock and cropping is essential to organic, agroecological, and regenerative farming. The demand for improved welfare systems has made the practice of outdoor rearing of pigs very popular; it currently makes up 40% of the UK pig industry and has also been integrated into arable rotations. Besides the benefits of outdoor production systems, they also potentially pose environmental risks to farmlands, such as accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil, soil erosion and compaction and carbon loss. Despite this, the impact of outdoor pigs and arable crop rotations on soil health has been under-researched relative to other livestock species. This study was conducted at the University of Leeds Research Farm from 2018 to 2020 using a combined experimental and modelling approach to understand the impact of outdoor pigs on soil carbon and nutrient dynamics. The physio-chemical properties of arable soil were measured prior to the introduction of the pigs and after introducing the pigs at the end of first and second years, consecutively. There was assessment of control sites (without pigs, mowing once a year) and pig pens (pigs in a rotation with arable crops). The soil was sampled at two different depths, 0–10 cm and 10–20 cm. It was observed that measured soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in the soil depths of 0–10 cm and 10–20 cm layer were decreased by 7% and 3%, respectively, in the pig pens from 2019 to 2020, and total available nitrogen and phosphorus were significantly higher in pig pens than the control sites. Hence, at a depth between 0 and 20 cm, the average total available nitrogen was 2.51 and 2.68 mg kg−1 in the control sites and 21.76 and 20.45 mg kg−1 in the pig pens in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The average total available phosphorus at 0–20 cm was 26.54 and 37.02 mg kg−1 in control sites and 48.15 and 63.58 mg kg−1 in pig pens during 2019 and 2020, respectively. A process-based model (DayCent) was used to simulate soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in the arable rotation with outdoor pigs and showed SOC stock losses of – 0.09 ± 0.23 T C ha−1 year−1 using the future climate CMIP5 RCP 8.5 scenario for 2020 to 2048. To reduce this loss, we modelled the impact of changing the management of the pig rotation and found that the loss of SOC stock could be decreased by shortening the period of pig retention in the field, growing grass in the field, and leguminous crops in the crop rotation

Maize grown for bioenergy on peat emits twice as much carbon as when grown on mineral soil

The area of land dedicated to growing maize for bioenergy in the United Kingdom is rapidly expanding. To understand how maize production influences soil carbon (C) dynamics, and whether this is influenced by soil type, we measured net ecosystem exchange (NEE) using the eddy covariance technique over the 2021 growing season. We combined the NEE data with C imports and exports to calculate the net ecosystem productivity (NEP) of two maize crops grown for bioenergy in the United Kingdom, one site on mineral soil and the other on lowland agricultural peat. Maize was similarly productive at both sites—gross primary productivity was 1107 g C m−2 at the site with mineral soil and 1407 g C m−2 at the peat site. However, total ecosystem respiration was considerably higher from the peat site (1198 g C m−2) compared with the mineral soil site (678 g C m−2). After accounting for the removal of C in harvested biomass, both sites were net C sources, but C losses were over two times greater from the peat site (NEP = 290 g C m−2) than the mineral site (NEP = 136 g C m−2). While annual crops may be needed to produce bioenergy in the short term, growing maize for bioenergy in the United Kingdom does not appear to be a viable option for C sequestration over the long term, as it leads to high carbon losses from agroecosystems, especially those on organic soils. Instead, growing perennial bioenergy crops on mineral soils with a low organic C content is a more appropriate option