INVESTIGATING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF CATTLE GRAZING THE LAC DU BOIS
GRASSLANDS:
The effects changes in management may have on reducing and removing GHG
emissions, and opportunities for BC ranchers to explore carbon offset
opportunities.

A Dissertation Presented
by
Allan F. Raymond

Submitted to the Graduate School of
Thompson Rivers University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Environmental Science

July 2013

© Copyright by Allan F. Raymond 2013
All Rights Reserved

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. John Church

ii

ABSTRACT
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which includes cattle grazing, have been
increasingly recognized as an extremely important anthropogenic source. The primary focus of
this body of work was to investigate the impact of cattle ranching on these emissions in British
Columbia in order to determine the overall carbon footprint. To accomplish this task, the
grazing activity that is currently occurring within the Lac Du Bois grasslands of British Columbia
was examined. Particular emphasis was placed on identifying point sources and removals of
greenhouse gas emissions from cattle ranching. Enteric methane emissions were empirically
measured at two elevation gradients in the spring and fall of 2010, and it was found that the
cattle emitted on average 370.01 L CH4/day; these measurements done on native grasslands,
are comparable to similar work done by others on tame pastures. The total digestible nutrients
(TDN) from the pastures in the study area were determined to be 65.22% of dry matter; which
is the default value used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their
methodology for determining overall emissions. Utilizing this information, a whole system life
cycle analysis (LCA) was conducted on cattle grazing in Lac Du Bois. Equipped with a validated
model based on our empirical measurements, the following grassland improvement strategies
were evaluated: reducing stocking density; and reseeding/interseeding grass and legumes with
and without synthetic fertilizer additions. Of the scenarios modelled, reseeding was the most
effective at reducing the carbon footprint of cattle ranching on the Lac Du Bois grasslands.
Reseeding initiatives could theoretically result in soil carbon sequestration rates of 2.12 Mg CO2
eq/ha. Finally, the potential opportunities for BC livestock ranchers to participate in carbon
markets were reviewed. While opportunities exist, cattle ranchers will have to adapt or develop
applicable protocols in order to participate in carbon markets. Diet manipulation and pasture
rejuvenation initiatives may offer the best carbon offset potential. It is recommended that a
combination of reductions and removals should be implemented in the future to reduce the
overall carbon footprint of cattle ranching in British Columbia.

Keywords: Cattle grazing, carbon footprint, methane emissions, carbon sequestration
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1 Introduction and Relevance ........................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 Investigating methane emissions from cattle grazing the Lac Du Bois grasslands
utilizing the SF6 tracer technique .................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Materials and Methods – Methane Measurement ......................................................... 12
2.3 Sampling Site ................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Sampling Methodology – Methane Collection ............................................................ 18
2.4.2 Sampling Methodology – Forage Analysis................................................................... 22
2.5 Statistical Analysis............................................................................................................ 23
2.6 Results.............................................................................................................................. 23
2.7 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 26
2.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 3 Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation opportunities
associated with cattle grazing the Lac Du Bois grasslands using HOLOS ..................................... 33
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Experimental Section - Materials and Methods .............................................................. 36
3.3 Results:............................................................................................................................. 43
3.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 4 Exploring greenhouse gas emission mitigation strategies in agriculture, and
opportunities for BC ranchers to market carbon offsets. ............................................................ 62
4.1 Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture – the big picture............................................ 62
4.2 The Global Carbon Market .............................................................................................. 71
4.3 The Carbon Market – a North American perspective ..................................................... 72
iv

4.4 BC’s GHG mitigation and carbon offset opportunities .................................................... 74
4.5 Investigating Offset Opportunities for BC Cattle Producers ........................................... 81
4.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 89
Chapter 5 Final Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 92
Reference List................................................................................................................................ 98

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support for this project was provided by the Future Forest Ecosystems
Scientific Council (FFESC), Ardcorp, The Horn Cattle Trust, and the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association.
I offer my sincere thanks to my thesis supervisor, Dr. John Church for his input,
guidance, unrelenting encouragement and patience. Your expertise in animal science has been
invaluable, as has been your advice on study design, thesis layout, scientific research and
writing. At times we both wondered if we would ever get here, but John kept me going.
I would also to like to thank the following people who were integral in this undertaking:
Paul Moote and Wade Archambault for their invaluable assistance with the methane
measurements, both in the field and in the lab; Dr. Alan Iwaasa and his team for the training on
the SF6 tracer technique; Dr. Jon Van Hamme and Justine Morrow for their assistance with the
GC analysis; Dr. Don Thompson for his help with the pasture sampling and analysis; and lastly,
Leo and Pat Strauser for their help handling the cattle everyday during our field study (and
putting up with a bunch of greenhorns).
I would also like to offer special thanks to my family, my children for their software
assistance here and there, and especially my wife for her encouragement and complete faith in
my abilities.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Extent of Global Agricultural Lands ............................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2. Meeting goals for food security and environmental sustainability by 2050 ................ 4
Figure 1.3. Flow Diagram of the typical North American beef production cycle. .......................... 6
Figure 2.1. Permeation tube and components. ............................................................................ 13
Figure 2.2. Halter and yoke assembly. .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.3. Stainless Steel capillary tubing housed in PVC tube for protection. .......................... 14
Figure 2.4. Schematic – SPARC PVC Methane collection apparatus (yoke). ................................ 15
Figure 2.5. Each yoke is over-pressured with pure nitrogen to about 1.5 atm. After 1 hour a sub
sample is taken (30 ml) to be analyzed by gas chromatography. ....................................... 16
Figure 2.6. Measuring methane samples using gas chromatography. ......................................... 17
Figure 2.7. Mid-elevation pasture, Lac Du Bois. Cattle belong to study co-operator Terry Inskip.
....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.8. Cattle being gathered for sampling, Lac Du Bois pasture........................................... 21
Figure 2.9. Cattle in pens waiting for yokes to be exchanged, Lac Du Bois. ................................ 21
Figure 2.10. Cattle in “squeeze”, removing yoke and halter, Lac Du Bois. .................................. 22
Figure 2.11. Cow Methane Output (L/day) from samples collected during the spring and fall of
2010 at the Lac Du Bois test site. ........................................................................................ 24
Figure 3.1. Grazing Pastures and Fences ...................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.2. Group 1 Results – Stocking Density Reduction ........................................................... 45
Figure 3.3. Group 2 Results - Reseeding ....................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.4. Group 3 Results – Reseeding with Fertilizer ............................................................... 50
Figure 4.1. Global biophysical mitigation potential (Mt CO2 eq. Yr) by 2030 of each agricultural
management practice. ........................................................................................................ 71
Figure 4.2. B.C. GHG Emissions - 2008.. ........................................................................................ 75
Figure 4.3. Carbon Offset Projects. ............................................................................................... 77
Figure 4.4. Carbon Offset Projects – ROI vs. Risk.......................................................................... 80

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Comparison of select key nutrients between varieties in the grassland community of
Lac Du Bois test site. Quadrat samples collected on June 11 & 15, 2010, and analyzed by
NIRS. .................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 2.2. IPCC Tier 2 enteric fermentation emission factors.. .................................................... 28
Table 2.3. Actual vs predicted enteric emission of methane (g/head/day) by beef cattle fed
pasture ................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 3.1. Baseline Scenario (Mg CO2 eq)..................................................................................... 44
Table 3.2. Group 1 Results – Stocking Density Reduction (Mg CO2 eq) ....................................... 45
Table 3.3. Scenario 2a – reseed 10% (757 ha) of Lac Du Bois grasslands (Mg CO2 eq). ............... 46
Table 3.4. Scenario 2b – reseed 25% (1,892 ha) of Lac Du Bois grasslands (Mg CO2 eq). ............ 46
Table 3.5. Scenario 2c – reseed 50% (3,783 ha) of Lac Du Bois grasslands (Mg CO2 eq). ............ 47
Table 3.6. Scenario 3a – reseeding 10% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha
on reseed (Mg CO2 eq). ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 3.7. Scenario 3b – reseeding 25% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha
on reseed (Mg CO2 eq). ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 3.8. Scenario 3c – reseeding 50% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha
on reseed (Mg CO2 eq). ....................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.1. Carbon Offset Projects – Validation and Verification. ................................................. 80

viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANCE

Global climate change has been attributed to increased emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) due to
anthropogenic (human) activities (IPCC 2006a). Atmospheric concentrations of these gases have
increased by 31% for CO2, 151% for CH4 and 17% for N2O since 1750. The global warming
potential (GWP) of these gases are not equal, with methane (normally considered to be) 23
times, and nitrous oxide being 310 times more efficient in trapping heat in the atmosphere than
carbon dioxide (Smith et al., 2008). It has recently been suggested a more accurate estimation
of the GWP of CH4 is 25 times more than CO2 (IPCC, 2007). Following the conversion of these
gases into their respective GWP’s, the magnitude of the emissions of these gases can be
reported in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq), and are typically expressed over a 100
year time horizon (Desjardins et al., 2012).
Globally, agriculture accounts for 10 to 12% of total anthropogenic emissions of GHG’s,
but 84% of N2O and 52% of CH4 anthropogenic emissions (Smith et al., 2008). Both agricultural
expansion and intensification are major contributors to climate change (Canadell et al., 2007;
Vergé, De Kimpe, & Desjardins, 2007). In agriculture, carbon dioxide is released largely from
microbial decay or burning of plant litter and soil organic matter (H. Janzen, 2004). Methane is
produced when organic materials decompose in oxygen-deprived conditions, notably from
fermentative digestion by ruminant livestock, stored manures and rice grown under flooded
conditions (Mosier et al., 1998). Nitrous oxide is generated by the microbial transformation of
nitrogen in soils and manures, and is often enhanced where available N exceeds plant
requirements, especially under wet conditions (Smith & Conen, 2004).
The linkage between GHG emissions and agriculture are well documented. Because of
agriculture’s global size and scope, this sector’s relative contribution to climate change is
extensive. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO,
2009), croplands cover 1.53 billion hectares (about 12% of Earth’s ice-free land), while pastures
1

cover another 3.38 billion hectares (about 26% of Earth’s ice-free land) (Figure 1.1). Altogether,
agriculture occupies about 38% of Earth’s terrestrial surface – the largest land use on the planet
(Ramankutty, Evan, Monfreda, & Foley, 2008).

Figure 1.1 Extent of Global Agricultural Lands (Foley et al., 2011). The global extent of croplands
(green) and pastures (brown), as estimated from satellite, and census-based data by
Ramankutty et al., (2008).

Increasing global population and consumption patterns are placing unprecedented
demands on agriculture, and the lands that are necessary to produce the food to meet the
demands of an ever-increasing population. It has been recently affirmed that we currently face
one of the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century: meeting society’s growing food
needs while simultaneously reducing agriculture’s environmental harm (Foley et al., 2011).
In 2005 agriculture accounted for 7.6% of Canada’s total GHG emissions, of which 50% is
attributed to emissions from soils primarily due to N2O from fertilizer applications, 32% from
ruminants due to CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and 17% from N2O emissions due to
manure management (Environment Canada, 2008). As a result of agriculture’s dramatic
contributions to GHG emissions, governments throughout the world are investigating strategies
2

to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. At the heart of these investigations is the realization that
agriculture must undergo a transformation. To meet the projected demands of population
growth and increasing consumption, humanity must roughly double food supplies in the next
few decades (Davies et al., 2009). Concurrently, according to the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the transformation of agriculture should also cut GHG emissions from land use
and farming by at least 80% (IPCC, 2007) – this will be a daunting undertaking.
Until recently, most agricultural paradigms have focused on improving production, often
to the detriment of the environment (DeFries, Foley, & Asner, 2004). At the same time, many
environmental conservation strategies have not sought to improve food production. However,
in order to achieve global food security and environmental sustainability, agricultural systems
must be transformed to address both challenges simultaneously (Foley et al., 2005). Figure 1.2
qualitatively illustrates a subset of the goals agriculture must meet in the coming decades. At
the top of the figure, four key food security goals are outlined:


increasing total agricultural production;



increasing the supply of food (recognizing that agricultural yields are not always
equivalent to food);



improving the distribution of and access to food;



increasing the resilience of the whole food system.

At the bottom of the figure, four key environmental goals that agriculture must meet
are illustrated:


reducing GHG emissions from agriculture and land use;



reducing biodiversity loss;



phasing out unsustainable water withdrawals;



curtailing air and water pollution from agriculture.

Panel “a” sketches out a qualitative assessment of how current agricultural systems
may be measured against these criteria compared to goals for 2050. Panel “b” illustrates a
hypothetical situation in which we meet all these goals by 2050 (Foley et al., 2011). The relative
3

scope of the impact categories, as shown on the bottom of the illustration, is particularly
noteworthy. This depicts which categories are the most problematic, and consequently where
the focus needs to be in order to rectify these concerns. Greenhouse gas emissions are
considered the largest threat to our environment, followed by biodiversity loss, and then
impacts associated with water degradation and unsustainable water use patterns. To move
from the current situation “a”, to the hypothetical situation “b”, would require substantial
reductions in all four categories, but the most extensive reduction would have to come from
GHG emissions. Practices associated with agricultural production, particularly ruminant
livestock production, directly affect all these environmental impact categories.

Figure 1.2. Meeting goals for food security and environmental sustainability by 2050
(Foley et al., 2011).

4

Canadian beef is perceived both domestically and globally as a premier product in the
world marketplace. Canadian beef marketing is closely linked with the quality of the
environment and the stewardship of resources. It is a critical advantage to the beef industry to
have a solid environmental reputation, and it is increasingly important that industry promote
their ecological goods and services to gain any competitive advantage that may be available in
the global and domestic marketplace.
The ranching industry and beef production has a long and storied history both in Canada
and specifically in British Columbia. In much of rural B.C. ranching is a mainstay of local
economies. Most beef ranches are cow/calf, or cow/yearling operations. There were 4,086
cattle ranches in B.C. as reported in the 2006 agricultural census. Revenue from cattle sales in
2008 was $250 million. According to Statistics Canada, there were approximately 192,000 cows
in 2011, down from approximately 212,000 cows reported in 2009. Alberta is the largest
producer of beef in Canada, with 45% of the national herd, while B.C. represents 4.5% of
Canada’s herd (British Columbia Ranching Task Force, 2009).
Presently only a small portion of the calves produced in Canada are fed to slaughter
weights by the original owner of the ranch where they were born. This trend is changing, as
some producers are implementing alternative production systems and strategies in B.C.;
producers are increasingly marketing provincially raised beef products that are branded as
being local, natural (hormone or antibiotic free), organic, and/or grass-fed or grass-finished,
either alone or in some combination. The serious financial difficulties endured by the beef
industry over last several years has encouraged producers to explore alternative production
systems and branding to add value to their products. Producers are hoping to capitalize on the
consumer’s growing awareness of the environment and the perception that products such as
grass-fed beef are healthier. Grass-fed systems, for example, are more socially appealing, but
due to their lower productivity, there is significant disagreement on whether this system is
more environmentally friendly. Traditional grazing requires more time to finish an animal, and it
often creates more methane because forages are often less digestible (Rance, 2010). While
confinement systems produce less CH4 emissions per animal, if all sources of greenhouse gas
5

emissions are considered, an early study found that feedlots can produce more than double the
GHG emissions than the pastoralist system (Subak, 1999).
Cattle herd structure and management can also have a significant impact on the carbon
footprint of the beef cattle sector. In most beef producing regions, the beef industry usually
consists of the following sectors: cow/calf; stocker/grasser; feedlot; and dairy, with an
exchange of stock occurring between each of these systems (Figure 1.3). Feeding regimes can
also have a substantial impact on the carbon footprint of the beef cattle sector (Desjardins et
al., 2012). For example grain-fed feedlot cattle vs. grass-fed cattle generally have a significantly
different carbon footprint, due in part because of the time to reach a desired slaughter weight.
In grazing/grass-fed cattle, the quality of the pasture and the stocking density can also affect
productivity and the carbon footprint.

Figure 1.3. Flow Diagram of the typical North American beef production cycle.

6

Ranchers in British Columbia typically augment their private holdings with large tenures
of both private and Crown land, increasing their capacity to raise beef beyond the limitations of
the feed that can be produced on their own cultivated lands. B.C. ranches occupy over 2 million
hectares of private land, and have tenure on a further 8.7 million hectares of Crown rangelands.
The majority of these public grazing lands are not suited to cultivation, and are often in areas
that lack sufficient moisture for growing higher value crops. By managing the grasslands
sustainably, ranchers provide prime habitat for wildlife and many of the threatened species
associated with grasslands. The maintenance of deep rooted healthy grasslands and the
increase in soil organic matter produced by well-managed ranges are an effective means of
carbon sequestration and carbon storage (British Columbia Ranching Task Force, 2009).
Not unlike other sectors during these recessionary times, the cattle sector has
experienced financial distress. At the same time, the cattle industry remains optimistic that
world demand for beef is increasing. Forecasters are predicting that North American demand
for beef will level off, and growth will be focussed upon export markets. A portion of the sector
may also turn its attention to local markets and finish more cattle to take advantage of
opportunities for value-added beef products. As producers explore opportunities such as
“grass-fed” branding to diversify and create additional value for their product, the grasslands
and grazing areas become an ever increasingly important component of the production system.
In Canada, cultivated forages for pasture, feed and seed production represent 13.7 million
hectares, or 39% of the arable land base. The second largest crop in Canada is wheat, which
accounts for 8.6 million hectares, or 23% of the arable land. In addition, there are over 14.6
million hectares of native or unimproved pastures in Canada (Government of Canada, 2011).
The economic value of the forage and grassland industry is estimated to be $5.09 billion,
trailing only wheat and canola in terms of economic contribution. In addition, the forage
industry is the backbone of the beef and dairy sectors, and these two sectors contribute $11
billion in direct value to Canadian farmers, and over $50 billion in economic activity. Provincial
studies have estimated the value of the indirect benefits from the forage industry, such as
environmental services, could be worth as much again as the direct benefits (Yungblut, 2012).

7

As ranchers endeavour to develop their brands based on a healthier, environmentally
friendly platform, it is important for them to understand the environmental impact of their
product, and the environmental consequences of their management practices. While the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture has been increasingly recognized as an
extremely important anthropogenic source of emissions, very limited work to date has focused
on the impact of cattle ranching on these emissions in British Columbia. The primary focus of
this body of work was to investigate the carbon footprint of cattle grazing in British Columbia.
Examining, measuring and modelling the grazing activity that is currently occurring within the
Lac Du Bois grasslands of British Columbia accomplished this task. Particular emphasis was
placed on identifying point sources and removals of greenhouse gas emissions, and their
potential future relevance for the ranching community in the province.
The specific objectives of this study was to: 1) empirically measure greenhouse gas
emissions from enteric fermentation from cattle grazing on native grasslands in the central
interior of British Columbia, and assess the nutrient quality of the grasslands; and 2) using the
information gathered, validate a whole system modelling approach, or life cycle assessment
(LCA), to determine the carbon footprint of the cattle ranching industry of British Columbia; as
well as 3) explore GHG emission reduction and removal strategies; and 4) investigate possible
opportunities for the ranching industry to participate in carbon market revenue.

8

CHAPTER 2
INVESTIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS FROM CATTLE GRAZING THE LAC DU BOIS
GRASSLANDS UTILIZING THE SF6 TRACER TECHNIQUE

2.1 Introduction
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) whose atmospheric concentrations have
increased dramatically over the last century. The rising concentration of CH4 is strongly
correlated with increasing populations, and currently about 70% of its production arises from
anthropogenic sources (IPCC, 2006a). Methane released to the atmosphere by domestic
ruminant livestock is considered to be one of the three largest anthropogenic sources (Steinfeld
& Wassenaar, 2007). Globally, ruminant livestock emit roughly 80 Tg (1 Tg = 10 12 g = 1 million
metric ton) of methane annually, accounting for about 33% percent of the global anthropogenic
CH4 emissions (Beauchemin, Kreuzer, O’Mara, & McAllister, 2008). Methane is considered by
many to be one of the largest potential contributors to climate change(Sejian, Lal, Lakritz, &
Ezeji, 2010). Methane is a concern for livestock production because it is generated by ruminant
animals in large quantities during the normal process of feed digestion (Beauchemin et al.,
2008). In a life cycle assessment (LCA) of beef production in Western Canada, Beauchemin,
Janzen, Little, McAllister, & McGinn (2011) determined that enteric CH4 was the largest
contributing source of GHG from the beef industry, contributing 63% to total emissions. They
further determined that the cow/calf sector accounted for approximately 80% of total industry
emissions, with 84% of enteric CH4 coming from mature cows.
Many governments have implemented strategies and policies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from agriculture, and significant efforts are being directed towards developing animal
husbandry methods that lower enteric methane emissions (Beauchemin, Janzen, Little,
McAllister, & McGinn, 2010). In addition to GHG issues, methane emissions from cattle
represent a carbon loss pathway that results in reduced productivity. If the energy that is lost in
generating methane could contribute to weight gain for example, it would be cost effective to
the producer. Past studies have shown that methane production is dependent on the quality

9

and quantity of the diet (Beauchemin, McAllister, & McGinn, 2009). Generally highly digestible
feeds yield lower methane emissions when compared to poorer quality diets. Dietary
manipulation may provide a mechanism for reducing methane emissions from domestic
livestock.
A measurement technique that makes use of an inert tracer gas, sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), has been developed that allows methane production from individual grazing ruminants to
be measured by placing a calibrated source of SF6 (a permeation tube) in the rumen and
determining the ratio of methane to SF6 in the animals breath (Ulyatt, McCrabb, Baker, &
Lassey, 1999). This technique can provide estimates of methane production that are
comparable with those determined by respiration calorimetry in actual grazing conditions,
avoiding the limitations of other controlled measurement techniques.
The tracer techniques has been widely adopted in many countries because it is the only
viable technique for determining enteric methane emissions from individual grazing animals
(Lassey, 2007). The technique’s accuracy compared with alternative measurement protocols,
including the use of chambers, has been well documented and validated (Boadi, Wittenberg, &
Kennedy, 2002; K. Johnson, Huyler, Westberg, Lamb, & Zimmerman, 1994; Ulyatt et al., 1999).
At the same time, there exist some uncertainties in the SF6 tracer technique, arising from:
extrapolation of permeation tube performance (Lassey, Walker, McMillan, & Ulyatt, 2001);
variations in breath collection efficiency throughout the collection period; concerns that the
imposition of sampling equipment may affect feeding behavior; and the fact emissions
produced from flatulence are not measured. Most hindgut methane is absorbed into the
bloodstream and respired, so the SF6 technique will capture most of it, but to account for
values where hindgut emissions of methane are not measured directly, an increase of 2-3% of
the enteric emission value is considered a reliable adjustment (Lassey, 2007). Another
limitation is that emissions are only measured from individual animals, and CH4 emissions can
vary between animals. Emissions from larger numbers of free moving livestock can be
measured with techniques such as integrated horizontal flux (<6 animals), and open-path laser
spectrometry (10-25 animals). These non-interference techniques tend to be more accurate
10

and provide more realistic values associated with livestock activity and grazing/feeding
patterns, but may still require the SF6 method for verification (Derner et al., 2005; Kebreab,
Johnson, Archibeque, Pape, & Wirth, 2008)
There have been many previous studies investigating methane emissions from livestock,
particularly as methane production relates to diet and feeding regimes. The vast majority of
these studies have been conducted on restrained and/or penned animals. The SF6 tracer
technique for measuring enteric fermentation has proven to be a reliable and useful tool for
researchers endeavoring to investigate CH4 emissions from free moving animals (Lassey et al.,
2001). This technique allows direct rumen CH4 measurements without restricting animals from
their natural environment and feeding behavior (Johnson et al., 1994). As a result, studies can
be undertaken to investigate issues such as dietary strategies as they relate to CH4 production
from grazing animals. For example, a group of Canadian researchers used the SF 6 tracer gas
technique to measure the impact of grazing management on CH4 production by steers and
lactating beef cows (McCaughey, Wittenberg, & Corrigan, 1997, 1999). Boadi, Wittenberg, &
McCaughey (2002) used the SF6 tracer gas technique to measure the effects of grain
supplementation on CH4 production of grazing steers. Few studies have investigated the enteric
methane production from beef cattle on native range in Canada, and to our knowledge none
have been conducted on the unique grassland communities of the central interior of British
Columbia, represented by the Lac Du Bois study site. The levels of methane produced by beef
cattle in BC should be verified and compared to levels recorded in other regions in Canada and
globally to accurately predict the carbon footprint of B.C. cattle and to determine the
applicability of appropriate modelling tools.
Finally, in order to assess the digestibility of the forage/diet in the test areas, samples of
the prevalent grassland communities were gathered and measured by Near Infrared
Reflectance Spectrometry (NIRS). Significant differences in key nutritional constituents relating
to digestibility within the two different sampling areas utilized in this study would suggest
variability or unreliability in methane emissions. In addition, collection of this information

11

would help determine the validity of implementing different modelling approaches used later in
the thesis that require accurate knowledge of the digestibility of the nutrients in the diet.
2.2 Materials and Methods – Methane Measurement
The SF6 calibrated tracer technique in ruminants was pioneered at Washington State
University by Johnson et al. (1994). Various improvements have subsequently taken place, and
the current version used in this study is a modification developed by the Dept. of Animal
Science, University of Manitoba (McGinn, Beauchemin, Iwaasa, & McAllister, 2006) and from Ag
Research Limited, N.Z (Pinares-Patiño et al., 2008).
Following the guidelines supplied by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on implementing
the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique method, a small, calibrated permeation tube
containing SF6 gas was inserted by bolus gun into the rumen of six beef cows one week prior to
the start of the study. Once the study began, a halter fitted with a capillary tube was placed on
the animals head and was connected to an evacuated sampling canister (PVC yoke). As the
vacuum in the sampling canister slowly dissipated, a sample of the air around the mouth and
nostril of the animal was collected into the PVC yoke at a constant rate. After collecting a
sample, the yoke was removed, pressurized with nitrogen, and then the methane and SF 6
concentrations were sampled and subsequently determined by gas chromatography at
Thompson Rivers University. The methane emission rate was calculated as the product of the
permeation tube emission rate and the ratio of CH4 to SF6 concentration in the sample.
2.2.1 Permeation Tube
The permeation tube body was constructed from a brass rod, drilled out in the centre to
provide a cavity for the SF6 (Figure 2.1). The open end was threaded to allow the attachment of
a Swaglock nut. A thin Teflon window and a stainless steel frit was placed between two Teflon
washers and assembled between the brass body and nut. The thickness and type of Teflon
window dictated the permeation rate. TFE Teflon of 12mm thickness and a 2 micron frit
normally provide SF6 permeation rates in the range of 1,000-2,000 ng/min at 39o C. The

12

purpose of the frit is to stabilize and protect the Teflon membrane. The weight of the
assembled tube was taken and an identification number was stamped onto the tube.

Figure 2.1. Permeation tube and components.

To charge the tube with pure SF6, the tube body was immersed into liquid nitrogen.
After the tube reached the cryogen temperature, it was removed and any liquid was poured
out of the cavity. The cavity was then filled with pure SF6. This was accomplished by injecting
the gas into the permeation tube body with a syringe. Once completed, the cap assembly was
quickly installed, and the entire device was weighed. This procedure provided six tubes
containing about 600 mg of SF6. The tubes were placed in a glass receptacle in a 39o C water
bath. A small flow of clean N2 gas was maintained to purge the glass receptacle of any SF6
emissions. Weights of the tubes were taken weekly to determine the release rate of the SF6.
2.2.2 Halter Construction
The sampling apparatus consists of the collection canister (PVC yoke) and a modified
halter (Figure 2.2). A snug, proper fitting halter is critical, as the position of the inlet over the
nostril must be maintained to ensure sampling success. Halters with an adjustable chin strap
are preferred, and additional holes were installed to ensure a snug fit to the noseband. A
leather flap was riveted onto the halter noseband to provide support for the capillary tube inlet
and filter.
13

Figure 2.2. Halter and yoke assembly.
2.2.3 Capillary Tubing
The length of the capillary tubing regulates the sampling rate. Stainless steel tubing
with an inside diameter of 0.127 mm and an outside diameter of 1.59 mm served as the flow
restrictor and transfer line. The capillary system is designed to deliver about half the volume
contained in the yoke during a normal 24 hour collection period. Filling to ½ atm ensured that
the fill rate was constant. A 50 micron filter system was installed on the upstream (nose) end of
the capillary tube to protect it from filling with foreign material. The filter assembly was then
attached to the leather noseband so that the filter and inlet tubing were located above the
nostril of the animal. The stainless steel calibration tubing is located within a PVC tube for
protection purposes (Figure 2.3). On the downstream end of the protective tube, the capillary
tubing was connected to a length of 3.17 mm PTFE tubing, and a male quick-connect was
installed on the end for connection to the yoke.

Figure 2.3. Stainless Steel capillary tubing housed in PVC tube for protection.
14

2.2.4 PVC Yoke
The sampling apparatus consisted of a PVC yoke that is designed to fit around a cow’s
neck, and then attached to the modified halter with 40 cm long electrical tie straps (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Schematic – SPARC PVC Methane collection apparatus (yoke) (Iwaasa et al, 2005).

15

2.2.5 Dilution System and Vacuum Pump
A vacuum pump was required to evacuate the yokes, and a pressure gauge was utilized
to measure the pressure when filling the yoke with a gas sample. A dilution system was used to
pressurize the sample with nitrogen gas. All components were fitted with the quick-connect
system to facilitate use.
Prior to sampling, a collection yoke was evacuated, and the pressure recorded. After the
sampling period, the pressure was again recorded to validate that the sampling was
satisfactory. The yoke was then connected to the dilution system, and nitrogen was slowly
added until the pressure in the canister was increased to about 1.5 atm. The exact pressure was
recorded to calculate the dilution factor. A sample was then drawn out of the yoke with a
syringe (Figure 2.5). Subsequently, gas chromatography was used to reveal the methane
concentration in the sampling yoke (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.5. Each yoke is over-pressured with pure nitrogen to about 1.5 atm. After 1 hour a sub
sample is taken (30 ml) to be analyzed by gas chromatography.
2.2.6 Gas Analysis
The tracer method utilized SF6 to account for dilution as gasses exiting the cow’s mouth
mixed with ambient air. It is assumed that the SF6 emission exactly simulates the CH4 emission;
thus the dilution rates for SF6 and CH4 are considered to be identical.

16

Determining the SF6 and CH4 mixing ratio (μmol mol-1) in the yoke canisters (Csf6 and
Cch4, respectively) was required, and the pre-determined SF6 release rate (Qsf6 in g d-1) was used
to determine the CH4 emission (Qch4 in g d-1) (refer to Equation 2.1). Background SF6 and CH4
mixing ratios (CBsf6 and CBch4, respectively) were measured in the vicinity of the sampling or
collection area using separate yoke canisters, hidden in surrounding vegetation, and these were
subtracted from Csf6 and Cch4, respectively. The ratio of molecular weights (MW) was used to
account for the difference in density between the gases.

Qch4 =

Cch4 – CBch4

Qsf6

Csf6 – CBsf6

MWch4
MWsf6

Equation 2.1. McGinn et al. (2006). J. Environ. Qual. 35 :1686-1691.

Figure 2.6. Measuring methane samples using gas chromatography.
2.3 Sampling Site
The La du Bois Provincial Park grasslands served as the study location for this research.
The La du Bois grassland area is a large multi-use area located on the outskirts of Kamloops,
B.C. This area has served as an important grazing reserve for many years. Cattle use is managed
in the park under five separate grazing licenses administered by the Kamloops Forest District, in
accordance with the Range Act and the Forest Practices Code Act. The Lac du Bois Grasslands
17

Park is in three Range Units: Dewdrop, Watching Creek and Lac du Bois, with each unit divided
into a number of fenced pastures (Figure 2.7). Established in 1976, the pasture rotation system
serves to move cattle around, based on elevation, season of the year, availability of water, and
actual conditions. In general, cattle move from the lowest pastures in the spring up to higher
elevation forests outside the park in the summer, then back to the grassland pastures again in
the fall before being gathered for return to home ranches. The lowest elevation pastures have
an 18-month rest period with no grazing in a three year cycle (Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks, 2000).

Figure 2.7. Mid-elevation pasture, Lac Du Bois. Cattle belong to study co-operator Terry Inskip.
2.4.1 Sampling Methodology – Methane Collection
In preparation for the study, the experimental animal handling procedures were
approved by Thompson Rivers University’s Animal Care Committee. The study was undertaken
in accordance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines at all times.
The sample size consisted of six cows. The cows had calibrated permeation tubes
“installed” by a bolus gun; placing the tube in the rumen in advance (seven days) of the
animals (with calves) being placed into the mid-elevation grazing area in the spring.
18

The sampling program consisted of four, five day sampling periods during the grazing
season, as follows:


The first spring sampling period took place from May 17 – 21, 2010 in the midelevation area.



The second spring sampling took place from May 31 – June 4, 2010 in the upper
elevation areas.



The first fall sampling period took place from September 26 – 30, 2010 in the
upper elevation area.



The second fall sampling took place from October 24 – 28, 2010 in the midelevation area.

In preparation for the commencement of the sampling, eight yoke and harness systems
were prepared. Six of those were placed on the cattle, with one as a spare, and one was
positioned in an area adjacent to the grazing area to serve as a backgrounding apparatus to
collect ambient methane.
The sampling procedure during each of the sampling periods consisted of the following
activities:
 Preparation:
i.

arranged with cattle owner/co-operator to participate in the study.

ii.

prepared and organized the yoke and harness assemblies.

iii.

arranged for the hired wranglers to assist with herding animals to
sampling corrals on each day of sampling period (Figure 2.8).

iv.


arranged for livestock “squeeze” to be installed at sampling corrals.

Day 1:
i.

wranglers herd cattle to sampling corrals.

ii.

one by one animals were positioned into cattle “squeeze”. Ear tag
numbers were recorded, and suitable harness and yoke assemblies were
19

placed on each animal, with time recorded following connection of yoke
to capillary system.
iii.

animal weights were recorded, and an additional ear tag for experimental
identification purposes was installed.

iv.

procedure repeated for each animal.

v.

harness and canister assembly were placed in a safe location adjacent to
grazing area to monitor background CH4.

vi.




filled yokes were returned to lab for sample processing.

Day 2-4:
i.

wranglers herd cattle to sampling corrals (Figure 2.9).

ii.

after 24 hrs. (+ 20 min.) filled yokes were exchanged on each animal.

iii.

filled background yoke exchanged.

iv.

filled yokes were returned to lab for sample processing.

Day 5:
i.

wranglers herd cattle to sampling corrals.

ii.

after 24 hrs. (+ 20 min.) yokes and halters were removed (Figure 2.10).

iii.

animals were weighed.

iv.

filled background yoke and halter assemblies were collected.

v.

filled yokes were returned to lab for sample processing.

20

Figure 2.8. Cattle being gathered for sampling, Lac Du Bois pasture.

Figure 2.9. Cattle in pens waiting for yokes to be exchanged, Lac Du Bois.

21

Figure 2.10. Cattle in “squeeze”, removing yoke and halter, Lac Du Bois.
2.4.2 Sampling Methodology – Forage Analysis
In representative pasture areas, forage was collected utilizing a 1m x 1m square frame.
The quadrate samples were collected in triplicate at the two elevation zones from three distinct
forage communities (Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Kentucky Bluegrass
(Poa pratensis) and Rough Fescue (Festuca scabrella)) on June 11 and 15, 2010. All of the plant
biomass within the 1 metre square frame was clipped and placed in paper sampling bags. Dry
matter (DM) composition was determined by placing the samples in a drying oven at 60 oC for
48 hours, and then ground through a 1 mm screen. The ground samples were stored in ambient
laboratory conditions. All samples were compared using a FOSS InfraXact Near Infrared
Spectrophotometer (NIRS) (Foss, Hillerod, Denmark). The ground samples were placed in
sample cups and analyzed for the relevant parameters using the spectrophotometer according
to manufacturer’s instructions.

22

2.5 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses on the SF6 data was conducted with JMP Software V8 (SAS, Carey,
NC) using a t-Test with a significance level of 0.05, n = 24. No statistically significant differences
were found in methane levels for either of the study sites, between the two seasons, or
between the first and second week. The forage analysis by NIRS, was descriptive in nature, and
therefore no statistical analysis between means was conducted. Error bars in Figure 2.11 equal
standard deviation.
2.6 Results
2.6.1 Methane Measurements
Results indicate that cattle grazing the Lac Du Bois grasslands produced an average of
approximately 370 L/day of methane during the course of the study. These results are
comparable to the amount of methane observed by other research groups for beef type
animals, using the same measurement technique, where observations range from
approximately 300 – 400 L/day (Boadi & Wittenberg, 2002; McCaughey et al., 1997).
The relatively small sampling size was a result of the difficult and tremendous logistical
hurdles and expense associated with studying cattle on range. The low number of animals in
the study had the effect of reducing the strength of our statistical analysis.

23

500
450
Methane Emissions (L/d)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Spring

Mid
Upper
Sampling period

Fall

Figure 2.11. Cow Methane Output (L/day) from samples collected during the spring and fall of
2010 at the Lac Du Bois test site. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD).
Spring 2010

Fall 2010

CH4

SD

CH4

SD

First Week

403.26

46.47

375.01

22.18

Second Week

341.37

49.90

360.38

90.33

Average

372.32

367.70

2.6.2 Pasture Analysis
The pasture analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the key forage nutrients, which
in turn provide a basis for evaluating the digestibility of the main grassland communities
between the two sampling areas. Representative samples were obtained and keyed by Dr. Don
Thompson from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Kamloops. The key area of relevance for us
in this study was whether there was a significant difference in the dietary constituents between
the two sampling areas (Table 2.1) which could impact methane production. The results
produced by NIRS appear to indicate that there was no visible difference between the samples
24

from the lower and upper elevation sampling areas, which could potentially introduce
variability into the methane production results. The NIRS data collected was descriptive in
nature, based on one sample. More samples would be required in the future to determine if
true statistically significant differences exist between the three grassland communities within
the Lac Du Bois study area.
Table 2.1. Comparison of select key nutrients between varieties in the grassland community of
Lac Du Bois test site. Quadrat samples collected on June 11 & 15, 2010, and analyzed by Near
Infrared Spectrometry.

ADF
NDF
Lignin
Protein
Simple
Sugars
Ash
Sol.
Carbo.'s
Starch
TDN

Blue Bunch Wheatgrass
Mid
Upper
Avg.
30.55
34.34
32.45
64.41
68.65
66.53
5.67
5.43
5.55
10.34
8.36
9.35

Kentucky Bluegrass
Mid
Upper
Avg.
29.16
37.73
33.45
57.68
67.6
62.64
5.62
5.95
5.79
10.11
8.18
9.15

Rough Fescue
Mid
Upper
35.08
33.07
62.07
60.97
5.28
7
8.38
9.14

Avg.
34.08
61.52
6.14
8.76

8.04
9.23

8.81
7.14

8.43
8.19

12.03
9.37

9.54
7.72

10.79
8.55

10.99
8.34

7.46
8.7

9.23
8.52

11.8
-0.49
68.31

10.44
-2.86
64.09

11.12
-1.68
66.20

14.05
3.37
69.85

7.91
1.91
60.31

10.98
2.64
65.08

11.68
0.61
63.27

8.62
1.99
65.5

10.15
1.30
64.39

Notes to Table 2.1 – Definitions (T. Wright & Lackey, 2008):
-Acid detergent fibre (ADF) – value used to predict the energy content (TDN, NE) of forages.
-Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) – value used to predict ruminant feed intake.
-Lignin – a complex polymer bound to cellulose that strengthens plant cell walls but is
indigestible to animals.
-Protein – complex combinations of amino acids which are essential for animal growth,
production and reproduction.
-Ash – inorganic mineral elements of animals and plants.
-Soluble Carbohydrates (Sol. Carbo’s) – structural or non-structural energy providing substrate,
which includes starches, sugars, cellulose and hemicellulose. All carbohydrates contain carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen.
25

-Starch – a carbohydrate that is a polymer of glucose; represents a store of energy for plants.
-Total digestible nutrients (TDN) – the energy value of feedstuffs, comparable to digestible
energy (DE) in accuracy. TDN over-estimates the energy value of roughages in comparison to
grains.

2.7 Discussion
Native grassland and improved pastures are important resources for beef production. As
forages mature during a grazing season, there is decreased digestibility, related to decreased
nitrogen and increased fibre and lignin contents of the forage (Beauchemin et al., 2008).
Reduced forage digestibility is accompanied by decreased forage intake, and an increased
acetate:propionate ratio, which favours increased CH4 production per unit of forage consumed
(McAllister, Cheng, Okine, & Mathison, 1996). Methane production from cattle constitutes 212% of gross energy lost, and is also a major contributor to atmospheric GHG emissions
(Johnson & Johnson, 1995).
No statistically significant differences were observed in the methane produced by the six
young cows in the spring vs. the fall grazing period in this study. It was anticipated that more
methane would be produced in the fall as the digestibility of the forage begins to decline.
However, it is possible that the higher average levels of methane observed in the spring could
be attributable to the metabolic stress of lactation, which often necessitates a dramatic
increase in feed consumption (Kebreab et al., 2008). This increased metabolic demand may
have negated any potential difference between the spring and the fall. During our study, the
cows had calves at foot, and were likely at peak lactation during the spring; whereas the
metabolic demand from the nursing calves would have decreased in the fall, which was just
prior to the normal weaning period. To address any seasonal differences in methane production
that could be associated with lactation, studies using steers vs. cows could be conducted.
Again, though not statistically significant, it was further observed that there was a
consistent reduction in methane collected from the first to the second week in each season.
The cows were noticeably harder to handle during the second sampling week. Due to their
26

relative unpleasant experience during the first week, during the second week they had to be
chased more when gathering them each day, they were much more unruly in the pens, and it
was much more difficult to move them into the squeeze. We speculate that this additional
stress during the second week may have impacted their feeding behavior - less feed = less
methane.
Other research scientists have noted that the SF6 tracer technique is problematic in
determining treatment differences, but the data are still very relevant if using it for inventory
purposes (Karen Beachemin and Alan Iwaasa, personal communication).
As part of their work, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
provided a protocol for countries to estimate the magnitude of GHG emissions and carbon
footprints associated with an activity. The IPCC (IPCC, 2006b) methodology is the basis for
carbon footprint estimates; it relies on a tiered system which is based on the availability of
emission factors associated with activity data. The Tier 1 level relies on default empirical
emission factors as published by IPCC, and is the simplest approach available. Tier 2 is still
empirical in nature, as the emission factors are usually derived from experimental data specific
to a country (Rochette et al., 2008). Tier 3 is the most complex method and relies on process
based models (Smith, Grant, Desjardins, Lemke, & Li, 2004). Moving to a higher Tier of
estimation is generally considered a good practice, if the data is available to support it. The Tier
1 estimates use default values to predict CH4 emissions from national inventory numbers for
each class of animal. The Tier 2 methodology is more rigorous and detailed – it requires a very
detailed characterization of the cattle population. Though it has its limitations, it offers
improvements by including more animal classes and calculations based on methane emissions
as a proportion of gross energy intake (GEI) (Vergé, Dyer, Desjardins, & Worth, 2008). Table 2.2
provides the Tier 2, enteric CH4 emission guidelines as categorized by class of animal.

27

Table 2.2. IPCC Tier 2 enteric fermentation emission factors. Environment Canada, 2005.
Livestock Class

CH4 emission, kg/animal/year (IPCC Tier 2)

Bulls

94

Cows

90

Beef heifers

75

Heifers for slaughter

63

Steers

56

Calves

40

In an effort to validate the emission values, in 2005, the Beef Technical Working Group
(BTWG) reviewed several relevant research projects that have been undertaken to determine
the actual emissions from beef cattle. Three of the research projects reviewed by the BTWG
were conducted in Canada testing different pasture types, stocking rates and grazing practices.
The studies all utilized the SF6 method. The actual emissions from these studies were compared
against the Tier 1 and Tier 2 estimates from IPCC. Table 2.3 provides an adapted summary of
the studies reviewed, and compares the actual results with the Tier 1 and 2 values in
g/head/day, and the respective % of actual emissions. The results show the IPCC Tier 1
estimates were considerably lower than the actual emissions in all cases. The Tier 2 estimates
tended to underestimate the emissions in most situations. Part of the differences can be
accounted for due to the fact the IPCC estimates were based on a combination of feedlot cattle
and grazing cattle, while the studies included just grazing cattle. IPCC estimates that grazing
animals emit more methane on an animal, and per-animal weight basis than feedlot animals
(IPCC, 2006a).

28

Table 2.3. Actual vs. predicted enteric emission of methane (g/head/day) by beef cattle fed
pasture (adapted from BTWG, (2005)).
Study

Actual emissions

IPCC, Tier 1

IPCC, Tier 2

(% of actual emissions)

(% of actual emissions)

Boadi et al., 2002
Pasture only

230.2

128.8 (56%)

217.0 (94.3%)

Pasture + Barley

245.6

128.8 (52.4%)

252.2 (102.7%)

Early

190.0

128.8 (67.8%)

258.3 (136%)

Mid

269.9

128.8 (47.7%)

198.3 (73.5%)

Late

253.9

128.8 (50.7%)

246.9 (97.2%)

Rot. Graze – Hi SR

195.6

128.8 (65.8%)

285.6 (146%)

Rot. Graze – Lo SR

207.8

128.8 (62%)

255.8 (123.1%)

Cont. Graze – Hi SR

179.6

128.8 (71.7%)

255.3 (142.1%)

Cont. Graze – Lo SR

227.4

128.8 (56.6%)

253.8 (111.6%)

Alfalfa/grass

277.2

197.3 (71.2%)

225.1 (81.2%)

Grass only

304.8

197.3 (64.7%)

192.5 (63.2%)

McCaughey et al., 1997

McCaughey et al., 1999

Notes to Table 2.3:
Boadi et al., 2002. Angus beef steers (334.6 kg) grazed a legume/grass pasture and were either
unsupplemented or supplemented with barley (2 or 4 kg/hd/day) during the grazing season.
Intakes and methane emissions, using the SF6 method, were sampled on the steers three times
during the grazing season (Boadi, Wittenberg, & McCaughey, 2002).
McCaughey et al., 1997. Crossbred yearling steers (356 kg) grazed 60% alfalfa, 40% grass
pastures and managed by rotational or continuous grazing stocking at each of high and low

29

stocking rates (2 x 2 factorial design). Methane emissions measured using the SF6 method
(McCaughey et al., 1997).
McCaughey et al., 1999. Hereford x Simmental lactating heifers (511.2 kg) grazed
alfalfa/meadow brome or meadow brome only pastures. Methane emissions measured using
the SF6 method (McCaughey et al., 1999).
Our study results on methane capture are consistent with previous work done in
comparable backdrops. The average of our spring and fall results are 370.01 L/head/day, this
converts to 233.37 g/head/day, nearly identical to Boadi, Wittenberg, & Kennedy (2002), and
within 95% of the IPCC Tier 2 estimates.
Most estimates of methane emissions from cattle in Canada using IPCC Tier 2
methodology utilize digestible energy (DE) to calculate enteric methane emissions (Ominski,
Boadi, Wittenberg, Fulawka, & Basarab, 2007). Digestible energy (DE) values are calculated for
each diet type and represent the percent of GE intake of the feed that is digestible to the
animal. GE is defined as “the measure of the total combustible energy in a feed” (T. Wright &
Lackey, 2008). Where regional DE values are not available for a particular animals diet, a very
similar measure, total digestible nutrients (TDN) as a percent of dry matter is used (Mangino,
Peterson, & Jacobs, 2002). TDN has been described as “the energy value of feedstuffs,
comparable to digestible energy in accuracy” (T. Wright & Lackey, 2008). The average TDN
values that were obtained in this study through NIRS analysis from the three different grassland
communities in the Lac Du Bois study area was 65.22%. This empirical value that we measured
in the field is identical to the values used (Diet DE %) to estimate enteric methane emissions by
other Canadian researchers using IPCC (2006) Tier 2 methodology (Basarab et al., 2012; Ominski
et al., 2007). The vast majority of the variation in GHG emissions in beef cattle has been shown
to be largely due to yearly differences in diet TDN, crude protein (CP) and dry matter intake
(DMI), and time on each diet (Basarab et al., 2012).

30

2.8 Conclusion
Capturing reliable emissions data from grazing livestock could be considered integral in
developing more reliable information when it comes to quantifying methane emissions over a
full range of spatial scales, from individual animals to national and global scales. Grazing
livestock form the foundation of the data, which can then be extrapolated to help comprehend
and further validate the impact that the livestock sector, specifically the cattle ranching
industry, has on global warming. Grazing animals account for the majority of the world’s
farmed livestock, yet are the least amenable logistically to investigation of their emissions and
their emission determinants (Lassey, 2007).
Gaining insight into emission determinants, or factors that influence methane
production, requires that feed properties be determined, enabling methane to be expressed as
per unit of feed intake. This later concept is known as the “methane conversion factor”, or
“Ym”, and is an entity that enables small-scale methane emission estimates to be extrapolated
to national and global enteric methane inventories (Ominski et al., 2007).
Determining feed intake by grazing animals is particularly difficult compared to confined
animals under controlled feeding conditions. The intake estimates of grazing animals will
usually be the biggest source of uncertainty when using SF6-based estimates of Ym for individual
animals. Enteric methane emissions can be calculated using the methane conversion factors
(Ym) for each diet, as established by the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 guidelines.
The SF6 technique not only measures a per animal methane emission rate, with codetermined feed consumption rate (a corresponding Ym value), but also facilitates the study of
those factors that influence methane emissions. An important objective when investigating
methane determinants is the development of methane abatement strategies. Many such
strategies target a reduced methane emission per unit through greater feed utilization
efficiency (Mosier et al., 1998). The SF6 technique has proven itself to be a valuable tool in
methane mitigation research (Lassey, 2007).

31

The enteric CH4 emission results of our study are consistent with the results observed by
other researchers using the same measurement approach on similar pasture scenarios. Our
emission results are 17.5% lower than our baseline scenario in our Holos LCA model, as
described in Chapter 3. This level of variation is also within acceptable limits as demonstrated
by other researchers, and could be primarily due to factors such as diet and feed intake
variability. The empirical CH4 measurements collected in the field, and the concurrent pasture
analysis results served to validate the Holos LCA modelling efforts in Chapter 3, and the results
described therein.

32

CHAPTER 3
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND MITIGATION
OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CATTLE GRAZING THE LAC DU BOIS
GRASSLANDS USING HOLOS

3.1 Introduction
Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased in recent
decades as a result of anthropogenic (human) activities. The increase in these GHG’s is seen to
be a primary driver of climate change by some groups (Lassey 2007). While CO2 emissions are
primarily due to fossil fuel use, CH4 and N2O arise mainly from agriculture (Smith et al., 2007).
Enteric CH4 from ruminant livestock accounts for 17-37% of anthropogenic CH4 emissions
(Basarab et al., 2012; Lassey, 2008). Many governments have implemented policies to reduce
GHG emissions from agriculture and significant efforts are now being directed towards
developing techniques that may lower, or remove emissions. Alterations in diet composition
and animal husbandry practices have been proposed as a means of reducing CH4 and N2O
emissions from cattle (Beauchemin et al., 2010; Eckard, Grainger, & de Klein, 2010). Improving
forage quality, either through feeding forage with lower fibre and higher soluble carbohydrates,
changing from C4 to C3 grasses, or even grazing less mature pastures can reduce CH4
production (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Ulyatt, Lassey, Shelton, & Walker, 2002).
Grasslands have the potential to have a significant impact on global warming because
they are the most extensive major natural vegetation formation in the world. This global
formation is comprised of steppes in Russia, velds in South Africa, pampas in South America,
puszta in Hungary and prairies in North America. Though gradually being reduced in size, the
historical area of grasslands was 3.2 billion ha, or 24% of the global land area (Shantz, 1954).
Grasslands once occupied 50 million ha in Canada, but has now declined to approximately 15
million ha contained in the four western provinces, with British Columbia representing 1.7
million ha (Samson, Knopf, & Ostlie, 2004). Despite the reduction in natural grasslands, they are
considered to contain 10 - 30% of the global soil organic carbon (SOC) (Eswaran, Van Den Berg,

33

& Reich, 1993). Follett (2001) suggested that even small increases of carbon sequestered in the
soil would have a significant global impact because of the extensiveness of the grasslands.
Canada has over 4.8 million hectares of tame or seeded pasture and over 15.3 million
hectares of natural pasture, with a large portion used by beef cattle (Alemu, Ominski, &
Kebreab, 2011). Through various soil and crop management techniques, crop lands, pastures
and grasslands have the potential to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and trap
the carbon in plant material and the soil. Canada’s pastures are considered a large terrestrial
carbon sink (Basarab et al. 2012). Older long term, or native pastures tend to sequester carbon
dioxide at relatively low rates, however certain management approaches, including pasture
improvements, may contribute to increasing these rates.
The North American beef production cycle is complex, typically including a cow-calf
sucking/grazing period and a growing phase with cattle fattened on high grain diets in confined
feedlots. GHG emissions from individual aspects of the production cycle have been
investigated, as well as attempts to assess the entire sequence (Beauchemin et al., 2010). Few
LCA studies have investigated the emissions associated with the grazing period on native
grasslands.
Cattle and other ruminant animals have a unique ability to digest plant materials, such
as grass and straw that have high contents of cellulose (Ominski, Boadi, & Wittenberg, 2006).
This plant material is digested by microorganisms such as bacteria, archaea, protozoa and fungi
that are found in the rumen. Anaerobic digestion by the microorganisms, also known as enteric
fermentation, results in the production of CH4, which the animal “belches” into the atmosphere.
Feeds high in fibre, such as straw, result in the production of more methane than forages of low
fibre content, such as fresh green grass and alfalfa. The addition of grains (i.e. corn, barley,
wheat) to the diet will reduce CH4 emissions further. An imbalance in the nutrient content of
the feed eaten, such as a shortfall in the amount of protein or mineral, will also increase the
amount of CH4 produced. Consequently, cattle fed in a feedlot usually emit less CH4 than
grazing cattle because they consume a substantial amount of grain and the ration is formulated
to meet the animals’ requirements for nutrients (Pelletier, Pirog, & Rasmussen, 2010).
34

Carbon sequestration is a result of plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere and using it
for plant growth. The carbon sequestration potential of soils comes from increasing soil organic
matter (SOM). The below ground organic carbon storage is usually more than twice the aboveground storage potential (Swift, 2001). Grasslands accumulate large quantities of soil organic
matter, mostly in the form of roots, and much of this organic matter can remain in the soil for
long periods of time. Estimating potential carbon sequestration is more difficult for native
grassland pastures than for cultivated croplands. Pastures tend to have a wide diversity in plant
communities, soils and landscapes. Pasture ecosystem responses are complex, because
management practices may induce shifts in plant communities that may, over time, exert
secondary effects on the rate of carbon sequestration and the overall carbon storage ability
(Liebig et al., 2005).
Two methods of grassland pasture management practices that have shown to be
effective in improving carbon sequestration potential are: Improved Pasture Management
(IPM), and, Reduced Grazing Intensity (RGI) (Paustian, Antle, Sheehan, & Paul, 2006). Paustian
et al described IPM as a technological package including the use of high-residue crop rotations,
reductions or elimination of fallow periods between crops, efficient use of manures, nitrogen
fertilizers and irrigation, the use of low, or no-till practices, and/or improved grazing land and
hay land. Other studies suggest that management options including fertilization, irrigation,
inter-sowing of grasses and legumes, intensification of grazing, conservation tillage and crop
rotation can enhance soil C pools (Conant, Paustian, Del Grosso, & Parton, 2005; Hutchinson,
Campbell, & Desjardins, 2007). Carbon stocks in temperate grasslands may increase
significantly under management with single or multiple improvements. Ogle, Conant, &
Paustian (2004) estimated an increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) of temperate grasslands by
14% under management with a single improvement (either fertilization or introduction of
legume or irrigation) using linear mixed effect modeling. Further, pasture management offers
the potential to reduce GHG emissions by providing cattle with better quality forage, as well as
the ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Ominski, Boadi, Wittenberg, Fulawka, &
Basarab (2007) concluded that pasture quality plays a major role in the extent to which
methane production can be reduced in grazing animals. Their study compared methane
35

emissions based on pasture quality in early season pasture vs. mid-season and late season
conditions. Methane production declined with grazing on high quality forages; steers on the
early pastures had 44% and 29% lower energy loss as methane than animals on mid and late
pastures, respectively. There was also a 54% lower CH4 emission when animals entered new
paddocks relative to those exiting the paddocks.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) conducted according to International Organization for
Standardization standard 14040 (IPCC, 2006) can be a useful tool for evaluating potential
reductions and removals of GHG arising from a change in management practices, including
pasture improvement. The objective of this study was to use a farm based LCA to explore the
impacts of grazing intensity and select pasture improvement practices on total GHG production
from cattle ranching associated with the Lac Du Bois grasslands.
It is hypothesized that increased pasture management/improvement and reduction in
stocking density in the Lac Du Bois grasslands should result in the removal of atmospheric CO 2
through carbon sequestration, and reduction of livestock related GHG emissions, ultimately
resulting in an overall reduction in total GHG emissions.
It is important to not only investigate possible removals of GHG emissions through
increased carbon sequestration, but to investigate strategies that may assist in reducing GHG
emissions like enteric methane emissions in the Lac Du Bois grasslands, as both contribute to
overall GHG emissions.
3.2 Experimental Section - Materials and Methods
3.2.1 Use of Holos to estimate GHG emissions
In order to explore the potential impacts of different management options on the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the cattle industry utilizing the Lac Du Bois
grasslands, a life cycle assessment was conducted using Holos. Holos is a whole-farm GHG
modeling tool developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Little et al. 2008). Holos is an
empirical model, with a yearly time step, based primarily on IPCC (2006) methodology,
modified for Canadian conditions and farm scale. Holos considers all significant emissions and
36

removals on a farm, and where applicable, emissions from the manufacture of inputs (fertilizer,
herbicides) and off-farm emissions of N2O derived from N applied on a farm. Estimates of GHG
intensity often vary widely, reflecting differences in modeling approach and the farming
systems studied.
The objective of this LCA was to capture a seasonal snap shot of the GHG emissions
associated with the cattle grazing activities on the Lac Du Bois grasslands for one season, which
served as the “farm gate” or system boundary. This information could then be extrapolated to
account for an estimate of the emissions over a longer period of time. The emissions associated
with the existing stocking rates and pasture/rotational management practices currently
employed within this single season snapshot would serve as the baseline. A comparative
analysis is then conducted in order to reveal the potential impact on GHG emissions associated
with changing stocking density rates and implementing pasture improvement strategies.
All gases were expressed as CO2 eq to account for the global warming potential of the
respective gases: CH4 kg x 23 + N2O kg x 298 + CO2 kg. Depending on the scenario being
investigated, Holos can report on: on farm CH4 emissions from cattle and manure; on farm N2O
emissions from manure, soils, and growing crops; off farm N2O emissions from N leaching,
runoff and volatilization; CO2 emissions and removals derived from management induced soil C
change; and energy based CO2 emissions from on and off farm sources.
Holos estimates enteric CH4 emissions for each class of cattle using a modified IPCC
(2006) Tier 2 approach. Daily net energy (NE) requirements for cattle in each stage of
production are estimated from NE expenditures for maintenance, activity, growth, pregnancy
and lactation as appropriate. The gross energy (GE) intake required to meet NE requirements is
then estimated, taking into account the digestibility of the diet. Enteric CH4 emissions are
calculated from GE intake using diet specific CH4 conversion factors (i.e. Ym; defined as enteric
CH4 expressed as a proportion of GE intake). The TDN values reported in our Pasture Analysis in
Chapter 2 (section 2.6.2) correlate almost identically with GE values used in IPCC (2006)
emission prediction equations, thus confirming the validity of this approach. Holos calculates
CH4 emissions from manure based on volatile solids production according to IPCC (2006)
37

methodology, which factor in the gross energy (GE) intake of the animal as well as diet
digestibility.
Direct N2O emissions from soils are based on N inputs, modified by soil texture, climate,
tillage and topography. Total N inputs include those from synthetic N fertilizer, land applied
manure, crop residue decomposition (above and below ground), and net mineralization
estimated from net change in soil C. Soil derived N2O emissions are calculated from total N
inputs using Canada specific algorithms for estimating national GHG inventories. Indirect N 2O
emissions (N lost from the farm via leaching, runoff and volatilization) are considered from
assumed fractions of N lost from manure, residues, and fertilizer and IPCC (2006) factor.
Holos uses a methodology derived from that developed for the Canadian National
Inventory report to estimate soil C gains and losses. The approach assumes that land which has
been consistently managed for decades (e.g. long term native) has approached steady state C
storage so that net exchange of CO2 is negligible. Changes in land use or management can
induce loss or gain of soil C. Changes that lead to removal of atmospheric CO2 (sequestration)
include reducing tillage intensity, eliminating summer fallow, planting perennial forages in
rotation, or establishing permanent grass on cropland. Conversely, management shifts in the
other direction results in soil C losses and increased atmospheric CO2 emissions. The annual
rate of soil C change diminishes with time from adoption of a management or land use change.
Holos can also consider CO2 emissions arising from the burning of fossil fuels from on and off
farm sources using general coefficients.
3.2.2 System Boundary and Scope
The baseline scenario described reflects the current seasonal use of the Lac Du Bois
grasslands for cattle grazing.
3.2.3 Description of the Pasture Complex
The Lac Du Bois grasslands park is comprised of three Range Units: Dewdrop, Watching
Creek and Lac Du Bois, with each unit divided into a number of fenced pastures (Figure 3.1).
Established in 1976, the pasture rotation system is predicated on the need to protect the
38

grassland resources and ensure there is sufficient forage production, while protecting
conservation values. The rotation system works in a variety of ways to move cattle around,
based on elevation, season of year, availability of water, and actual conditions on the ground.
Grazing is managed on a rest-rotation cycle that has been modified over the years as range
conditions have improved, and as managers better understand the factors at play. In general,
cattle move from the lowest pastures in the spring up to higher elevation forests outside the
park in the summer, then back to the grassland pastures again in the fall before being gathered
for return to home ranches. The lowest elevation pastures have an 18-month rest period with
no grazing in a three-year cycle. All licensees are required to comply with Range Use Plans as
administered under the Forest Practices Code Act (2004), which covers pastures both in the
park and outside.
Our study area was associated with the Lac Du Bois grassland range units, which feed
into the Watching Creek forest range units. The lowest grassland pastures – Batchelor, Halston,
and Westsyde are used in April for two weeks and late fall for four weeks; the higher, largely
grassland pastures, Deep Lake, Dairy and Griffin are used for four weeks in May; and the upper
grassland pasture Long Lake, is used for two weeks in mid-fall. The cattle are moved from the
grassland pastures up into the forests outside the park, in the Watching Creek range Unit, for
June through August. Cattle are then moved to the upper grassland pasture, Long Lake for a
two week period in September, then on to the Lac Du Bois pastures, before finishing the grazing
season in the lower grassland pastures.
3.2.4 Description of Climate and Location
The Lac du Bois grasslands fall within Ecodistrict 1005 (an ecodistrict is a subdivision in
the National Ecological Framework of Canada and is defined as a geographical area
characterized by distinctive assemblages of relief, landforms, geology, soil, vegetation, water
bodies and fauna). The study area is comprised of 7,566 ha of native grassland. The soil type is a
brown Chernozem of medium soil texture. The average growing season (May – October
inclusive) precipitation is 159 mm, with a potential evapotranspiration of 679 mm.

39

3.2.5 Description of Livestock System
The livestock mix on the pasture was made up of 232 cows, 90% with calf, and 6 bulls, as
well as 39 stockers/grassers. The pasture quality was considered good, and average daily gain
was 1 kg/day. The grazing period was considered to be 8 months. The actual stocking rates per
pasture were extrapolated to reflect the historically likely usage pattern.
3.2.6 Mitigation Strategy
In this study, an LCA investigation, utilizing a Holos model, was chosen to estimate the
impact on GHG emissions through possible sequestration removals and reductions created as a
result of pasture improvements, and reductions associated with stocking density management.
Pasture management in particular was very relevant, as there are currently reseeding activities
underway in certain sectors of the Lac Du Bois grasslands.
This research investigated two methods of grassland pasture management practices
that have shown to be effective in improving carbon sequestration potential: Improved Pasture
Management (IPM), and, Reduced Grazing Intensity (RGI) (Paustian 2006). This LCA dealt with
components of both. Opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions that were tested by the Holos
model which are particularly relevant to the Lac Du Bois grasslands include: improved
grazing/pasture management (stocking density); improved pasture quality through reseeding;
and improvements in soil fertility through fertilization.

40

Figure 3.1. Grazing Pastures and Fences

41

3.2.7 – Pasture Management/Improvement Scenarios
Different scenarios associated with the pasture management/improvement approaches
that were explored with Holos included:
Group 1:
i.

Scenario 0 – Baseline

ii.

Scenario 1a – animal stocking density reduction of 10% on Lac Du Bois grasslands.

iii.

Scenario 1b – animal stocking density reduction of 25% on Lac Du Bois grasslands.

iv.

Scenario 1c – animal stocking density reduction of 50% on Lac Du Bois grasslands.

Group 2:
i.

Scenario 0 – Baseline

ii.

Scenario 2a – reseed 10% of Lac Du Bois grasslands.

iii.

Scenario 2b– reseeding 25% of Lac Du Bois grasslands.

iv.

Scenario 2c – reseeding 50% of Lac Du Bois grasslands.

Note: reseed considered 6-10 years old.
Group 3:
i.

Scenario 0 – Baseline

ii.

Scenario 3a – reseeding 10% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus addition of synthetic
fertilizer at rate of 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha on reseed.

iii.

Scenario 3b – reseeding 25% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus addition of synthetic
fertilizer at rate of 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha on reseed.

iv.

Scenario 3c – reseeding 50% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus addition of synthetic
fertilizer at rate of 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha on reseed.

Note: reseed considered 6-10 years old.

42

3.3 Results:
3.3.1 Baseline Results
The emissions from the 232 cow/calf pairs, 6 bulls and 39 stockers/grassers that
occurred in the baseline scenario are shown in Table 3.1. The emissions associated with enteric
fermentation are produced as a by-product of digestion in the rumen of the animals, as
carbohydrates are broken down for energy and escape the animal through exhalation,
eructation and/or flatulation. The emissions were calculated for each class of cattle according
to the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 methodology. Daily net energy requirements were estimated from
energy expenditures for maintenance, activity, growth, pregnancy, and lactation as
appropriate. The gross energy intake required to meet energy requirements was then
estimated taking into account the energy density of the diet, and enteric CH4 was calculated
from gross energy intake using CH4 conversion factors (Ym) for each diet. The direct N2O
emissions emanate from the livestock manure. Methane emissions attributed to manure are
based on volatile solids production, according to IPCC (2006), taking into account the gross
energy intake of the animals, and the digestibility of the diet. Manure N was estimated from dry
matter intake (DMI) and the crude protein content of the diet, and the N retention of the
animals based on IPCC (2006) and NRC (2000). Manure N content was multiplied by an emission
factor to reflect the manure being deposited on the pasture to calculate the direct N2O
emissions IPCC (2006). The indirect N2O emissions are attributed to nitrogen loss associated
with volatilization and ground and surface water leaching and run-off, after loss from the
grasslands. These emissions were estimated from the assumed fractions of N lost from manure
and plant biomass residues, as adjusted for climatic conditions and the IPCC (2006) emission
factor.

43

Table 3.1. Baseline Scenario (Mg CO2 eq)
Category
Livestock
Soils
Total
Emissions

Enteric CH4
668.3

Manure CH4
14.2

Direct N2O
347.7

Indirect N2O
41.4

Soils CO2

Subtotals
1,071.6
1,071.6

3.3.2 Group 1 Results – Stocking Density (SD) Reduction
Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2 reflect the impact on the emissions created as a direct result of
reducing the cattle stocking density from the baseline scenario (277 animals) by 10% (250
animals), 25% (208 animals) and 50% (139 animals) respectively. The relationships between the
values as reported by Holos follow a clear linear reduction in emissions. In the baseline scenario
the percentages of the total emissions from enteric and manure CH4 were 62.4% and 0.3%,
respectively, and the direct and indirect N2O emissions were 32.4% and 3.9%, respectively. The
corresponding shares of the total emissions in each stocking density scenario remained
constant. The CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation were observed to be the most prevalent
(62.4%); the direct N2O emissions from manure were the second most important (32.4%); the
indirect N2O associated with off-farm emissions (volatilization, leaching, run-off) were the third
most important (3.9%); and the manure CH4 emissions were the least (1.3%). Holos did not
report any CO2 emissions associated with the soils; no change in these emissions is consistent
with Holos assuming that unimproved, native grasslands are in a “steady state”, hence no net
carbon reduction or accumulation.
The reduction in emissions from each source also followed a consistent pattern. The
overall reduction in emissions from each source was approximately 50.7% from baseline
scenario to scenario 3c, mimicking the SD reduction of 50%. The reduction from baseline to
scenario 1a (SD -10%) was 10%. The reduction from scenario 1a to 1b (SD -15%) was 16.4% for
all sources except manure CH4, where the reduction was 17.2%. The reduction from scenario 1b
to 1c (SD -25%) was 34.4%.

44

Table 3.2. Group 1 Results – Stocking Density Reduction (Mg CO2 eq)
Scenario #

Category

Manure
CH4
14.2

Direct N2O

Baseline

Enteric
CH4
668.3

347.7

Indirect
N2O
41.4

0

Soils CO2

Subtotals

1a

SD -10%

601.3

12.8

312.8

37.3

964.2

1b

SD -25%

502.4

10.6

261.4

31.2

805.6

1c

SD –50%

329.7

7.0

171.6

20.4

528.7

1,071.6

Figure 3.2. Group 1 Results – Stocking Density Reduction
3.3.3 Group 2 Results – Reseeding
Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5, and Figure 3.3 reflect the impact on the emissions as a direct
result of improving the grassland by reseeding 10% (757 ha), 25% (1,892 ha) and 50% (3,783 ha)
of the land area respectively. The emissions associated with the livestock remain the same as
the baseline scenario, as there is no change in livestock population.
Holos recognizes that through adoption of management practices, such as grassland
renovation, these lands can contribute to overall emission reductions by removing carbon from
the atmosphere, thus serving as a carbon sink. The negative soils CO2 values suggest
sequestration of atmospheric C. The model, which reports the reduction in soil CO 2, also follows
45

a linear reduction consistent with the management change associated with the scenarios
investigated. Holos reports a consistent reduction of 2.12 Mg CO2 eq/ha across each scenario.
For example, reseeding 10% (757 ha) of the area created a soil CO2 reduction of -1,605.2 Mg
CO2 eq, resulting in an overall reduction of -533.6 Mg CO2 eq.
Some overall assumptions had to be introduced into the modeling exercise in order to
account for the limitations inherent in Holos when investigating the effects of improving the Lac
Du Bois grasslands. It is assumed the reseeding activities were undertaken with a non-invasive
no-till operation, which would minimize soil disturbance; eliminating or reducing soil carbon
loss. The species interseeded into the grasslands were alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and crested
wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). The introduction of these legumes and grasses are
consistent with the existing improvement activities on the grasslands. Holos also did not
account for any primary CO2 emissions resulting from the reseeding activities (i.e. fossil fuel
combustion etc.).
Holos calculates the various carbon factors associated with each scenario using the
CENTURY model. (Originally developed by the U.S National Science Foundation, CENTURY was
designed to model plant-soil nutrient cycling, which provides information on carbon and
nutrient dynamics in different ecosystems).
Table 3.3. Scenario 2a – reseed 10% (757 ha) of Lac Du Bois grasslands (Mg CO2 eq).
Category
Livestock
Soils
Total
Emissions

Enteric CH4
668.3

Manure CH4
14.2

Direct N2O
347.7

Indirect N2O
41.4

Soils CO2
-1,605.2

Subtotals
1,071.6
-1,605.2
-533.6

Table 3.4. Scenario 2b – reseed 25% (1,892 ha) of Lac Du Bois grasslands (Mg CO2 eq).
Category
Livestock
Soils
Total
Emissions

Enteric CH4
668.3

Manure CH4
14.2

Direct N2O
347.7

Indirect N2O
41.4

Soils CO2
-4,012.1

46

Subtotals
1,071.6
-4,012.1
-2,940.5

Table 3.5. Scenario 2c – reseed 50% (3,783 ha) of Lac Du Bois grasslands (Mg CO2 eq).
Category
Livestock
Soils
Total
Emissions

Enteric CH4
668.3

Manure CH4
14.2

Direct N2O
347.7

Indirect N2O
41.4

Soils CO2
-8,022.0

Subtotals
1,071.6
-8,022.0
-6,950.4

Figure 3.3. Group 2 Results - Reseeding
3.3.4 Group 3 Results – Reseeding with Fertilizer:
Tables 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 reflect the impact on emissions when another variable is
introduced to the land improvement scenarios – the addition of synthetic fertilizers. This model
investigates the impact of including nutrient amendments to the reseeding scenarios as
described in Group 2. Further, this model only contemplates a reseeding/fertilizer interaction
together, as it is unlikely synthetic fertilizer applications would occur on the grasslands
independent of a reseeding improvement.

47

In Scenario 3a, as compared to Scenario 2a, the addition of the fertilizer improved the
pasture quality, which resulted in a reduction in livestock related emissions of 26.8 Mg CO2 eq
or 2.5%, and a further removal of soil CO2 of 78.5 Mg CO2 eq or 4.8%.
In Scenario 3b, as compared to Scenario 2b, the fertilizer application resulted in a
reduction in livestock related emissions of 37.1 Mg CO2 eq or 3.5 %, and a further removal of
soil CO2 of 78.4 Mg CO2 eq or 2.0%.
In Scenario 3c, as compared to Scenario 2c, fertilization resulted in a reduction in
livestock related emissions of 45.8.0 Mg CO2 eq or 4.3%, and a further removal of soil CO2 of
80.6 Mg CO2 eq or 1.0%.
The Group 3 scenarios now report direct and indirect soils N 2O emissions created as a
result of the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer applications. The direct N2O emissions are related to
the processes of nitrification and denitrification, with the amount of N2O produced roughly
proportional to the amount of nitrogen added to the soil. The direct N 2O emissions are
reported to be 80 kg CO2 eq/ha on a linear relationship to the volume of fertilizer and area
treated across all three scenarios. The indirect N2O emissions are off-farm N2O released from N
lost from the farm via run-off, leaching and volatilization. These emissions were estimated from
the assumed fractions of N lost from manure, residues and fertilizer, as adjusted for climatic
conditions and the IPCC (2006) emission factor. The indirect N2O emissions are reported to be
30 kg CO2 eq/ha, again a linear relationship to the volume of fertilizer and area treated across
all three scenarios.
The presence of the fertilizer related direct and indirect N 2O emissions reduced the net
sequestration effect by approximately 5% in all scenarios. Holos reports the removal of 2.11,
2.05 and 2.03 Mg CO2 eq/ha of emissions in scenarios 3a, 3b and 3c respectively, when fertilizer
was used vs. the removal of 2.12 Mg CO2 eq/ha of emissions when reseeding activities did not
include the addition of fertilizers.
Holos has also reported energy CO2 emissions of 0.19 Mg CO2 eq/ha in each scenario.
These secondary source emissions are directly associated with the manufacture of synthetic
48

fertilizers. It is important to point out, however, that Holos did not account for any primary CO2
emissions resulting from the reseeding activities (i.e. fossil fuel combustion etc.).
The most notable differences in the Group 3 results compared to the Group 2 results
reside in the reductions in the livestock related emissions and the additional soil CO 2 removals.
Livestock related CH4 and N2O emissions were reduced an additional 3.4% on average across
the three scenarios; soil related CO2 levels were reduced by a further 2.6% on average across
the three scenarios.
Table 3.6. Scenario 3a – reseeding 10% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha
on reseed (Mg CO2 eq).
Category
Livestock
Soils
Cropping
Total
Emissions

Enteric
CH4
651.6

Manure
CH4
13.8

Direct
N2O
338.9
61.4

Indirect
N2O
40.5
25.6

Soils CO2

Energy
CO2

-1,683.7
151.6

Subtotals
1,044.8
-1,596.7
151.6
-400.3

Table 3.7. Scenario 3b – reseeding 25% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha
on reseed (Mg CO2 eq).
Category
Livestock
Soils
Cropping
Total
Emissions

Enteric
CH4
645.2

Manure
CH4
13.7

Direct
N2O
335.6
149.2

Indirect
N2O
40.0
62.1

Soils CO2

Energy
CO2

-4,090.5
368.2

49

Subtotals
1,034.5
-3,879.2
368.2
-2,476.5

Table 3.8. Scenario 3c – reseeding 50% of Lac Du Bois grasslands, plus 50lbs N and 20lbs P/ha
on reseed (Mg CO2 eq).
Category
Livestock
Soils
Cropping
Total
Emissions

Enteric
CH4
639.8

Manure
CH4
13.5

Direct
N2O
332.8
295.5

Indirect
N2O
39.7
123.1

Soils CO2

Energy
CO2

-8,102.6
729.4

Subtotals
1,025.8
-7,684.0
729.4
-5,928.8

Figure 3.4. Group 3 Results – Reseeding with Fertilizer
3.4 Discussion
3.4.1 Pasture Management – Grazing Intensity
Our first LCA model (Group 1) investigated the impact on GHG emissions as a result of
reducing the stocking density (SD) on the grasslands. Holos reported a direct linear relationship
between SD and emissions of livestock related GHG’s. A stocking density reduction of 10%
resulted in a reduction in GHG CO2 eq. levels of the same magnitude, and so on.
50

While Holos reported direct livestock related emissions, it did not report any changes in
soil CO2 levels, (sequestration removals) associated with stocking density and/or grazing
intensity. Rangeland research over the past 15-20 years has focused on assessing the effects of
management practices on soil C dynamics. Schuman, Janzen, & Herrick (2002) observed that
soil organic C reserves in a given rangeland ecosystem will eventually approach a steady state,
and a shift in management, environment or inputs would be required to increase the potential
for additional soil C sequestration.
Changes in stocking density and grazing intensity on the grasslands are management
techniques that can affect changes in soil CO2. There have been a number of studies supporting
the relationship between reductions in grazing intensity and net C removals through
sequestration, which would suggest a limitation in the Holos model.
For example, (Reeder & Schuman, 2002) evaluated five rangeland grazing treatments:
non-grazed enclosures; continuous season-long grazing at a light (22 steer-day/ha-1) stocking
rate; and, rotationally deferred, short-duration rotation, and continuous season-long grazing, all
three at a heavy stocking rate (59 steer-day/ha-1). They found that compared to the enclosures,
all grazing treatments resulted in significantly higher levels of C (6-9,000 kg/ha-1) in the surface
15 cm of the soil. They further surmised that the higher levels of soil C with grazing are likely
the result of faster litter decomposition, recycling and redistribution of C within the 0-60 cm
plant-soil system. Grazing at an appropriate stocking rate had beneficial effects on plant
composition, forage production, and soil C sequestration. Without grazing, deterioration of the
plant-soil system was observed (Reeder & Schuman, 2002). Holos did not report any change in
soil C in the Group 1 stocking density reduction scenarios.
In addition, Derner, Briske, & Boutton (1997) found that grazing of the shortgrass steppe
in Colorado at a moderate stocking rate resulted in increased soil organic C compared to
ungrazed enclosures. They found 19.8 MT C/ha in the surface 15 cm of the soil under grazing
and only 13.2 MT C/ha in the ungrazed enclosure, but found no differences in soil C in the 15-30
cm soil depth between grazed and ungrazed areas. They further estimated the rate of C
sequestration attributable to moderate grazing would be 0.12 MT C/ha/yr. The grazing intensity
51

in our baseline scenario on the Lac Du Bois grasslands would be classified as moderate to light
(27 animals/ha). If we apply Derner et al.’s rate of C removal to our baseline scenario on the Lac
Du Bois grasslands, we calculate the C sequestration to be 908 MT C/ha/yr. or approximately
3,300 Mg CO2 eq – Holos reports none.
As another example, Schuman, Reeder, Manley, Hart, & Manley (1999) found that
twelve years of light or heavy grazing in a northern mixed-grass prairie increased soil organic C
in the surface 30 cm of the soil compared to non-grazed enclosures. They estimated the C
sequestration rate to be about 0.30 MT C/ha/yr compared to the ungrazed enclosures.
Extrapolating these findings to our baseline scenario again, this would translate into 8,330 Mg
CO2 eq – equivalent to the quantity of soil CO2 removed as a result of reseeding 50% of the Lac
Du Bois grasslands as reported in scenario 2c in our Holos model.
Bruce et al. (1999) has shown livestock grazing, as the predominant agricultural activity
on grasslands, has the potential to alter the quantity and quality of carbon input to the system
by affecting the species composition, structure and functioning of grassland ecosystems.
Grazing facilitates the physical breakdown, soil incorporation and rate of decomposition of
residual plant material. Grazing intensity and frequency are thought to cause the primary
effects on C storage across rangelands, although these effects are often inconsistent and
difficult to predict (Reeder & Schuman, 2002). For example, Gao, Luo, Wu, Chen, & Wang
(2008) found that livestock grazing has the potential to substantially alter carbon storage in
grassland ecosystems. They determined heavy grazing intensity leads to higher levels of soil
organic C and total plant components C through changes in species composition. Heavy grazing
markedly decreased vegetation cover and aboveground biomass, undesirable for livestock
production and sustainable grassland development. Which, without proper management, leads
to deterioration of the plant-soil system, and possible declines in C sequestered in the soil. On
the other hand, Schuman et al. (1999) also found that season long, moderate and heavy
stocking rates in the northern mixed-grass prairie resulted in a shift in plant community
composition. The proportion of cool-season (C3) grasses were reduced, and replaced by a plant
community dominated by the warm-season (C4) species, blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). They
52

concluded reducing the C3 grasses lowers the production potential of the rangelands, but
because blue grama transfers more C to the below ground plant parts, and has a more fibrous
root system with greater root to shoot ratio, increases in overall C were observed. Ogle, Breidt,
& Paustian (2005) observed soil organic C tended to be higher in grazed vs. ungrazed
treatments, and that C storage was dependent upon the moisture regime. Contradictory to our
modeling results, McCaughey, Wittenberg, & Corrigan (1997) found CH4 production was
greatest for steers continuously grazed at low stocking rates (1.1 steer/ha -1; 307 L/d-1) and least
for steers grazing continuously at high stocking rates (2.2 steer/ha -1; 242 L/d-1). A possible
explanation for these observed results for the higher stocking rates may be due to lower forage
availability and intake for the grazing animal (i.e. less feed). When pastures were rotationally
grazed, stocking rates had no effect on CH4 production. At low stocking rate, CH4 production
was 9% lower on rotational grazing than continuous grazing.
Clearly, addressing issues such as how the grassland species composition and
environmental factors influences soil carbon dynamics as a result of cattle grazing is extremely
difficult and complex, and currently outside of the realm of existing modeling approaches using
tools such as Holos.
3.4.2 Pasture Management – Reseeding effects on Removal and Reduction of GHG Emissions
In our Group 2 scenarios, we investigated the impact on GHG emissions associated with
improving the grasslands through a process of reseeding. Scenario’s 2a, 2b and 2c modeled the
GHG emissions impact as a result of reseeding areas equivalent to 10%, 25% and 50% of the
7,655 ha in our study area respectively. The overall premise of the model was that the areas
were interseeded using a minimally invasive no-till operation to improve the forage through the
introduction of new grasses and legumes. It was assumed in the model that the reseeding took
place 6-10 years previous.
In the baseline scenario in our LCA, there is no change in soil CO2 levels, suggesting that
the native grasslands do not remove any atmospheric C, hence no sequestration. As previously
mentioned, Holos assumes that native grasslands are in a steady-state, and are essentially
carbon neutral. This perspective is consistent with the current widely held paradigm that the
53

ecosystem will reach a “steady state” and a change in management and/or inputs would be
required to sequester additional C (Conant, Paustian, & Elliott, 2001; Conant, Six, & Paustian,
2003; Post et al., 2004; Schuman et al., 2002; Swift, 2001).
Where improvements occur, Holos recognizes changes in net GHG emissions. In the case
of Group 2, Scenario 2a for example, improving 10% of the land area resulted in a net removal
of 533.6 Mg CO2 eq, more than offsetting the 1,071.6 Mg CO2 eq created as a result of the
livestock activity on the native grasslands. In each scenario, the removal of soil CO2 is calculated
to be 2.12 Mg CO2 eq/ha.
Holos also did not report any primary energy related CO2 emissions resulting from the
reseeding activity itself. This appears to be a limitation in Holos, and how well it can adapt to
our unique grassland application. We clearly know the physical activity of reseeding is not
carbon neutral, and there would be some emissions created through burning of fossil fuels.
Other studies have also displayed how management changes can impact soil/plant
carbon levels. Mortenson, Schuman & Ingram (2004) demonstrated interseeding of yellowflowered alfalfa (Medicago sativa ssp. Falcata) into northern mixed-grass prairie increased
organic C storage by 4, 8, and 17% in a 1998, 1987, and 1965 interseeding, respectively. This
resulted in C sequestration rates of 1.56, 0.65, and 0.33 MT C/ha/yr, for the 1998, 1987, and
1965 interseeding respectively. This data demonstrate that C sequestration rates will be greater
immediately after initiation of a new management practice because of the lower inherent C
levels. The above C sequestration rates convert into 5.73, 2.39 and 1.21 Mg CO2 eq/ha/yr for 6,
17 and 39 yr old reseeding activities respectively. Our Holos model reported C sequestration
rates of 2.12 Mg CO2 eq/ha/yr for a reseeding improvement conducted 6 – 10 years ago. Holos
would seem to have underestimated the rates compared to this empirical research, but it is at
least still within reason.
Conant et al. (2001) conducted an analysis of 115 pasture and grazing-land studies
worldwide and found that soil C levels increase with improved management (i.e. fertilization,
grazing management, and conversion from cultivation or native vegetation) and that the
greatest C sequestration occurs during the first 40 years of implementation of the management
54

practice. Further, except for a single irrigated study, they found the conversion of cultivated
land to grazing land resulted in an average annual increase in SOC of 3-5%. Research has shown
that returning cultivated land back to grassland is where some of the highest rates of C
sequestration may occur, because of heavily degraded lands and associated low SOM levels.
This study reports annual rates of 3-5%; Holos reported annual rates of 0.58 Mg C/ha/yr for
grassland renovation. We would expect grassland renovation rates to be lower than land
conversion rates.
Conant et al. (2001) also found that within established pastures, soil C can be increased
by reducing disturbances to the soil and by increasing primary production of forages. A variety
of management practices have evolved to increase forage production for livestock (which also
have the potential to increase SOM). It is felt that as forage production increases, an ancillary
benefit may be increased sequestration of atmospheric carbon. Introduction of legumes into
native grasslands of the Northern Great Plains has been the subject of research for years. It has
been estimated that 70% of the native rangelands in North America were in fair to poor
condition, and that 10Mha of Canadian rangelands could benefit from the introduction of a
legume into the system (Kruger and Vigil 1979). Our Group 2 scenarios show 0.58 Mg/ha of soil
C was accumulated as a result of our minimally invasive no-till seeding of additional grasses and
legumes, enhancing the forage quality and quantity in the treated areas.
Soil carbon dynamics and sequestration involve complex interactions involving
environmental factors, soils, plant communities and management. The scientific community
admittedly has only a rudimentary knowledge of these interactions as controlling drivers
influencing soil C sequestration (Schuman et al., 2002). There is evidence to support that the
relative contribution of management practices can be lower compared to climatic drivers
(Ingram et al., 2008). Each combination of land-use history, climate, edaphic factors, and
vegetation type leads to a different response of soil carbon to changes in management.
Modeling exercises such as this one help increase the understanding of this variation, and
provides insight into the relationships among environmental factors and carbon sequestration
(Post et al., 2004) A quantitative understanding of the relationships among environmental
55

factors and SOM dynamics is most often formulated in SOM models such as CENTURY (Parton,
Stewart, & Cole, 1988), ROTHC (Rothamsted carbon model) (Jenkinson, Andrew, Lynch, Goss, &
Tinker, 1990), and EPIC (erosion productivity impact calculator) (Izaurralde, Williams, McGill,
Rosenberg, & Jakas, 2006). Holos did endeavor to account for these climatic variables, and
utilizes the CENTURY model to assist in calculating carbon dynamics.
3.4.3 Pasture Management – Effects of Fertilization
In our Group 3 scenarios, we took the Group 2 conditions, and endeavored to model the
impacts on GHG emissions resulting from adding fertilizer inputs. This management practice
improved the productivity of the grasslands and also had an effect on the overall GHG
emissions on the grasslands.
Most notably in the group 3 scenarios, we observed marginal reductions in livestock
related emissions, and additional soil CO2 removals. The additional pasture improvement
resulting from a nutrient amendment has translated into an improved and more vigorous
forage spectrum. The addition of nutrient amendments, such as synthetic fertilizers can
improve forage productivity, which can ultimately enhance sequestration, but there are also
increased financial costs and GHG emissions associated with this practice. Holos also reported
proportional increases in both direct and indirect soil N 2O levels, corresponding to the
application of the synthetic fertilizers. These emissions reduce the net soil CO2 eq benefit by
0.53%, 3.3% and 4.2% in scenario’s 3a, 3b, 3c respectively. The modeling reports the presence
of secondary energy CO2 emissions, directly associated with the manufacture of the fertilizers,
which slightly reduce the overall net soil CO2 eq benefit.
It has been shown that many rangelands are nutrient deficient, particularly nitrogen (N)
deficient, and have shown to exhibit increased production and water use efficiency in response
to nutrient amendments. Grassland fertilization has been used for centuries to increase forage
production (Johnston, Poulton, & Coleman, 2009). Fertilization can result in increased belowground production as well as above-ground production, which can lead to increased soil
carbon.

56

Further, studies have supported that pasture and grazing management offers the
potential to reduce GHG emissions through practices which ultimately provide cattle with
improved forage quality. It is generally recognized that CH4 production in ruminants generally
increases with forage maturity and that CH4 yield from the ruminal fermentation of legume and
legume/grass forages is generally lower than the yield from grass forages. The explanation for
the reduced CH4 emissions can be attributed to the lower proportion of structural
carbohydrates in legumes and faster rate of passage, which shift the fermentation pattern
towards higher propionate production (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). In our model we included
legumes in the reseed mix vs. a grass mix only to ensure we optimized our pasture
improvement to realize the full emissions reduction benefit. Studies have shown pasture
quality is the critical factor in reducing CH4 emissions from grazing animals, however when
endeavoring to develop best management practices (BMP), it is important to remember that
the grazing animal’s ability to select its diet will have a major effect on its performance and CH4
production (Iwaasa, 2007).
Chaves et al. (2006) concluded that methane production by grazing beef heifers was
significantly affected by pasture type, depending on site. Among their observations was that as
forage stands matured, their feed value decreased and methane emissions increased; and
pasture composition also impacts methane emissions and cattle performance. McCaughey,
Wittenberg, & Corrigan (1999) found that when pastures are managed to ensure forage quality
is high, methane production per unit basis of beef production can be reduced as much as 20%
compared to poor quality forage. Boadi, Wittenberg, & McCaughey (2002) observed early
grazing of alfalfa/grass pastures reduced CH4 production 29 – 45% in steers compared to
grazing at mid to late seasons. In our modeling, we assumed the feed quality was good on the
grasslands at the outset. Pasture renovation through reseeding and the addition of fertilizer
would contribute to additional improvements in feed quality. We were not starting with poor
quality feed (consistent with our feed quality analysis as described in Chapter 2), so we would
not expect the levels of CH4 reduction as described in the aforementioned studies. At the same
time, Holos did report some reductions, which were anticipated.

57

In addition, to determine the impacts of improving pastures, Kopp, McCaughey, &
Wittenberg (2003) conducted a study on the effects of forage type and fertilization on yield and
quality of dryland pastures on the Canadian prairies. The studied pastures contained either
meadow bromegrass or a mix of alfalfa and meadow bromegrass that were either fertilized or
unfertilized. Incorporating the alfalfa into grass pastures improved carrying capacity by 28% and
met the nutritional requirements of lactating beef cows at no additional cost. The fertilization
of meadow bromegrass pastures improved carrying capacity by 64% and met the nutritional
requirements of lactating beef cows. Incorporating alfalfa with fertilization improved carrying
capacity of pasture by 57% and met the nutritional requirements of lactating beef cows. They
concluded that incorporating alfalfa and fertilizing or just fertilizing the meadow bromegrass
pastures included significant financial risk as they were only cost-effective strategies when
precipitation was not limiting. The only treatment that did not have financial risk and was
always a cost effective treatment was the incorporation of the alfalfa into the meadow
bromegrass. Our Holos model reported an emissions reduction response as a result of
improving the pastures through: enhancing the forage with legumes; and increasing soil
fertility/productivity through fertilization.
Further, soil C increases were generally greater with higher levels of fertilization, though
this is not always the case (Hassink, 1994). The variability in the results reported in the
literature can be significant. Our Holos Group 3 model reported 0.61, 0.59 and 0.58 MT C/ha
removed in Scenarios 3a, 3b and 3c respectively. Turner, Blair, Schartz, & Neel (1997) found the
addition of N fertilizer to the tallgrass prairie increased plant production and increased soil
organic C by 1.6 MT C/ha after 10 years. Reeder, Schuman, & Bowman (1998) reported
increases in soil organic C of 0.41 and 1.16 MT C/ha/yr in the surface 7.5 cm and 10 cm
respectively, after 4 years of annual applications of 34 kg N/ha on two different CRP sites
seeded to a mixture of native C3 grasses. Nyborg, Malhi, Solberg, & Izaurralde (1999) reported
soil organic C increases of 5.4 to 9.3 MT C/ha occurred on a grassland in north-central
Saskatchewan when both N and sulfur (S) were applied.

58

And finally, N fixation significantly increased the total soil N and aboveground
production (Mortenson et al. 2004). Schuman, Ingram, & Parkin (2004) also found that the
increased production created through N fixation accounts for the enhanced soil organic C
storage and does not represent any “C costs” in the production of N, nor does it appear that the
greater soil N increases N2O from soils that would offset the benefits to the atmosphere
resulting from the increased C sequestration. Consequently, the benefits of increased soil C
sequestration must be compared to the “C costs” associated with production of synthetic
fertilizers, to assess whether there is any net beneficial effects on the atmosphere (Schlesinger,
1999). Our Holos model also reported direct and indirect N2O emissions corresponding to the
application of nitrogen fertilizer, and these additional emissions did not offset the benefits of
increased soil C sequestration. The inclusion of the legumes in a reseed mix will contribute to
improved fertility through N fixation, while reducing the requirements for synthetic fertilizers
through improved nitrogen fixation.
3.5 Conclusion
Changes in soil C on native grasslands can occur in response to a wide range of
management and environmental factors and conditions as demonstrated by the Holos model.
Although the magnitude of these changes may be small compared to those reported for
croplands and improved pastures, increases in terrestrial C resulting from grazing management
or the application of inputs account for a significant amount of carbon sequestration and a
reduction in overall atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions because of the sheer size of this land
resource.
As we have demonstrated in our study, which has been corroborated by a number of
grazing studies in the literature, high quality pastures, and grazing best management practices
(BMP) can contribute to reducing GHG emissions from cattle ranching. A number of other
studies have examined the potential of grassland pastures to counteract the increase in
atmospheric CO2 through C sequestration in soils, hence removing GHG from the atmosphere.
Our LCA is consistent with these previous research findings and demonstrated that the
improvements applied to the native grassland pastures resulted in significant C sequestration.
59

Grasslands have high inherent soil organic matter (SOM) content that supplies plant nutrients,
increases soil aggregation, limits soil erosion, and also increases cation exchange and water
holding capacities (Miller & Donahue, 1990). As our modeling exercise has clearly
demonstrated, maintenance of SOM is a key factor in the sustainability of grassland ecosystems
and the ability to sequester carbon. Historically intensive cultivation has resulted in reductions
of SOM to the atmosphere in the form of CO2, including much of which was lost from native
grasslands. SOM losses due to conversion of native grasslands to cultivation are well
documented, and losses due to poor pasture management have also been observed (Conant et
al., 2001). Through sound agricultural management it may be possible to reverse SOM losses,
and consequently sequester greater volumes of atmospheric carbon.
We hypothesized that increased pasture management/improvement and reduction in
stocking density in the Lac Du Bois grasslands should result in the removal of atmospheric CO2
through carbon sequestration, and reduction of livestock related GHG emissions, ultimately
resulting in an overall reduction in total GHG emissions. We observed both of these events in
our modeling – our research using the Holos modeling tool supports our original hypothesis.
Like other models, Holos has many limitations and its outputs carry significant
uncertainty. The unique parameters applied to Holos resulted in some obvious limitations being
exposed. For example, we did not see livestock related emissions reductions in the Group 2
scenarios; only when fertilizer was added was this revealed. Further we did not see primary CO 2
emissions associated with equipment operation and field activities. In addition, Holos did not
make it clear if the reseeding operation initially contributed to a loss of soil C as a result of
some soil disturbance; how much (if any), and how long it took for the ecosystem to recover
from this was not elucidated well. Notwithstanding, as illustrated in this study, modeling efforts
such as this can provide conceptual guidance, and help to identify future research questions
and directions. We felt overall Holos pointed us in right direction when endeavoring to
determine what strategy might prove the most effective and have the greatest impact on
reducing the overall environmental impact of livestock grazing activity on the Lac Du Bois
grasslands. Our modeling exercise would suggest that manipulating the biomass through
60

improving the forage quality of the grasslands provides the best “bang for the buck” when
evaluating removing and reducing GHG emissions.
Ultimately, the acceptance of strategies for removing and reducing GHG emissions by
land managers of grasslands will be a significant future factor in determining the rate of soil
sequestration and level of total GHG reductions achieved. The global willingness to accomplish
GHG reductions to the atmosphere in general will depend on the costs of implementation and
the real and perceived economic benefits, which include unpriced environmental benefits.
Using LCA modeling approaches such as we have done in this study with Holos can help provide
insight into practices that are likely to be both operationally sound as well as financially cost
effective in a grassland environment, which can then later be empirically tested. If agricultural
soil sequestration is to play a role in future efforts to reduce GHG emissions from grasslands, it
is important to determine that soil sequestration and emission reduction practices applied are
competitive as a low cost means of addressing rising GHG emissions, and to design programs or
incentives that make the implementation of these practices attractive for land use managers.

61

CHAPTER 4
EXPLORING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION MITIGATION STRATEGIES IN
AGRICULTURE, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BC RANCHERS TO MARKET CARBON
OFFSETS.

4.1 Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture – the big picture
Global climate change has been attributed to increased emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) due to
anthropogenic (human) activities (IPCC, 2006b). Atmospheric concentrations of these gases
have increased by 31% for CO2, 151% for CH4 and 17% for N2O since 1750. The global warming
potential of these gases are not equal, with methane being 23 times, and nitrous oxide being
310 times more efficient in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (Smith et al.,
2008).
Globally, agriculture accounts for 10 to 12% of total anthropogenic emissions of GHG’s,
but 84% of N2O and 52% of CH4 anthropogenic emissions (Smith et al., 2008). In agriculture,
carbon dioxide is released largely from microbial decay or burning of plant litter and soil organic
matter (Janzen, 2004). Methane is produced when organic materials decompose in oxygendeprived conditions, notably from fermentative digestion by ruminant livestock, stored
manures and rice grown under flooded conditions (Mosier et al., 1998). Nitrous oxide is
generated by the microbial transformation of nitrogen in soils and manures, and is often
enhanced where available N exceeds plant requirements, especially under wet conditions
(Smith & Conen, 2004).
In 2005, agriculture accounted for 7.6% of Canada’s total GHG emissions, of which 50%
is attributed to emissions from soils primarily due to N2O from fertilizer applications, 32% from
ruminants due to CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and 17% from N2O emissions due to
manure management (Environment Canada, 2008). In Australia, agriculture accounts for 16% of
that country’s total GHG emissions, with livestock accounting for two-thirds of agriculture
emissions (Peters et al., 2010). In New Zealand agriculture represents 49% of all New Zealand’s
62

emissions and is dominated by CH4 (66%) and N2O (34%) (Andrew & Forgie, 2008). As a result of
agriculture’s dramatic contributions to global GHG emissions, governments throughout the
world are investigating strategies to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions.
Opportunities for mitigating GHGs in agriculture fall into three broad categories based
on the following underlying mechanism:
1. Reducing emissions. The significant quantities of CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions released
by agricultural activities can be reduced by managing more efficiently the flows of
carbon and nitrogen in agricultural ecosystems (Cole et al., 1997). For example,
practices that deliver added N more efficiently to crops often suppress the emissions of
N2O (Bouwman, Boumans, & Batjes, 2002) and managing livestock to make the most
efficient use of feeds often suppresses the amount of CH4 produced (Beauchemin &
McGinn, 2006). The approaches that best reduce emissions depend on local conditions,
and specific management approaches will vary from region to region.
2. Enhancing removals. Agricultural ecosystems hold large reserves of C (Metz, Davidson,
de Coninck, Loos, & Meyer, 2005), mostly in soil organic matter. Historically these
systems have lost significant amounts of C, but some of this lost C can be recovered
through improved management, thereby withdrawing atmospheric CO2 (Lal, 2004). Any
practice that increases the photosynthetic input of C or slows the return of stored C via
respiration or fire etc. will increase stored C, thereby “sequestering” C or building C
“sinks”. Many studies have now shown that significant amounts of soil C can be stored
in this way, through a range of practices suited to local conditions (Lal, 2004). Significant
amounts of vegetative C can also be stored in agroforestry systems or other perennial
plantings on agricultural lands. Agricultural lands also remove CH4 from the atmosphere
but this effect is small when compared with other GHG fluxes (Smith & Conen, 2004).
3. Avoiding or displacing emissions. Crops and residue from agricultural lands can be used
as a source of fuel, either directly or after conversion to fuels such as ethanol or diesel
(Melvin, 2003). These bioenergy feedstocks still release CO2 upon combustion, but now
the C is of recent atmospheric origin (via photosynthesis), rather than from fossil fuels.
63

The net benefit to these bioenergy feedstocks to the atmosphere is equal to the fossilderived emissions displaced less any emissions from their production, transport and
processing. Emissions of GHGs, notably CO2, can also be avoided by agricultural
management practices that reduce or eliminate the cultivation of new lands now under
forest, grassland or other non-agricultural vegetation (Foley et al., 2005).
In agriculture, the many practices advocated to mitigate emissions through these
mechanisms, are commonly known as beneficial management practices (BMP). BMP can
promote good land stewardship and sustain or increase net economic return and they have
been recommended to reduce global warming potential (Desjardins et al., 2001; Johnson,
Franzluebbers, Weyers, & Reicosky, 2007). BMP are reported to improve C sequestration,
reduce N losses to the environment (Jayasundara et al., 2007) and minimize aggregate stressors
(i.e. nutrients, pesticides and sediments) to water bodies (Yates, Bailey, & Schwindt, 2007). The
impacts of various important BMP or mitigation options are reviewed below:
1. Cropland Management – croplands, because they are often intensively managed, offer
a number of opportunities to impose practices that reduce net emissions of GHGs.
Mitigation practices in cropland management include the following categories:
a. Agronomy – Improved agronomic practices that lead to increased yields and
generate higher inputs of residue C can lead to increased C storage (Follett,
Kimble, & Lal, 2001). Examples of such practices include: using improved crop
varieties; extending crop rotations (especially those with perennial crops which
allocate more C below ground); and avoiding or reducing use of bare fallow
(Smith et al., 2008). Adding nutrients, when deficient, can encourage soil C
gains, but the relative benefits from N fertilizer can be offset by higher emissions
of N2O from soils and CO2 from fertilizer manufacture (Gregorich, Rochette,
VandenBygaart, & Angers, 2005). Emissions can also be reduced by adopting less
intensive cropping systems which reduce usage of inputs. An important example
is the use of rotations with legumes, which reduce requirements for direct N

64

applications, though legume derived N can also be a source of N 2O (Ambrosi &
Janzen, 2005).
A third group of agronomic practices that may reduce GHGs are those that
provide temporary vegetative cover between agricultural crops. These “cover”
crops add C to soils and may also extract plant available N unused by the
preceding crop, consequently reducing N2O emissions (Freibauer, Rounsevell,
Smith, & Verhagen, 2004).
b. Nutrient Management – In that nitrogen applied in fertilizers and manures is not
always used efficiently by crops, improving this utilization can reduce emissions
of N2O (generated by soil microbes) associated with the excess N. Further, it can
directly reduce emissions of CO2 from fertilizer manufacture (Schlesinger, 1999).
Practices that improve N use efficiency include: adjusting application rates to
conform to estimation of crop requirements; using slow release fertilizers;
improving timing between N application and uptake; and placing N more
precisely into the soil, which improves overall efficiency and excesses (Paustian,
Six, Elliott, & Hunt, 2000).
c. Tillage/Residue Management – Developments in weed control techniques and
improvements in farm machinery now allow many crops to be grown with
“reduced tillage” or “no tillage” management systems. Since soil
disturbance/cultivation tends to stimulate soil C losses through enhanced
decomposition and erosion, reduced-till, or no-till agriculture normally (but not
always) results in soil C gain (Gregorich et al., 2005). Adopting tillage reduction
approaches may affect emissions of N2O, which could be influenced by soil and
climatic conditions. Management systems that endeavour to retain crop
residues also tend to increase soil C because these residues are the precursors
for soil organic matter, the main source of carbon in the soil.
d. Water Management – Approximately 20% of the world’s croplands now receive
supplementary water through irrigation (Ahmed, 2002). Expanding this area or
using more effective irrigation techniques can enhance C storage in soils through
65

enhanced yields and residue returns (Lal, 2004). Some of these gains could be
offset by CO2 from energy used to deliver the water, or from N2O emissions from
higher moisture and fertilizer N inputs (Liebig et al., 2005).
e. Rice production management – Cultivated wetland soils emit large quantities of
CH4 (Yan, Ohara, & Akimoto, 2003). Emissions during the growing season can be
reduced. Draining the wetland rice once or more has been shown to reduce CH 4
emissions (Yan et al., 2003), though this benefit may be partly offset by higher
N2O emissions, and this practice may be impractical if insufficient water supplies
exist. Rice cultivars with low exudation rates could offer important methane
mitigation options (Aulakh, Wassmann, & Rennenberg, 2001). Further, in the
off-season, methane emissions can be reduced by improved water
management, specifically, keeping the soil as dry as possible.
f. Agroforestry - Agroforestry is the production of livestock or food crops on land
that also grows trees, either for timber, firewood or other tree products. These
lands may include shelterbelts and riparian zones/buffer strips of woody species.
The standing stock of carbon above ground is usually higher than the equivalent
land use without trees, and planting trees may also increase the soil carbon
sequestration, although the effects on N2O and CH4 are not well known
(Oelbermann, Voroney, & Gordon, 2004).
g. Land use change – One of the most effective methods of reducing emissions is to
allow or encourage the reversion of cropland to another land cover, most
notably one similar to the native vegetation. This type of conversion can
encompass the entire land area, or well suited localized areas such as grassed
waterways, field margins/perimeters or shelterbelts (Follett et al., 2001). Such
land cover change often increases storage of C; for example, converting arable
cropland to grassland typically results in the accrual of soil C owing to lower soils
disturbance and reduced C removal in harvested products. Compared to
cultivated lands, grasslands may also have reduced N2O emissions from lower N
inputs and higher rates of CH4 oxidation (Conant et al., 2001). Converting
66

drained croplands back to wetlands can result in rapid accumulation of soil C
(removal of atmospheric CO2), although this conversion may stimulate CH4
emissions because waterlogging creates anaerobic conditions. Since land
cover/land use conversion comes at the expense of lost agricultural productivity,
it is usually an option on surplus land, or on croplands with marginal productive
capabilities. There have been government sponsored programs in both Canada
and the US which have encouraged conversion of marginal lands back to their
native condition, but these programs are costly and have met with limited
success (Karlen et al., 1999).
2. Grazing land/pasture management – Grazing lands occupy much larger areas than
croplands, but are usually managed less intensively. The following provides some
examples of practices that could reduce GHG emissions and enhance removals.
a. Grazing intensity – The intensity and timing of grazing can influence the growth,
C allocation and flora of grasslands, thereby affecting the amount of C accrual in
soils (Conant et al., 2001). Carbon accrual on optimally grazed lands is often
greater than on ungrazed or overgrazed lands (Liebig et al., 2005). These effects
have been shown to be inconsistent, owing to the many types of grazing
practices employed and the diversity of plant species, soils and climates
involved (Derner, Boutton, & Briske, 2006). The influence of grazing intensity on
emission of non-CO2 gases is not well established, apart from the indirect effects
from adjustments in livestock numbers.
b. Increased productivity – Carbon storage in grazing lands can be improved by a
variety of measures that promote productivity. For example, remedying nutrient
deficiencies by fertilizer or organic amendments increases plant litter returns
and, as a result, increases C storage. Adding nitrogen, however, may stimulate
N2O emissions thereby offsetting some of the benefits (Conant et al., 2005).
Irrigating grasslands can promote soil C gains, though the net effect of this
practice depends on the emissions from energy use and other related activities
on the irrigated land. Introducing grass species with higher productivity or C
67

allocation to deeper roots has been shown to increase soil C. Introducing
legumes into grazing lands can also promote C storage through enhanced
productivity from the associated N inputs, and perhaps also reduce N 2O
emissions if the biological N2 fixation displaces the need for fertilizer N
(Soussana et al., 2004).
3. Management of soils – Organic soils contain high densities of C because decomposition
is suppressed by the absence of oxygen under flooded conditions. To be used for
agriculture these soils are drained, which aerates the soil, favouring decomposition and
therefore high fluxes of CO2 and N2O. Methane emissions are usually suppressed after
draining, but this effect is far outweighed by pronounced increases in CO 2 and N2O
(Kasimir‐Klemedtsson et al., 1997). There are several management practices that can
reduce emissions on drained soils, but the most important mitigation practice is likely
avoiding drainage of these soils in the first place, or re-establishing a high water table
where GHG emissions are still high (Freibauer et al., 2004).
4. Restoration of degraded lands – A significant quantity of agricultural lands have been
degraded by erosion, excessive disturbance/cultivation, organic matter loss,
salinization, acidification or other processes that curtail productivity (Foley et al., 2005).
Often C storage in these in these soils can at least be partially restored by practices that
reclaim productivity, including: revegetation; improving fertility by adding nutrient
amendments; applying organic substrates (manure etc.); reducing tillage and conserving
water (Paustian et al., 2000).
5. Livestock management – Livestock, particularly ruminants such as cattle and sheep are
important sources of CH4, accounting for approximately 18% of global anthropogenic
emissions of this gas (Koneswaran & Nierenberg, 2008). The methane is produced
primarily by enteric fermentation and voided by eructation. Practices for reducing CH4
emissions from this source fall into three general categories: improved feeding
practices, use of dietary additives, and longer term management adjustments and
animal breeding.
68

a. Improved feeding practices – Methane emissions can be reduced by feeding
more concentrates, normally replacing forages (Beauchemin & McGinn, 2005).
Although concentrates may increase daily methane emissions, emissions per
kilogram feed intake and per kilogram product are generally reduced. The
overall net benefit, however, depends on reduced animal numbers or younger
age at slaughter for beef cattle and how the practice affects emissions when
producing and transporting the concentrates (Lovett, Shalloo, Dillon, & O’Mara,
2006).
Other practices that can reduce CH4 emissions include: adding oils to the diet;
improving pasture quality; and optimizing protein intake to reduce N excretion
and N2O emissions (Clark, Pinares-Patiño, De Klein, & McGilloway, 2005).
b. Dietary additives – A wide range of dietary additives, or “specific agents” have
been proposed as a means of suppressing methanogenisis to reduce CH 4
emissions. They include:
-

Ionophores – antibiotics that can reduce methane emissions (McGinn,
Beauchemin, Coates, & Colombatto, 2004).

-

Halogenated compounds – inhibit methanogenic bacteria (Van Nevel &
Demeyer, 1995).

-

Probiotics – e.g. yeast culture may reduce methane emissions
(Beauchemin et al., 2008).

-

Propionate precursors – reduce methane formation, e.g. including
edible oils in the diet (Newbold et al., 2005).

-

Vaccines – against methanogenic bacteria (Wright et al., 2004).

-

Bovine somatotrophin (bST) and hormonal growth implants – improve
animal performance which results in reduced emissions per unit of
animal product (Johnson, Ward, & Torrent, 1992).

c. Management changes and animal breeding – Increasing productivity through
breeding and better management practices spreads the energy cost of
maintenance across a greater feed intake, often reducing methane output per
69

kilogram of animal product (Boadi, Benchaar, Chiquette, & Massé, 2004).
Further, with improved efficiency, meat producing animals reach slaughter
weight at a younger age which translates into reduced lifetime emissions (Alemu
et al., 2011; Basarab et al., 2012).
6. Manure management - Animal manures can release significant quantities of N2O and
CH4 during storage and application, but the magnitude of these emissions varies
significantly. Methane emissions from liquid manure stored in lagoons or tanks can be
reduced by cooling or covering, or by capturing the CH4 emitted (Monteny, Bannink, &
Chadwick, 2006). The manures can also be digested anaerobically to maximize retrieval
of CH4 as an energy source (Clemens, Trimborn, Weiland, & Amon, 2006). Storing and
handling the manures in solid rather than liquid form can suppress CH4 emissions, but
may increase N2O formation. Preliminary evidence suggests covering manure stockpiles
can reduce N2O emissions. In reality there is limited opportunity for meaningful manure
management worldwide, as the majority of the excretion happens in the field.
7. Bioenergy – Increasingly, agricultural crops and residues are seen as sources of
feedstocks for energy to displace fossil fuels. A wide range of materials have been
considered for use, including grain, crop residue, cellulosic crops (e.g. switchgrass,
sugarcane) and various tree species. These products can be burned directly, but often
are processed further to generate liquid fuels such as ethanol or diesel fuel (Richter,
2004). These fuels release CO2 when burned, but this CO2 is of recent atmospheric
origin (via photosynthesis) and displaces CO2 which otherwise would have come from
fossil C. The net benefit to atmospheric CO2 , however, depends on energy used in
growing and processing the bioenergy feedstocks (Spatari, Zhang, & MacLean, 2005).
The interactions of an ever developing bioenergy sector with other land uses, and
impacts on agro-ecosystem services such as food production, biodiversity, soil and
nature conservation, and carbon sequestration are not well understood, but integrated
assessment modeling offer opportunities to gain additional insights (Smeets, Faaij,
Lewandowski, & Turkenburg, 2007).
70

Figure 4.1 summarizes the global biophysical mitigation potential categorized by each
management practice, in order of magnitude of contribution. Of these total mitigation
potentials, approximately 89% is from reduced soil emissions of CO2, approximately 9% from
mitigation of CH4, and approximately 2% from mitigation of soil N2O emissions.

Figure 4.1. Global biophysical mitigation potential (Mt CO2 eq. Yr) by 2030 of each agricultural
management practice. (adapted from Smith (2008)).
4.2 The Global Carbon Market
Global Carbon Markets have been established in an effort to create monetary incentives
to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions through the sale of carbon offsets. In agriculture there is a
relationship between the benefit, or the amount paid for GHG’s (i.e. the price of CO2
equivalents) and the actual level of mitigation realized. At low prices, the dominant strategies
are those consistent with existing production, such as change in tillage practice, fertilizer
application, diet formulation and manure management. Higher prices elicit land use changes

71

that displace current management practices, such as biofuels, afforestation, and allow the use
of more costly animal feed-based mitigation options. Smith et al. (2008) found the global
technical mitigation potential from agriculture by 2030, considering all gases, is estimated to be
approximately 5,500 – 6,000 Mt CO2 eq/yr, with cumulative economic potentials of 1,5001,600, 2,500-2,700 and 4,000-4,300 Mt CO2 eq/yr at carbon prices of up to $20, up to $50 and
up to $100 USD per t CO2 eq, respectively. To put this information into context, annual CO2
emissions during the 1990s were approximately 29,000 Mt CO2 eq/yr., so agriculture could
offset, at full biophysical potential, about 20% of total annual CO2 emissions, with reductions of
approximately 5, 9 and 14% at CO2 eq prices of up to 20, 50 and $100 USD per t CO2 eq. The
IPCC Second Assessment Report noted that GHG mitigation approaches will not be adopted by
agricultural land managers unless they improve profitability, but some measures are adopted
for reasons other than for climate mitigation. Options that both reduce GHG emissions and
increase productivity are more likely to be adopted than those which only reduce emissions
(IPCC, 2006b).
4.3 The Carbon Market – a North American perspective
The North American carbon market as a whole is a complex and diverse network of
provincial, state and regional markets. Despite several attempts under recent Canadian
governments, little policy direction regarding the development of a national carbon market has
occurred. The current administration in the US had indicated a desire to increase the
prominence and importance of climate change policy. However, the global economic downturn
and difficulties passing legislation has significantly delayed the implementation of a US climate
change bill. Canada, seeking to partner with the United States in a North American wide carbon
market initiative, has also largely stalled the development of climate change policy, choosing
instead to wait for US policy to develop (Rabe, 2007). In the absence of federal policy direction,
numerous regional GHG markets have developed to service provincial, state and regional
demands for carbon offsets, generated through local regulatory compliance measures largely
imposed on heavy industry and fossil-based energy producers (Saidur, Islam, Rahim, & Solangi,
2010).

72

Currently, the only regulated, regional market in Canada is the Alberta carbon offset
market. Saskatchewan and Ontario have also signalled their intention to develop domestic
compliance based carbon markets, and British Columbia is currently soliciting for offsets
projects through the voluntary Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT). The segregated nature of the
Canadian market has resulted in the development of carbon offset trade barriers, as regulated
jurisdictions seek to limit the flow of capital outside of their borders – as a result offsets must
be created within the specific province. The Alberta Climate Change Emissions Management Act
was amended in 2007 to require companies with annual emissions of more than 100,000
tonnes CO2 eq to reduce their emissions by 12% from a 2003-2005 baseline. This created a
strong demand for carbon offsets as the affected companies became obligated to reduce their
emissions in house; purchase offsets from others; or purchase from a public technology fund in
order to reach regulatory compliance. Non-compliant companies are faced with stiff penalties
of up to $200 per tonne CO2 eq and possibly an additional flat fee of $250,000. The financial
implications of inaction have created a market for “Gold Standard” credits consistently valued
at $12-15 per tonne CO2 eq. This has created a significant opportunity for developing carbon
offset projects in Alberta and the demand side of the marketplace has looked favourably
towards the agricultural industry as a supplier of offset credits. As in other North American
jurisdictions, the Alberta offset market rules state that regulatory compliance can only be met
with offsets created within Alberta, effectively shutting out any potential non-Alberta offsets
created in North America from flowing into the Alberta market (Alberta Environment, 2008).
The voluntary carbon markets, on the other hand, do not tend to place restrictions on
where offsets projects are located, and are thus more accessible for projects located outside a
regulated market region. The voluntary markets were initially designed to service the
anticipated growing need for regulatory compliance offsets. However with the lack of federal
regulations in North America, voluntary markets have instead evolved to service the growing
market for offsets used in marketing and promotion and/or long term carbon liability risk
management (Capoor & Ambrosi, 2007). Well known voluntary exchanges, such as the Chicago
Climate Exchange, the Montreal Climate Exchange and the European Climate exchange have
provided a means for corporations to purchase carbon offsets, validated and verified by
73

certified third parties, providing a high level of assurance that the offsets that were purchased
were real and bankable. The risk associated with regulatory non-compliance is well reflected in
the market price of carbon in a regulated market, as is the case of the Alberta Offset System
($12-15 per t CO2 eq). Voluntary carbon markets tend to return a much lower price for carbon,
(historically in the range of $2-5 per t CO2 eq), reflecting the lack of risk of non-compliance and
possible fines.
Carbon aggregation is an important concept in the realm of marketing agricultural based
carbon offsets. Due to the relatively small offset packages that can be developed on a per farm
basis, it is usually necessary to aggregate numerous packages in order to engage the market,
which typically requires at least 10,000 t CO2 eq to consider a transaction. Further, the
transaction costs for moving an offset package are typically 15-30% of the gross value of the
offsets. A 10,000 t package marketed for $15 per t CO2 eq will gross $150,000 and carry
transaction fees of $22,500-$45,000. Transaction fees may include, but are not limited to, the
costs of validation, verification, marketing, contract and financing negotiation, and legal due
diligence. Aggregation allows these transaction costs to be spread over a large number of
projects, making the costs more manageable for each project participant.
Another important function of aggregation is shared market risk. If the minimum offset
package size is 10,000 t CO2 eq, and each participating farm is able to contribute 200 t CO2 eq, it
is necessary to have 50 farms as part of the aggregation group to satisfy the volume
requirements. It is highly likely that a number of farms will not meet the criteria of the project
and have to be excluded. An aggregated project will allow the risk associated with non-delivery
to be spread over the remaining participants, or if possible, the excluded operations can be
replaced. This shared risk helps to ensure a project will not falter completely if a portion of the
group is not able to meet their individual requirements.
4.4 BC’s GHG mitigation and carbon offset opportunities
On a per capita basis, BC is one of the lowest GHG emitters in North America. Within
Canada, BC ranks second lowest after Quebec in GHG emissions per person. According to the
BC Ministry of Environment (2008), B.C. emitted 68.7 million tons (CO2 eq) of GHG emissions,
74

representing 8.9% of Canada’s total. The two main reasons for the relatively low per capita
emissions in B.C. are because of the predominance of hydroelectricity in the provincial energy
grid, and that the agricultural sector is quite small relative to other parts of Canada. As shown in
Figure 4.2, emissions from agriculture represent 5% of all emissions in the province in 2008.
Within B.C.’s agricultural sector, livestock production accounts for 48% of agricultural
emissions, emissions from agricultural soils account for 36% and, emissions from manure
account for 15%. Given these statistics, it is clear that a focus on GHG reduction strategies in
the provinces agricultural sector should be on livestock production and management.
Solvent and
Other
Product Use
Industrial Processes 0%

B.C GHG Emissions - 2008

6%
Energy Sub-sector c:
Fugitive Sources
9%

(68,719 kilotonnes CO2eq)
Agriculture
4%
Waste
5%

Afforestation and
Deforestation
5%

Energy Sub-sector a:
Stationary
Combustion Sources
34%

Energy Sub-sector b:
Transport
37%

Figure 4.2. B.C. GHG Emissions - 2008. (adapted from BC Ministry of Environment (2010)).
In November 2007, the government of British Columbia introduced legislation aimed at
reducing the province’s GHG emissions. Under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act
(GGRTA) the provincial government set out the objectives to reduce the provincial carbon
footprint by 33% of 2007 levels by 2020, and to make the public sector in B.C. carbon neutral by
75

2010. The government guidelines established two systems to facilitate the public sector
organizations achieving zero net GHG emissions (carbon neutral):
1) Pursue actions to minimize its own GHG emissions (i.e. reduce travel, improve efficiency
of buildings, use less paper etc.)
2) Use carbon offsets acquired by the Pacific Carbon Trust to cancel out remaining GHG
emissions that it is unable to reduce to zero through its own actions.
The Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT) (www.pacificcarbontrust.com/) is a provincial crown
corporation dedicated to acquiring carbon offsets so that public sector organizations and other
clients can achieve their carbon neutral objectives. The PCT only purchase carbon offsets that
are generated from projects or activities within B.C., and meet the provincially defined
eligibility criteria for qualifying carbon offsets. B.C.’s agricultural sector may be able to sell
eligible carbon offsets to the PCT from agriculturally based offset projects.
The GGRTA specifies a carbon offset is created when an entity voluntarily undertakes a
project/action that reduces the amount of GHG emissions entering the atmosphere (reduction),
prevents GHG emissions from entering the atmosphere (avoidance), or increases the amount of
GHG emissions being taken out of the atmosphere (removal enhancement or sequestration). In
the case of methane, for example, because methane has a CO2 equivalency of 23, for every
tonne CH4 emissions reduced or avoided, 23 offsets will be generated. Carbon offsets are
created through projects that reduce, avoid or remove GHG emissions (Figure 4.3).

76

Figure 4.3. Carbon Offset Projects. (adapted from BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2009)).
It is important to distinguish between the terms “carbon offsets” and “carbon credits”.
A carbon offset is generated when a voluntary action is undertaken that reduces, avoids or
removes GHG emissions. Carbon credits, on the other hand, refer to either carbon offsets or
carbon allowances. Carbon offsets can be found in both voluntary and mandated carbon
markets, and they can be purchased by anyone trying to reduce their emissions for mandated
or non-mandated purposes. A carbon allowance is found only in mandated carbon markets, and
is an authorization to emit a certain amount of GHG emissions, i.e. each carbon credit in the
allowance enables the owner to emit one tonne CO2 eq. Carbon allowances are issued by a
regulatory body to industries/sectors that have been mandated to limit their emissions. Carbon
allowances can be traded between companies within the same mandated industries/sectors to
help them meet their reduction obligations. These same industries/sectors can purchase carbon
offsets from non-mandated industries/sectors (e.g. agricultural sector) to help them meet their
emissions targets.

77

Project proponents must prepare a Project Plan, which provides details about the offset
project, including what the project entails, how it will be conducted and how the GHG
reductions, avoidance or removals will be calculated. The project plan must be prepared in
accordance with the Emission Offset Regulation
(www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/ggrta/pdf/offsets-reg.pdf). Projects will be eligible to sell
offsets to the PCT only if their project plan meets all of the following seven criteria:
1) Within Scope – only projects that are carried out within B.C., and reduce carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) gases are eligible.
2) Measurable – projects must specify a justifiable methodology to quantify the GHG
emission reductions in an accurate and conservative manner.
3) Real – GHG reductions must be as a result of some specific identifiable action, and
projects must result in absolute net reductions into the atmosphere. If the impact of a
project results in increases or decreases of removals elsewhere, this “leakage” must be
accounted for regardless of whether they are intentional or accidental. Leakage could
partially or completely negate the reductions associated with the original project.
“Reversals” must also be accounted for; if GHGs that were originally removed are
released back into the atmosphere during the lifetime of a project, these allowances
must be replaced. Risk mitigation and contingency plans must be developed to ensure
reductions will endure for at least 100 years.
4) Additional – an offset project must demonstrate that it has reduced, removed or
avoided emissions beyond what would have occurred if the project had not been
undertaken – i.e. the project is not “business as usual”. To determine additionality, the
PCT will use the following tests:
a. Regulatory test – a project must result in GHG reductions beyond existing
or proposed regulatory requirements/standards.
b. Timing test – the project must not have started before November 29,
2007.

78

c. Barrier analysis – a project must face a technological, financial or other
barrier to implementation that will only be overcome, or partially
overcome, as a result of receiving carbon offsets. For example:
i. Financial barrier – a project faces a financial barrier if the ROI is
too low, or the risk to high without the revenue derived from the
sale of carbon offsets (Figure 4.4).
ii. Technological barriers – a project faces a technical barrier when
there is a lack of equipment of expertise to undertake the project
and this deficiency can only be addressed with the revenue
derived from the sale of carbon credits.
d. Verifiable – the PCT will only buy carbon credits from projects that have
had their plan validated and verified by independent third parties with
recognized accreditation (Table 4.1).
i. Validation – the plan must be capable of delivering all of the
offsets promised.
ii. Verification – the project report and the validated project plan
verify if the project has delivered all of the offsets promised.
e. Clear evidence of ownership – a project proponent must have established
clear rights to claim legal or commercial benefits arising from the projects
GHG reductions.
f. Counted once – reductions can only be counted once. The PCT will not
buy offsets from projects that: have already sold reductions in other
carbon markets; or, have allowed another entity to use the reductions
when they calculate their own emissions.

79

Figure 4.4. Carbon Offset Projects – ROI vs. Risk. (adapted from BC Ministry of Agriculture and
Lands (2009)).

Table 4.1. Carbon Offset Projects – Validation and Verification. (adapted from BC Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands (2009)).

Differences
Timing:

Objective:
Subject Matter:

Focus:
Frequency:

Validation
Occurs before the project
developer signs an agreement to
supply carbon offsets.
Future oriented: Statement of
intent and forecasts.
Baselines are accurate and offset
project meets the eligibility
criteria.
Justification, assumptions,
quantification methodologies.
Only once (before the offset
project is accepted).

80

Verification
Occurs after the emission
reductions have occurred.
Past orientated: Statements of
performance.
Offset project delivery and
emissions data (in accordance
with project plan).
Offset project and data integrity
(consistency with project plan).
Periodic (each time carbon
offsets are delivered).

4.5 Investigating Offset Opportunities for BC Cattle Producers
As described previously, a project proponent, in this case a B.C. beef producer, must
prepare a Project Plan, which provides details about the offset project, including what the
project entails, how it will be conducted and how the GHG reductions, avoidance or removals
will be calculated. In order to create high quality offsets, science based protocols must be
developed to properly identify GHG emission reductions that result from the use of different
management practices. Protocols are detailed instructions, or roadmaps, on how to conduct an
offset project. They may include information on standard approaches, equipment, procedures
and requirements for project development, operation monitoring, calculation, reporting and
verification.
Protocol development is not a simple case of a couple of people deciding one day to
start tracking emissions and creating an offset. Generally, protocols are developed according to
an international “gold standard” using the ISO 14064-2 guidelines that requires a review of the
scientific literature to form a “Science Discussion Document”, peer review of the document,
several rounds of stakeholder reviews, and then if a “go”, development of the actual
quantification protocol (Basarab, Baron, & Okine, 2009). The more rigor in producing offset
quantification protocols should yield more of a blue chip protocol that produces a higher value
offset. In BC, the PCT is continually developing protocols to help project proponents quantify
their carbon offsets. On January 30, 2012, PCT announced that the BC protocol for the creation
of forest carbon offsets had been submitted for formal recognition under the international
Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). The VCS is a leading GHG accounting program used by projects
around the world to verify and issue carbon credits in voluntary markets. The VCS was founded
in 2005 by business and environmental leaders who identified a need for greater quality
assurance in voluntary carbon markets. Information on the VCS methodology approval process
is available at: www.v‐c‐s.org/sites/v‐c‐s.org/files/MethodologyApprovalProcess.pdf.
In the case of B.C.’s Pacific Carbon Trust, protocols have not been developed supporting
projects associated with livestock production and associated livestock related GHG emissions.
The PCT suggests that where a protocol has not been suggested and/or approved, proponents
81

are encouraged to adopt an established protocol of recognized origin, adapted as necessary to
B.C.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development has been instrumental in the development
of four GHG-mitigating quantification protocols in the area of beef cattle production. These
protocols address management improvements that include:


supplementing backgrounding and feedlot diets with edible oils (2010);



reducing age at harvest in youthful cattle (2011);



reducing the number of days that cattle are on feed in the feedlot (2011);



selecting for low residual feed intake in beef cattle (2012).

There is currently a conversion to perennials protocol pending (2013), and protocols on
grazing management under investigation in Alberta that could be adapted to the B.C.
production system.
It is estimated these changes have the potential to reduce GHG emissions from cattle by
0.025 to 1.1 t CO2 eq per animal, with an estimated value of $0.25 - $11 per animal in the
Alberta carbon market (Basarab et al., 2009).
1. Adding edible oils to the diet (2010) – it is well documented that adding 3-6% edible
oils such as canola, soy, sunflower, corn and flaxseed oil to the diet of ruminants
decreases methane emission by 15-25% (Beauchemin & McGinn, 2006; Jordan et al.,
2006; McGinn et al., 2004). The addition of dietary lipids reduces methane emissions
through a combination of: decreasing fibre digestibility; suppressing the metabolic
activity of methanogenic bacteria; enhancing relative propionate production; and
through the provision of an alternative means of electron disposal, especially when
unsaturated fatty acids are fed to cattle (Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Jordan et al., 2006).
In addition to edible oils, there has been interest in the effects that feeding corn based
dried distillers grain and solubles (DDGs) has on methane emissions, manure production
and nitrogen loss in cattle. Few studies have examined the net GHG balance of feeding
corn DDGs to cattle, for that reason the quantification protocol does not include the
82

feeding of corn DDGs as a method of increasing the oils content of diets fed to cattle in
Alberta (Basarab et al., 2009). The inclusion of edible oils in the diets of cattle as a GHG
mitigating strategy is relatively straight forward since oils, oilseeds and animal fats are
already in use in the Canadian cattle industry. Calculations of methane emissions
requires knowledge of the animal category (i.e. beef cow on pasture lactating,
backgrounding steer, yearling steer on a finishing diet), diet composition, dry matter or
gross energy intake (GE), and methane conversion rate as expressed as percent of GE of
each specific diet (IPCC, 2006a).
Basarab, Baron, & Darling (2007a) conducted a study in Alberta on feeding edible oils to
10,245 youthful cattle in three commercial feedlots. Using a value of $10 per t CO2 eq
for the carbon credits, the overall carbon credit benefit averaged $109.22 per 100 head.
Their findings further revealed that the inclusion of 4% edible oil in the feedlot finishing
diets increases feeding costs by $25-35/head, so feeding edible oils as GHG mitigating
strategy would not be viable until oil costs dropped by approx. 50% to $4-500/t, or
there was a premium paid for beef with an enhanced fatty acid profile (i.e. more
omega-3 or conjugated linoleic acid).
2. Reducing age at slaughter in youthful beef cattle (2011) – there a numerous studies
documenting the relationship between forage concentration ratio and methane
emissions expressed as a percentage of gross energy intake (GE) (Beauchemin &
McGinn, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Ominski, Boadi, & Wittenberg, 2006).
These studies support the notion that methane emissions from the cattle industry could
be reduced by optimizing the gain during each feeding period, decreasing the length of
the backgrounding period, increasing the proportion of grain in the backgrounding diets,
and reducing the number of days cattle spend on unproductive and poor quality
pastures, all resulting in reduced age at harvest in youthful beef cattle. The Canadian
Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA) database reveals the average age at slaughter was
19.1 and 18.6 months of age as of May 1/08 and June 1/09 respectively. Most of the
cattle slaughtered between 19 and 25 months of age would be spring born calves,
83

weaned at 6-8 months, backgrounded to 14-15 months, pastured to 17-19 months, and
then fed a finishing diet until slaughter at 19-21+ months of age.) Basarab, Baron, &
Darling (2007b) evaluated the quantification protocol for reducing the age at harvest in
youthful beef cattle. The Baseline condition was steers harvested at 18.2 months,
established because the average age at harvest of youthful cattle in western Canada is
18-19 months of age. The project condition was steers harvested at 14 months of age,
since fewer days on feed has the potential to produce less manure and methane. They
discovered that the reduction in GHG emissions from enteric fermentation from
baseline to project conditions was 732.1 kg CO2 eq per head. Assuming a carbon credit
value of $10 per t CO2 eq, reducing the age at slaughter by 4 months of age was valued
at $7.32/head. As a result of 46.8% less manure produced under the project vs. baseline
conditions, GHG emissions in the form of CH4 and N2O from the manure were 4.03 kg
CO2 eq per head less, resulting in $4.03/head in carbon credit value. Project cattle had
lower production costs, but slightly higher feeding costs, resulting in an overall
reduction in costs of $23.48/head. The overall benefit of selling in June, plus the
$11.35/head carbon credit value translated into project cattle returning $122.50/head
more than the baseline cattle.
3. Reducing days in the feedlot (2011) – the project condition is the implementation of a
revised feeding regime that results in a reduction in the number of days cattle are on a
finishing diet before being sent to harvest. This quantification protocol deals with
technologies that reduce the number of days in the feedlot while maintaining or
improving feed efficiency, carcass weight and lean meat yield. Several approaches have
been studied, including:
a. Electron acceptors that compete for hydrogen (e.g. fumarate, malate,
oxaloacetic, beta hydroxybutyric acid, propyonic acid, and butynoic acid).
b. Compounds that that inhibit uptake of electrons and hydrogen by
ruminal methanogens.
c. Growth promotants and beta-agonists that improve the efficiency of lean
tissue growth.
84

d. Genetic marker panels that reduce days on feed and/or improve feed
efficiency (e.g. leptin genetic marker).
Within the first two approaches, several compounds have been evaluated, but issues
such as toxicity, cost, and lack of research into their effectiveness to reduce methane
emissions have left many unanswered questions (McGinn et al., 2004). Hormonal
growth implants are well known to improve feed efficiency, growth rate and muscle
growth in grazing and feedlot cattle and are common place throughout the industry
(Basarab et al., 2012). The fourth approach to reducing GHG intensity in beef production
deals with genomic technologies and in particular genetic markers. Unfortunately many
of these marker panels have not been adequately validated, and would not stand up to
the guidelines for protocol development. Overall, indications at this time suggest that
there would be minimal carbon credit benefits from this protocol (Basarab et al., 2009).
4. Selecting for improved efficiency of feed utilization in beef cattle (2012) – the cattle
industry continues to face challenges in competitiveness and environmental
sustainability. Improving the efficiency of feed utilization and reducing the
environmental impact are important components in the industries prosperity. Residual
feed intake (RFI) is a robust measure of feed efficiency, is moderately heritable, and in
beef cattle is defined as the difference between actual feed intake and the expected
feed requirements for maintenance of body weight and production (Nkrumah et al.,
2007). Canadian researchers, using a four chamber, open circuit calorimetry system to
measure oxygen and methane production, reported that low (efficient) RFI steers
emitted 28% less methane from enteric fermentation and produced 14% less fecal dry
matter/kg dry matter intake and 19% less urine per kg of metabolic weight than high
(inefficient) RFI steers (Nkrumah et al., 2006). The studies that have been done
demonstrate that low RFI cattle emit less methane and manure, mainly because they
consume less feed for the same level of production compared to high RFI cattle
(Basarab et al., 2003). This makes genetic selection for low RFI a good candidate for
GHG mitigation in beef cattle, particularly considering the cumulative nature of genetic
85

selection and the fact that GHG reduction can be accomplished without decreasing herd
size.
This protocol is primarily based on work done in Australia by Arthur, Donoghue, Herd, &
Hegarty (2008). Their baseline condition was no selection of breeding bulls or
replacement heifers for RFI, and the project conditions consisted of four low RFI
breeding bulls mated to 100 cows. The use of these four low RFI bulls on a 100 cow herd
reduced GHG emissions by 24.25 t CO2 eq, with enteric fermentation accounting for a
reduction of 18.08 t CO2 eq, and manure production storage and handling accounting
for a reduction of 6.16 t CO2 eq. Continued selection for low RFI males and females
would result in the increased accumulation of genetic change and consequently carbon
offset value, this in addition to significant savings in feed costs.
5. Conversion to Perennials (pending) – this protocol is expected to be implemented in
2013 or 2014. It is intended to reward net reductions and removals of GHG emissions
through increased soil C sequestration, decreased combustion of fuels, and decreased
use of fertilizers and crop protection products, associated with avoided cultivation of
annual crops. It is anticipated these reductions and removals of GHG emissions will
more than compensate for emissions of CH4 (enteric and manure) and N2O associated
with haying and grazing the perennials.
6. Pasture Management Protocols (under consideration) – on a global scale, grasslands
have a valuable role to play in GHG emission mitigation discussions because of their
ability to act as carbon sinks, and the fact that they serve as huge carbon stores. Carbon
offset opportunities are about changing management practices to mitigate the release
of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. Generally, long established grasslands are
considered at equilibrium, or at a neutral carbon balance – neither storing nor releasing
carbon into the atmosphere. Original conversion of grassland to cropland resulted in a
loss of 22 – 24% of the soil organic carbon (SOC) in Western Canada (VandenBygaart,
Gregorich, & Angers, 2003), and restoration back to perennial grassland might replace
the original quantity at a rate of 1.01 Mg C ha/yr. (Conant et al., 2005). Improving
86

carbon sequestration on pastures is attainable to varying degrees by: improving the
grass species; including more legumes; improving grazing methods and regimes; and by
adding Nitrogen fertilizer (Conant et al., 2005). Ruminant CH4 emission generally
increases with increased forage maturity and decreases with legume content (Boadi &
Wittenberg, 2002). Developing grazing systems that increase the longevity of both
native and tame grass pasture means more carbon can be sequestered in the soil from
the atmosphere. Higher rates of C sequestration are likely more attainable on tame
pasture vs. native grasslands because of a more intensive management approach, i.e.
enhanced forage species diversity, addition of fertilizer inputs, and more intensive
grazing management. The argument could also be made that native grassland pastures
could be more receptive to C sequestration due their potentially reduced SOM and soil
fertility levels. Our modelling work as outlined in Chapter 3 suggests there are
opportunities to enhance C sequestration on native grasslands, by improving pasture
forage quality through interseeding grasses and legumes, and adding fertilizers to
improve potentially depleted soil nutrient levels to enhance grassland productivity. Our
modeling work also revealed the potential for concomitant increases in N2O and CO2
emissions resulting from grassland pasture improvement strategies, but based on our
work, they did not offset the significant C sequestration benefits.
In addition to the above described Alberta based offset protocols, BC producers may be
able to spearhead development of their own protocols. Beauchemin et al. (2011) investigated a
series of mitigation scenarios/strategies based on dietary modifications (aimed at reducing
CH4), and improved animal husbandry. The following provides a brief summary of their work:
1. Increased use of forages for growing cattle – in this scenario, feedlot cattle would be
backgrounded in the feedlot over winter for 150 days on a high forage diet vs. a
baseline practice of 110 days. The animals would then be moved onto native pasture in
the spring for 120 days, then onto the feedlot to be finished on a high grain diet for 120
days vs. a baseline practice of feedlot finishing for 170 days. The result would have the
cattle being marketed at approximately 20 months of age. As a result of the prolonged
87

period to slaughter, the animals would be slightly heavier, but it was found GHG
intensity for beef production (kg. CO2 eq/kg beef carcass) increased by 6% over the
baseline or conventional management system. This would not be a strategy to pursue
for offset benefits.
2. Extended grain finishing of cattle – this scenario evaluated an aggressive feedlot
finishing program. Weaned calves would be backgrounded on a high forage diet for 40
days before being transitioned to a finishing diet for 210 days vs. the baseline of 110
days backgrounding and 170 days finishing. This scenario yielded lighter finish weights,
and reduced GHG emission intensity (2% vs. baseline), reflecting shorter time to market.
3. Feeding oilseeds – this scenario investigates the effects of dietary supplementation with
polyunsaturated lipids using canola seed to: 1) replace forage in the winter diet of cows,
bulls, calves, pregnant heifers, growing bulls and lactating cows; and 2) replace barley
grain in the feedlot diets. The investigation evaluated the effects of changes in nutritive
value of the diets (canola seed has a digestible energy (DE) content 1.5 times that of
barley grain). Their findings suggested that feeding canola seed to backgrounding cattle
reduced GHG emission intensity of beef production by 1%, and feeding canola seed to
finishing cattle reduced intensity by 2% vs. baseline. In both cases, enteric CH 4
decreased due to combined effects of the lower CH4 conversion factor (Ym) diets
supplemented with fat (canola) and the lower DM intake of higher NE diets. Conversely,
feeding canola seed to the cow calf herd had a substantial impact on GHG emission
intensity, reducing it by 8% vs. baseline. The reduction was mainly due to lower enteric
CH4 emissions because of the reduced DM intake of the higher NE diet (i.e. containing
canola) and a lower Ym.
4. Feeding distillers dried grains – the effects of incorporating corn dried distillers grains
(DDG) into: 1) the backgrounding and finishing diets of feedlot cattle; and 2) the diets of
the breeding stock, was evaluated. Their results revealed that feeding DDG to
backgrounding and finishing cattle each lowered GHG emission intensity by 1%. The
enteric CH4 emissions were reduced slightly because of the lower Ym and lower DM
88

intake of diets containing fat. Feeding DDG to the breeding stock lowered GHG emission
intensity by 6%. The net effect of feeding DDG was to lower enteric CH4 and increase
manure N2O emissions.
5. Improved forage quality for breeding stock – the effects of improving the nutritive value
of the forage fed to the breeding stock during the winter was evaluated. The improved
quality was as a result by harvesting the mixed hay at an earlier stage of physiological
maturity. This was found to reduce the GHG emission intensity of the cow calf herd by
5%.
6. Increased longevity of the breeding stock – increasing the longevity of the cows and
bulls by one year, with the resulting effect being an additional progeny from another
calving season, was evaluated. GHG emission intensity was lowered by less than 1%.
7. Increased number of calves weaned – the effects of improved calf survival from 85 to
90%, hence increasing the total amount of beef produced, were evaluated. Although
the GHG emissions increased as a result of higher animal numbers, the net effect was to
lower GHG emission intensity by 4%.
8. Change in land management – the effects of seeding new pasture on previously
cropped land was explored, with a focus on the carbon storage or sequestration effects.
Their results indicated that seeding pasture onto previously cropped land more than
offset the GHG emissions from the baseline, the net result was the beef production
systems ability to become a net sink of C.
4.6 Conclusion
Agriculture can make a positive contribution to lowering GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere in one of two ways: reduce emissions occurring at the source from fossil fuels,
fertilizers and livestock, or enhance storage of GHG’s from the atmosphere via biological sinks.
Consistent with a number of global jurisdictions, the Government of Canada has reaffirmed
their support for working on reducing GHG emissions. Both government and non-government
agencies are looking at various initiatives to achieve the reduction of GHG’s both from an
89

emissions reduction standpoint, as well as increased carbon capture. It is recognized that one of
the main ways agriculture can contribute to the overall reduction in GHG emissions is the
effective management of soils as a carbon capture sink. In recent years, carbon trading has
grown significantly with emissions trading nearly tripling from $10.9billion in 2005 to $30.1
billion in 2008 (King, 2008). Determining what portion of this economic activity is linked to
agricultural involvement is currently not possible, but the potential for growth in this area
seems to be significant. Carbon trading with respect to forage lands specifically is still very
limited. This is largely due to a clear lack of protocols quantifying the impact on carbon balances
of land management practices involving grazing and forage management. As pointed out, new
protocols proposed and currently under development will potentially rectify this situation in the
near future.
Markets for emissions trading have the potential to benefit both GHG emitters, by
lowering the cost of reducing emissions, and for farmers, who can potentially increase their
farm income by adopting practices that reduce emissions and enhance storage of GHG’s.
Though there appears to be significant opportunity in agriculture to benefit from carbon
trading, caution must be exercised. Significant uncertainty pervades GHG policy worldwide,
which has caused carbon trading activity to decrease and a collapse in prices for offsets. For
example, the average value for carbon on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) during 2008 was
about $3.73/tonne while during 2009 the value dropped to about $0.95/tonne.
The results of this body of work showed that a number of mitigation strategies could be
implemented separately or together in some cases, which could lower GHG emissions
associated with producing beef without substantive changes to the typical cow/calf/feedlot
production system. Most of the protocols and prospective scenarios could be feasible within
the BC beef cattle sector. What would require further evaluation is the cost of implementation
of these changes from the “business as usual” practice. The changes and resulting costs would
vary amongst producers, and would have to be evaluated on an independent basis. Ultimately,
any increase in costs would be an important consideration to adopting GHG mitigation
practices on the farm, as carbon offset markets, especially voluntary markets, are not expected
90

to substantially offset the incremental costs of their implementation (McCarl & Schneider,
2000).

91

CHAPTER 5
FINAL CONCLUSIONS

This study, investigating the carbon footprint of cattle grazing in the Lac Du Bois
grasslands in the central interior of B.C., consisted of three interrelated components.
The initial phase of the study consisted of gathering empirical enteric methane
measurements from cattle grazing the grasslands, using the SF6 tracer technique. In addition,
pasture samples were gathered and analyzed to evaluate the feed constituents from the study
area. By comparing our empirical findings with peer reviewed research conducted in similar
pasture/grazing scenarios the findings were validated, and positively assessed with respect to
their use in future modeling efforts.
The second phase of the study was to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the cattle
ranching activities on the Lac Du Bois grasslands using a whole systems modeling approach with
Holos. The Holos model quantified the GHG emissions, and developed a baseline associated
with cattle grazing the grasslands to provide a snapshot of seasonal pattern use. Empirical
findings from the first component of the study were instrumental in validating the LCA model,
as it was clearly demonstrated that the data gathered from the study area is consistent with
GHG emissions data utilized in IPCC Tier 2 guidelines. The algorithms on which Holos is based
are taken from IPCC methods, modified for Canadian conditions. Confident in the results of the
model, three management induced GHG mitigation scenarios were explored to evaluate the
impact these changes/improvements would have on the carbon footprint of the cattle on the
grasslands.
The third component of the study was to provide a review of the GHG mitigation
strategies as they relate to agriculture in general, and livestock production in particular. A brief
working knowledge was provided of the carbon offset trading system and market, and how
rigorous protocols must be created in order for BC livestock producers to potentially participate
in benefits associated with reducing and removing GHG emissions from their ranching
operations.
92

As climate change issues pervade our societies, the environmental impacts that rising
GHG levels have on the planet continue to raise the collective awareness of the potential
consequences of inaction. Agriculture’s relative importance to this issue cannot be understated;
agricultural lands occupy about 40-50% of the Earth’s land surface (Smith et al., 2008), and in
2007, animal production was estimated to use about one fourth of all ice-free land for pasture,
and about one third of all cultivated land for forage production (FAO, 2009; Vergé, Worth,
Desjardins, McConkey, & Dyer, 2012).
With the global population rising, agriculture is under increasing pressure to create
efficiencies to accommodate the demand for food, while addressing the tremendous concerns
of its environmental impact. Recent studies have suggested that food production will need to
roughly double to keep pace with anticipated demands from population growth, dietary
changes (esp. meat consumption), and increasing bioenergy use (FAO, 2009). As we look
ahead, it has been suggested one of the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century will be
meeting societies growing demands for food, while simultaneously reducing agriculture’s
environmental footprint (Foley et al., 2011).
The importance and scope of the agricultural sector, particularly the livestock sector,
and its contribution to GHG emissions have resulted in significant research focused on reducing
the livestock sectors carbon footprint. These initiatives have resulted in improvements in the
environmental performance of the livestock sector in recent years. In Canada the mean carbon
footprint of beef cattle at the exit gate of the farm decreased from 18.2 kg CO2eq per kg live
weight (LW) in 1981 to 9.5 kg CO2eq per kg LW in 2006 mainly because of improved genetics,
better diets, and more sustainable land management practices (Desjardins et al., 2012). At the
same time, the livestock sector has been pushed on one side by the increasing global demand
for animal protein, and on the other side by high economic growth rates and technical
innovations. Agriculture in general, and livestock in particular, has become increasingly more
specialized – the “family farm” is disappearing and being replaced by the industrial assembly
line concept. As stated previously, the livestock production system is extremely complex, and
evaluating its carbon footprint is very challenging. Intensification of agriculture, especially
93

expansion of animal production, can lead to: increased GHG emissions; water degradation and
excessive freshwater withdrawals; inefficient land utilization practices and degradation (Foley
et al., 2011).
Industrialized livestock production systems, which rely heavily on mechanized highoutput crop production for feed grains, also leads to impacts on biodiversity. Conversely, well
managed grazing systems may have many beneficial environmental effects and can enhance
biodiversity. Grazing systems, especially on lands unsuitable for other food production systems
are an integral component to global food security and economic prosperity in many regions.
Notwithstanding, the future demands for increased food production will require that land
utilization will have to be critically evaluated, and ultimately productive croplands currently
used for producing livestock feed may need to be transformed to produce food for direct
human consumption.
Agriculture is a user of natural resources and it is an activity that can modify
ecosystems. Agriculture’s principle objective is to feed the population of the world, using
management practices that achieve that goal sustainably. However, agriculture can create
environmental problems, and solving these issues requires mitigation practices and changes in
management methods. Mitigation practices should be based on well-defined sustainable
management objectives. From a global perspective, for mitigating GHG emissions, diet
manipulation is one of the best options for reducing emissions from ruminants. Economics will
play a major role with respect to decision making on adopting this practice, as improved feeds
may or may not be affordable.
As demonstrated in Chapter 3, reducing the carbon footprint by modifying the practice
at the origin of the emissions is one approach. The other type of mitigation practice that can
capture and remove GHG’s already released is soil carbon sequestration. As important as
carbon sequestration is, this type of mitigation practice will not solve all of the environmental
issues and should be used in parallel with practices acting specifically on emission processes. In
the case of GHG emissions, over time, the potential of carbon sequestration will decrease
because the storage capacity of soils is limited. Therefore, it is a mitigation practice and not a
94

true sustainable practice in the sense that it will not continue indefinitely; and second, because
carbon sequestration is limited in time, although benefits are very important, this practice will
not be able to solve the climate change issue as long as GHG emissions keep increasing.
Animal productivity or the rate of weight gain is an important determinant of the carbon
footprint of beef production. Grass-finished cattle tend to reduce their carbon footprint by
consuming forage already grown, requiring fewer inputs. This effect may be nullified from a
carbon footprint perspective because their rate of weight gain is less than a grain-fed, feedlot
finished animal, and they must spend more time on pasture, consuming feed and producing
CH4 in order to reach market weight. The fact that the CH4 emission factor (Ym) per unit of feed
consumed is substantially lower for grain-finished cattle compounds this effect (Van Haarlem,
Desjardins, Gao, Flesch, & Li, 2008). In pasture based systems, such as the Lac Du Bois
grasslands, an increase in animal productivity will be highly dependent on pasture
management, with the goal of increasing forage productivity and feed digestibility, so as to
maximize weight gain and animal density. In these systems, the forage species, as well as the
time and duration of grazing are extremely important management decisions. The obvious
environmental risk associated with extensive pasture-based systems is overgrazing.
As discussed in Chapter 4, there are several approved protocols which may be
applicable to sectors of the B.C. livestock industry. Among these, it was determined once again
that diet manipulation is probably the best option for B.C. cattle producers to mitigate GHG
emissions. Implementing improvements in the diet in order to qualify for carbon trading
benefits will likely need to take place in a feedlot, where diet manipulations can be stringently
implemented and documented. In the case of a grass-fed beef operation and or backgrounding
scenario, the potential to realize benefits may be reduced.
In addition to protocols currently approved, several GHG emission strategies were
explored which may be applicable for B.C. cattle producers. Among these, there are two project
types that have reached consideration for potential protocol development in Alberta. Of
particular interest, the “Conversion to Perennials” protocol is intended to reward participants
for achieving GHG emission removals and reductions associated with converting annual
95

cropland to perennial grassland (Janzen & Haugen-Kozyra, 2012). Specifically, the protocol
compares changes in GHG emissions from a “baseline” condition where land is managed for
annual crops and a “project” condition where these annual crops are converted to perennial
forage, which is harvested for hay or grazed by ruminants. There are a number of scenarios
possible, and in all of them an increased removal of GHG emissions through sequestration is
expected. On the surface, it would appear this protocol opportunity would not be very
applicable to the majority of the BC cattle sector, in that there is little, if any, land currently
managed for annual crop production in BC that would be appropriate for conversion to a
perennial forage application. Notwithstanding, there is consideration within this protocol for
“rejuvenation of tame grasslands”, which specifies that any treatment to increase productivity
or quality of an existing perennial forage stand will be considered rejuvenation, and will qualify
for participation in the protocol. The protocol will use sequestration coefficients associated
with land use change from cropland to perennials as have been derived for Canada’s National
Inventory Report (NIR), and are aligned with the methods used in Holos. The coefficients
derived for Canada’s NIR convert to 2.02 t CO2e ha-1 yr-1 for the Semi-arid prairies, and 2.05 t
CO2e ha-1 yr-1 for the Parkland. (Holos modeling work as presented in Chapter 3 reported
sequestration rates, as a consequence of the improvement scenarios modelled, of
approximately 2.10 t CO2e ha-1 yr-1 from the Lac Du Bois grasslands). The new protocol will most
likely use Canada NIR data and Holos to quantify coefficients for reductions in: energy emission
factors; upstream fertilizer emissions; N2O emissions; and CH4 emissions. This is essentially
what was modelled in Chapter 3. It may be entirely possible to adapt the Lac Du Bois grassland
improvement scenarios as outlined in our Holos model to conform to the guidelines in any new
“Conversion to Perennials” protocol.
Management changes to reduce emissions at the source are important in addressing
GHG emission issues in the BC livestock industry. This research has clearly demonstrated that
practices complementing the reductions through removals associated with carbon
sequestration are also of inordinate importance. A very relevant aspect of this work, that was
not explored in this study (that every producer would have to evaluate), is the “willingness to
pay/adapt”, decision making process. Producers may have very positive attitudes toward
96

sustainability and the environment, but because of concerns about financial cost/benefits,
implementation, and risk, the acceptance levels of adopting practices that may reduce the
carbon footprint of beef production in the Lac Du Bois grasslands ultimately needs to be
examined more closely in the future.
Implementing changes to existing practices requires careful evaluation of the potential
costs and benefits, but methods of evaluating the trade-offs and consequences of
implementation are not well understood in many cases. Better data, improved government
farm extension services, and utilization of models such as Holos, will help producers make
informed decisions regarding the implementation of improvements toward enhancing
agricultural productivity and environmental stewardship. The challenges facing agriculture are
unprecedented, and overcoming these challenges will require revolutionary approaches to
solve concurrent global food production and sustainability issues. In short, new agricultural
approaches must deliver more human value, to those that need it most, with the least
environmental damage (Foley et al., 2011).

97

REFERENCE LIST
Ahmed, M. T. (2002). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 9(4), 219–220. doi:10.1007/BF02987493
Alberta Environment. (2008). Specified gas emitters regulation: Offset credit project guidance
document. Version 1.2. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alta. Retrieved from
www.carbonoffsetsolutions.ca
Alemu, A., Ominski, K. H., & Kebreab, E. (2011). Estimation of enteric methane emissions trends
(1990–2008) from Manitoba beef cattle using empirical and mechanistic models.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 91(2), 305–321. doi:10.4141/cjas2010-009
Ambrosi, P., & Janzen, H. H. (2005). Towards a revised coefficient for estimating N 2O emissions
from legumes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 73(2-3), 171–179.
doi:10.1007/s10705-005-0357-9
Andrew, R., & Forgie, V. (2008). A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission
responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 194–204.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.016
Arthur, P. F., Donoghue, K. A., Herd, R. M., & Hegarty, R. S. (2008). The role of animal genetic
improvement in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle. Association for
Advancement in Animal Breeding Genetics, 18, 472–475.
Aulakh, M. S., Wassmann, R., & Rennenberg, H. (2001). Methane emissions from rice fields—
quantification, mechanisms, role of management, and mitigation options. In Advances in
Agronomy (Vol. Volume 70, pp. 193–260). Academic Press. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065211301700065
98

Basarab, J. A., Baron, D., & Darling, T. (2007a). Carbon credit potential of feeding edible oils to
feedlot cattle. What is the size of the prize? Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development,
Lacombe Research Centre.
Basarab, J. A., Baron, D., & Darling, T. (2007b). Carbon credit potential of reducing the age at
slaughter in beef cattle. What is the size of the prize? Alberta Agriculture and Rural
Development, Lacombe Research Centre.
Basarab, J. A., Baron, V., López-Campos, Ó., Aalhus, J., Haugen-Kozyra, K., & Okine, E. (2012).
Greenhouse gas emissions from calf- and yearling-fed beef production systems, with
and without the use of growth promotants. Animals, 2(2), 195–220.
doi:10.3390/ani2020195
Basarab, J. A., Baron, V. S., & Okine, E. K. (2009). Discovering nutrition related opportunities in
the carbon credit system for beef cattle. 30th Western Nutrition Conference, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada.
Basarab, J. A., Price, M. A., Aalhus, J. L., Okine, E. K., Snelling, W. M., & Lyle, K. L. (2003).
Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle. Canadian Journal of
Animal Science, 83(2), 189–204. doi:10.4141/A02-065
Beauchemin, K. A., Janzen, H. H., Little, S. M., McAllister, T. A., & McGinn, S. M. (2011).
Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada –
Evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
166–167(0), 663–677. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.047

99

Beauchemin, K. A., Janzen, H., Little, S. M., McAllister, T. A., & McGinn, S. M. (2010). Life cycle
assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A
case study. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 371–379. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.008
Beauchemin, K. A., Kreuzer, M., O’Mara, F., & McAllister, T. A. (2008). Nutritional management
for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture, 48(2), 21–27.
Beauchemin, K. A., McAllister, T. A., & McGinn, S. M. (2009). Dietary mitigation of enteric
methane from cattle. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science,
Nutrition and Natural Resources, 4(035), 1–18. doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20094035
Beauchemin, K. A., & McGinn, S. M. (2005). Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or
corn diets. Journal of Animal Science, 83(3), 653–661.
Beauchemin, K. A., & McGinn, S. M. (2006). Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of
fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil. Journal of Animal Science, 84(6), 1489–1496.
Boadi, D. A., Benchaar, C., Chiquette, J., & Massé, D. (2004). Mitigation strategies to reduce
enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review. Canadian Journal of Animal
Science, 84(3), 319–335. doi:10.4141/A03-109
Boadi, D. A., & Wittenberg, K. M. (2002). Methane production from dairy and beef heifers fed
forages differing in nutrient density using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas
technique. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 82(2), 201–206. doi:10.4141/A01-017
Boadi, D. A., Wittenberg, K. M., & Kennedy, A. D. (2002). Validation of the sulphur hexafluoride
(SF6) tracer gas technique for measurement of methane and carbon dioxide production
by cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 82(2), 125–131. doi:10.4141/A01-054
100

Boadi, D. A., Wittenberg, K. M., & McCaughey, W. (2002). Effects of grain supplementation on
methane production of grazing steers using the sulphur (SF6) tracer gas technique.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 82(2), 151–157. doi:10.4141/A01-038
Bouwman, A. F., Boumans, L. J. M., & Batjes, N. H. (2002). Modeling global annual N 2O and NO
emissions from fertilized fields. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(4), 28–1–28–9.
doi:200210.1029/2001GB001812
British Columbia Ranching Task Force. (2009). British Columbia ranching task force report to
government. Retrieved from
http://www.ranchingtaskforce.gov.bc.ca/attachments/ranching_task_force_2009.pdf
Bruce, J. P., Frome, M., Haites, E., Janzen, H., Lal, R., & Paustian, K. (1999). Carbon sequestration
in soils. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(1), 382–389.
Canadell, J. G., Quéré, C. L., Raupach, M. R., Field, C. B., Buitenhuis, E. T., Ciais, P., … Marland, G.
(2007). Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity,
carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 104(47), 18866–18870. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702737104
Capoor, K., & Ambrosi, P. (2007). State and trends of the carbon market 2007. World Bank
Carbon Finance Unit. Retrieved from
http://carbonfinance.org/docs/Carbon_Trends_2007- _FINAL_-_May_2.pdf
Chaves, A. V., Thompson, L. C., Iwaasa, A. D., Scott, S. L., Olson, M. E., Benchaar, C., …
McAllister, T. A. (2006). Effect of pasture type (alfalfa vs. grass) on methane and carbon
dioxide production by yearling beef heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 86(3),
409–418. doi:10.4141/A05-081
101

Clark, H., Pinares-Patiño, C., De Klein, C., & McGilloway, D. A. (2005). Methane and nitrous
oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. Grassland a global resource. Plenary and invited
papers from the XX International Grassland Congress, Dublin, Ireland, 26 June-1 July
2005, 279–293.
Clemens, J., Trimborn, M., Weiland, P., & Amon, B. (2006). Mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 112(2–3), 171–177. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.016
Cole, C. V., Duxbury, J., Freney, J., Heinemeyer, O., Minami, K., Mosier, A., … Zhao, Q. (1997).
Global estimates of potential mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 49(1), 221–228. doi:10.1023/A:1009731711346
Conant, R. T., Paustian, K., Del Grosso, S. J., & Parton, W. J. (2005). Nitrogen pools and fluxes in
grassland soils sequestering carbon. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 71(3), 239–248.
doi:10.1007/s10705-004-5085-z
Conant, R. T., Paustian, K., & Elliott, E. T. (2001). Grassland management and conversion into
grassland: effects on soils carbon. Ecological Applications, 11(2), 343–355.
doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0343:GMACIG]2.0.CO;2
Conant, R. T., Six, J., & Paustian, K. (2003). Land use effects on soil carbon fractions in the
southeastern United States. I. Management-intensive versus extensive grazing. Biology
and Fertility of Soils, 38(6), 386–392. doi:10.1007/s00374-003-0652-z
Davies, B., Baulcombe, D., Crute, I., Dunwell, J., Gale, M., Jones, J., … Toulmin, C. (2009).
Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture.
Report. Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/56034/
102

DeFries, R. S., Foley, J. A., & Asner, G. P. (2004). Land-use choices: balancing human needs and
ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(5), 249–257.
doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0249:LCBHNA]2.0.CO;2
Derner, J. D., Boutton, T. W., & Briske, D. D. (2006). Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in
the North American Great Plains. Plant and Soil, 280(1-2), 77–90. doi:10.1007/s11104005-2554-3
Derner, J. D., Briske, D. D., & Boutton, T. W. (1997). Does grazing mediate soil carbon and
nitrogen accumulation beneath C4, perennial grasses along an environmental gradient?
Plant and Soil, 191(2), 147–156. doi:10.1023/A:1004298907778
Derner, J. D., Schuman, G. E., Jawson, M., Shafer, S. R., Morgan, J. A., Polley, H. W., … Harper, L.
A. (2005). USDA-ARS global change research on rangelands and pasturelands.
Rangelands, 27(5), 36–42. doi:10.2111/1551-501X(2005)27[36:UGCROR]2.0.CO;2
Desjardins, R. L., Kulshreshtha, S. N., Junkins, B., Smith, W., Grant, B., & Boehm, M. (2001).
Canadian greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 60(1), 317–326. doi:10.1023/A:1012697912871
Desjardins, R. L., Worth, D., Vergé, X., Maxime, D., Dyer, J., & Cerkowniak, D. (2012). Carbon
Footprint of Beef Cattle. Sustainability, 4(12), 3279–3301. doi:10.3390/su4123279
Eckard, R. J., Grainger, C., & de Klein, C. A. M. (2010). Options for the abatement of methane
and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review. Livestock Science, 130(1-3), 47–
56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010

103

Environment Canada. (2008). Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. National Inventory
Report 1990-2006. Published on the website:
http:/www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/GHG/inventory_report/2006_report/tdm-toc_eng.cfm.
Eswaran, H., Van Den Berg, E., & Reich, P. (1993). Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 57(1), 192–194.
doi:10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010034x
FAO. (2009). The state of food in agriculture: Livestock in the balance. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., … Snyder, P. K.
(2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570–574.
doi:10.1126/science.1111772
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., … Zaks, D.
P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342.
doi:10.1038/nature10452
Follett, R. F. (2001). Soil management concepts and carbon sequestration in cropland soils. Soil
and Tillage Research, 61(1–2), 77–92. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00180-5
Follett, R. F., Kimble, J. M., & Lal, R. (2001). Potential of US grazing lands to sequester soil
carbon. Lewis Publishers, Boca Ratan, Florida.
Freibauer, A., Rounsevell, M. D. ., Smith, P., & Verhagen, J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in the
agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma, 122(1), 1–23.
doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.021

104

Gao, Y. H., Luo, Wu, N., Chen, H., & Wang, G. X. (2008). Impacts of grazing intensity on nitrogen
pools and nitrogen cycle in an alpine meadow on the Eastern Tibetan Plateau. Applied
Ecology and Environmental Research, 6(3), 69–79.
Government of Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ca-ra2011/index-eng.htm
Gregorich, E. G., Rochette, P., VandenBygaart, A. J., & Angers, D. A. (2005). Greenhouse gas
contributions of agricultural soils and potential mitigation practices in Eastern Canada.
Soil and Tillage Research, 83(1), 53–72. doi:10.1016/j.still.2005.02.009
Hassink, J. (1994). Effects of soil texture and grassland management on soil organic C and N and
rates of C and N mineralization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 26(9), 1221–1231.
doi:10.1016/0038-0717(94)90147-3
Hutchinson, J. J., Campbell, C. A., & Desjardins, R. L. (2007). Some perspectives on carbon
sequestration in agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 142(2–4), 288–302.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.03.030
Ingram, L. J., Stahl, P. D., Schuman, G. E., Buyer, J. S., Vance, G. F., Ganjegunte, G. K., … Derner,
J. D. (2008). Grazing impacts on soil carbon and microbial communities in a mixed-grass
ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72(4), 939–948.
doi:10.2136/sssaj2007.0038
IPCC. (2006a). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 10: Emissions from
livestock and manure management. Retrieved from http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf.

105

IPCC. (2006b). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved from
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK.
Iwaasa, A. D. (2007). Strategies to recuce greenhouse gas emissions through feeding and
grazing management. 19th Annual Conference of the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation
Association, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Izaurralde, R. C., Williams, J. R., McGill, W. B., Rosenberg, N. J., & Jakas, M. C. Q. (2006).
Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description and testing against long-term
data. Ecological Modelling, 192(3–4), 362–384. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.010
Janzen, H. (2004). Carbon cycling in earth systems—a soil science perspective. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 104(3), 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.040
Janzen, R., & Haugen-Kozyra, K. (2012). Workshop report for proposed conversion to perennials
protocol. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development.
Jayasundara, S., Wagner-Riddle, C., Parkin, G., Bertoldi, P., Warland, J., Kay, B., & Voroney, P.
(2007). Minimizing nitrogen losses from a corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation with
best management practices. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 79(2), 141–159.
doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9103-9
Jenkinson, D. S., Andrew, S. P. S., Lynch, J. M., Goss, M. J., & Tinker, P. B. (1990). The turnover of
organic carbon and nitrogen in soil [and discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the

106

Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 329(1255), 361–368.
doi:10.1098/rstb.1990.0177
Johnson, D. E., Ward, G. M., & Torrent, J. (1992). The environmental impact of bovine
somatotropin use in dairy cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality, 21(2), 157–162.
doi:10.2134/jeq1992.00472425002100020001x
Johnson, J. M.-F., Franzluebbers, A. J., Weyers, S. L., & Reicosky, D. C. (2007). Agricultural
opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Pollution, 150(1),
107–124. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.030
Johnson, K. A., & Johnson, D. E. (1995a). Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal
Science, 73(8), 2483 –2492.
Johnson, K., Huyler, M., Westberg, H., Lamb, B., & Zimmerman, P. (1994). Measurement of
methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a sulfur hexafluoride tracer
technique. Environmental Science & Technology, 28(2), 359–362.
doi:10.1021/es00051a025
Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., & Coleman, K. (2009). Chapter 1 Soil organic matter: its
importance in sustainable agriculture and carbon dioxide fluxes. In Donald L. Sparks
(Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (Vol. Volume 101, pp. 1–57). Academic Press. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065211308008018
Jordan, E., Lovett, D. K., Monahan, F. J., Callan, J., Flynn, B., & O’Mara, F. P. (2006). Effect of
refined coconut oil or copra meal on methane output and on intake and performance of
beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 84(1), 162 –170.

107

Karlen, D. L., Rosek, M. J., Gardner, J. C., Allan, D. L., Alms, M. J., Bezdicek, D. F., … Staben, M. L.
(1999). Conservation Reserve Program effects on soil quality indicators. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 54(1), 439–444.
Kasimir‐Klemedtsson, Å., Klemedtsson, L., Berglund, K., Martikainen, P., Silvola, J., & Oenema,
O. (1997). Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review. Soil Use and
Management, 13, 245–250. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.1997.tb00595.x
Kebreab, E., Johnson, K. A., Archibeque, S. L., Pape, D., & Wirth, T. (2008). Model for estimating
enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle. Journal of
Animal Science, 86(10), 2738–2748. doi:10.2527/jas.2008-0960
King, M. R. (2008). An overview of carbon markets and emissions trading: lessons for Canada.
Bank of Canada Discussion Paper 2008-1.
Koneswaran, G., & Nierenberg, D. (2008). Global farm animal production and global warming:
Impacting and mitigating climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(5),
578–582. doi:10.1289/ehp.11034
Kopp, J. C., McCaughey, W. P., & Wittenberg, K. M. (2003). Yield, quality and cost effectiveness
of using fertilizer and/or alfalfa to improve meadow bromegrass pastures. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science, 83(2), 291–298. doi:10.4141/A01-074
Kruger, C., & Vigil, F. (1979). Interseeding alfalfa for grassland improvement in the Northern
Great Plains [USA]. In Agricultural Reviews and Manuals ARM NC. Presented at the 26.
Alfalfa Improvement Conference. South Dakota State University (USA). 1978. Retrieved
from http://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search/display.do?f=2012/OV/OV201201719001719.xml;US19810605147
108

Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security.
Science, 304(5677), 1623 –1627. doi:10.1126/science.1097396
Lassey, K. R. (2007). Livestock methane emission: From the individual grazing animal through
national inventories to the global methane cycle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
142(2–4), 120–132. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.03.028
Lassey, K. R. (2008). Livestock methane emission and its perspective in the global methane
cycle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(2), 114–118.
Lassey, K. R., Walker, C. F., McMillan, A. M. S., & Ulyatt, M. J. (2001). On the performance of SF 6
permeation tubes used in determining methane emission from grazing livestock.
Chemosphere - Global Change Science, 3(4), 367–376. doi:10.1016/S14659972(01)00017-4
Liebig, M. A., Morgan, J. A., Reeder, J. D., Ellert, B. H., Gollany, H. T., & Schuman, G. E. (2005).
Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agricultural practices in
northwestern USA and western Canada. Soil and Tillage Research, 83(1), 25–52.
doi:10.1016/j.still.2005.02.008
Little, S., Linderman, J., Maclean, K., & Janzen, H. (2008). HOLOS - a tool to estimate and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from farms. Methodology and algorithms for versions 1.1.x.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Retrieved from http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFCAAC/display-afficher. do?id=1226606460726&lang=eng#s1)
Lovett, D. K., Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., & O’Mara, F. P. (2006). A systems approach to quantify
greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management
regime. Agricultural Systems, 88(2–3), 156–179. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.03.006
109

Mangino, J., Peterson, K., & Jacobs, H. (2002). Development of an emissions model to estimate
methane from enteric fermentation in cattle. In 12th International Emission Inventory
Conference- "Emission Inventories-Applying New Technologies.
McAllister, T. A., Cheng, K.-J., Okine, E. K., & Mathison, G. W. (1996). Dietary, environmental
and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Canadian Journal of
Animal Science, 76(2), 231–243. doi:10.4141/cjas96-035
McCarl, B. A., & Schneider, U. A. (2000). U.S. Agriculture’s Role in a Greenhouse Gas Emission
Mitigation World: An Economic Perspective. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(1),
134–159. doi:10.1111/1058-7195.t01-1-00011
McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., & Corrigan, D. (1997). Methane production by steers on
pasture. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 77(3), 519–524. doi:10.4141/A96-137
McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., & Corrigan, D. (1999). Impact of pasture type on methane
production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 79(2), 221–226.
doi:10.4141/A98-107
McGinn, S. M., Beauchemin, K. A., Coates, T., & Colombatto, D. (2004). Methane emissions
from beef cattle: Effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid.
Journal of Animal Science, 82(11), 3346 –3356.
McGinn, S. M., Beauchemin, K. A., Iwaasa, A. D., & McAllister, T. A. (2006). Assessment of the
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Tracer Technique for Measuring Enteric Methane Emissions
from Cattle. Journal of Environment Quality, 35(5), 1686–1691.
doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0054

110

Melvin, G. R. (2003). Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: theoretical, potential
and achievable capacities globally, in Europe and the UK. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24(2),
97–116. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00103-4
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M., & Meyer, L. (2005). IPCC special report on
carbon dioxide capture and storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Geneva (Switzerland). Working Group lll.
Miller, R. W., & Donahue, R. L. (1990). Soils: an introduction to soils and plant growth, (Ed. 6),
xiv + 768 pp. Prentice-Hall International Inc..
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. (2000). Lac Du Bois Grasslands Park. Management
plan background document. Retrieved from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/lacdubois/lacdubois.pdf
Monteny, G.-J., Bannink, A., & Chadwick, D. (2006). Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for
animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 112(2–3), 163–170.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.015
Mortenson, M. C., Schuman, G. E., & Ingram, L. J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in rangelands
interseeded with yellow-flowering alfalfa (Medicago sativa ssp. falcata). Environmental
Management, 33(1), S475–S481. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-9155-9
Mosier, A. R., Duxbury, J. M., Freney, J. R., Heinemeyer, O., Minami, K., & Johnson, D. E. (1998).
Mitigating agricultural emissions of methane. Climatic Change, 40(1), 39–80.
doi:10.1023/A:1005338731269
Newbold, C. J., López, S., Nelson, N., Ouda, J. O., Wallace, R. J., & Moss, A. R. (2005). Propionate
precursors and other metabolic intermediates as possible alternative electron acceptors
111

to methanogenesis in ruminal fermentation in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition, 94(01),
27–35. doi:10.1079/BJN20051445
Nkrumah, J. D., Okine, E. K., Mathison, G. W., Schmid, K., Li, C., Basarab, J. A., … Moore, S. S.
(2006). Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with
metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of
Animal Science, 84(1), 145 –153.
Nkrumah, J. D., Sherman, E. L., Li, C., Marques, E., Crews, D. H., Bartusiak, R., … Moore, S. S.
(2007). Primary genome scan to identify putative quantitative trait loci for feedlot
growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science,
85(12), 3170 –3181. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0234
Nyborg, M., Malhi, S. S., Solberg, E. D., & Izaurralde, R. C. (1999). Carbon storage and light
fraction C in a grassland Dark Gray Chernozem soil as influenced by N and S fertilization.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 79(2), 317–320. doi:10.4141/S98-048
Oelbermann, M., Voroney, P. R., & Gordon, A. M. (2004). Carbon sequestration in tropical and
temperate agroforestry systems: a review with examples from Costa Rica and southern
Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104(3), 359–377.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.04.001
Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., & Paustian, K. (2005). Agricultural management impacts on soil organic
carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical
regions. Biogeochemistry, 72(1), 87–121. doi:10.1007/s10533-004-0360-2

112

Ogle, S. M., Conant, R. T., & Paustian, K. (2004). Deriving grassland management factors for a
carbon accounting method developed by the intergovernmental panel on climate
change. Environmental Management, 33(4), 474–484. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-9105-6
Ominski, K. H., Boadi, D. A., & Wittenberg, K. M. (2006). Enteric methane emissions from
backgrounded cattle consuming all-forage diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science,
86(3), 393–400. doi:10.4141/A05-051
Ominski, K. H., Boadi, D. A., Wittenberg, K. M., Fulawka, D. L., & Basarab, J. A. (2007). Estimates
of enteric methane emissions from cattle in Canada using the IPCC Tier-2 methodology.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 87(3), 459–467. doi:10.4141/CJAS06034
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B., & Cole, C. V. (1988). Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils:
a model. Biogeochemistry, 5(1), 109–131. doi:10.1007/BF02180320
Paustian, K., Antle, J., Sheehan, J., & Paul, E. (2006). Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas
mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington VA. Retrieved from
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/agriculture_s_role_mitigation/index.cfm
Paustian, K., Six, J., Elliott, E. T., & Hunt, H. W. (2000). Management options for reducing CO 2
emissions from agricultural soils. Biogeochemistry, 48(1), 147–163.
Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., & Rasmussen, R. (2010). Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of
three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural
Systems, 103(6), 380–389. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009

113

Peters, G. M., Rowley, H. V., Wiedemann, S., Tucker, R., Short, M. D., & Schulz, M. (2010). Red
meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas
studies. Environmental science & technology, 44(4), 1327–1332.
Pinares-Patiño, C. S., Machmüller, A., Molano, G., Smith, A., Vlaming, J. B., & Clark, H. (2008).
The SF6 tracer technique for measurements of methane emission from cattle – effect of
tracer permeation rate. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 88(2), 309–320.
doi:10.4141/CJAS07117
Post, W. M., Izaurralde, R. C., Jastrow, J. D., McCARL, B. A., Amonette, J. E., Bailey, V. L., … Zhou,
J. (2004). Enhancement of carbon sequestration in US soils. BioScience, 54(10), 895.
doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0895:EOCSIU]2.0.CO;2
Rabe, B. G. (2007). Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems.
Governance, 20(3), 423–444. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00365.x
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C., & Foley, J. A. (2008). Farming the planet: 1.
Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(1), n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2007GB002952
Rance, L. (2010). How green is grass-fed beef? Debate ongoing. Retrieved from
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/how-green-is-grass-fed-beefdebate-ongoing-81060342.html
Reeder, J., & Schuman, G. (2002). Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid
mixed-grass and short-grass rangelands. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 457–463.
doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00223-8

114

Reeder, J., Schuman, G., & Bowman, R. (1998). Soil C and N changes on conservation reserve
program lands in the Central Great Plains. Soil and Tillage Research, 47(3–4), 339–349.
doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(98)00122-6
Richter, B. (2004). Using ethanol as an energy source. Science, 305(5682), 340.
doi:10.1126/science.305.5682.340b
Rochette, P., Worth, D. E., Lemke, R. L., McConkey, B. G., Pennock, D. J., Wagner-Riddle, C., &
Desjardins, R. J. (2008). Estimation of N2O emissions from agricultural soils in Canada. I.
Development of a country-specific methodology. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 88(5),
641–654. doi:10.4141/CJSS07025
Saidur, R., Islam, M. R., Rahim, N. A., & Solangi, K. H. (2010). A review on global wind energy
policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(7), 1744–1762.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.007
Samson, F. B., Knopf, F. L., & Ostlie, W. R. (2004). Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and
future. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(1), 6–15. doi:10.2193/00917648(2004)32[6:GPEPPA]2.0.CO;2
Schlesinger, W. H. (1999). Carbon sequestration in soils. Science 25, Vol. 284(no. 5423), p. 2095.
Schuman, G. ., Janzen, H. ., & Herrick, J. . (2002). Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon
sequestration by rangelands. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 391–396.
doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00215-9
Schuman, G. E., Ingram, L. J., & Parkin, T. B. (2004). Nitrous oxide emissions from a northern
mixed-grass rangeland interseeded with yellow-flowering alfalfa (Medicago sativa ssp.
falcata). Society for Range Management Meeting Abstracts, p. 323.
115

Schuman, G. E., Reeder, J. D., Manley, J. T., Hart, R. H., & Manley, W. A. (1999). Impact of
grazing management on the carbon and nitrogen balance of a mixed-grass rangeland.
Ecological Applications, 9(1), 65–71. doi:10.1890/10510761(1999)009[0065:IOGMOT]2.0.CO;2
Sejian, V., Lal, R., Lakritz, J., & Ezeji, T. (2010). Measurement and prediction of enteric methane
emission. International Journal of Biometeorology, 55(1), 1–16. doi:10.1007/s00484010-0356-7
Shantz, H. L. (1954). The place of grasslands in the Earth’s cover. Ecology, 35(2), 143–145.
doi:10.2307/1931110
Smeets, E. M. W., Faaij, A. P. C., Lewandowski, I. M., & Turkenburg, W. C. (2007). A bottom-up
assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, 33(1), 56–106. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2006.08.001
Smith, K. A., & Conen, F. (2004). Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse
gases. Soil Use and Management, 20(2), 255–263. doi:10.1111/j.14752743.2004.tb00366.x
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., … Smith, J. (2008). Greenhouse
gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 363(1492), 789 –813. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2184
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., … Towprayoon, S. (2007). Policy
and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options
in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118(1–4), 6–28.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.006
116

Smith, W. N., Grant, B., Desjardins, R. L., Lemke, R., & Li, C. (2004). Estimates of the interannual
variations of N2O emissions from agricultural soils in Canada. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 68(1), 37–45. doi:10.1023/B:FRES.0000012230.40684.c2
Soussana, J.-F., Loiseau, P., Vuichard, N., Ceschia, E., Balesdent, J., Chevallier, T., & Arrouays, D.
(2004). Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use
and Management, 20(2), 219–230. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2004.tb00362.x
Spatari, S., Zhang, Y., & MacLean, H. L. (2005). Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn
stover-derived ethanol-fueled automobiles. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39(24), 9750–9758.
doi:10.1021/es048293+
Steinfeld, H., & Wassenaar, T. (2007). The role of livestock production in carbon and nitrogen
cycles. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 271–294.
doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.041806.143508
Subak, S. (1999). Global environmental costs of beef production. Ecological Economics, 30(1),
79–91.
Swift, R. (2001). Sequestration of carbon by soil. Soil Science November 2001, 166(11), 858–871.
Turner, C. L., Blair, J. M., Schartz, R. J., & Neel, J. C. (1997). Soil N and plant responses to fire,
topography, and supplemental N in tallgrass prairie. Ecology, 78(6), 1832–1843.
doi:10.2307/2266105
Ulyatt, M. J., Lassey, K. R., Shelton, I. D., & Walker, C. F. (2002). Methane emission from dairy
cows and wether sheep fed subtropical grass‐dominant pastures in midsummer in New
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 45(4), 227–234.
doi:10.1080/00288233.2002.9513513
117

Ulyatt, M. J., McCrabb, G. J., Baker, S. K., & Lassey, K. R. (1999). Accuracy of SF6 tracer
technology and alternatives for field measurements. Australian Journal of Agricultural
Research, 50(8), 1329–1334.
Van Haarlem, R. P., Desjardins, R. L., Gao, Z., Flesch, T. K., & Li, X. (2008). Methane and
ammonia emissions from a beef feedlot in western Canada for a twelve-day period in
the fall. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 88(4), 641–649. doi:10.4141/CJAS08034
Van Nevel, C., & Demeyer, D. I. (1995). Lipolysis and biohydrogenation of soybean oil in the
rumen in vitro: inhibition by antimicrobials. Journal of Dairy Science, 78(12), 2797–2806.
doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76910-7
VandenBygaart, A. J., Gregorich, E. G., & Angers, D. A. (2003). Influence of agricultural
management on soil organic carbon: A compendium and assessment of Canadian
studies. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 83(4), 363–380. doi:10.4141/S03-009
Vergé, X. P. C., De Kimpe, C., & Desjardins, R. L. (2007). Agricultural production, greenhouse gas
emissions and mitigation potential. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 142(2–4), 255–
269. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.06.011
Vergé, X. P. C., Dyer, J. A., Desjardins, R. L., & Worth, D. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from
the Canadian beef industry. Agricultural Systems, 98(2), 126–134.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2008.05.003
Vergé, X. P. C., Worth, D. E., Desjardins, R. L., McConkey, B. G., & Dyer, J. A. (2012). LCA of
animal production. In J. I. Boye & Y. Arcand (Eds.), Green Technologies in Food
Production and Processing (pp. 83–113). Springer US. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.tru.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-1587-9_5
118

Wright, A. D. G., Kennedy, P., O’Neill, C. J., Toovey, A. F., Popovski, S., Rea, S. M., … Klein, L.
(2004). Reducing methane emissions in sheep by immunization against rumen
methanogens. Vaccine, 22(29–30), 3976–3985. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.03.053
Wright, T., & Lackey, R. (2008). Definitions of feed manufacturing and livestock nutrition terms.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/08-039.htm
Yan, X., Ohara, T., & Akimoto, H. (2003). Development of region‐specific emission factors and
estimation of methane emission from rice fields in the East, Southeast and South Asian
countries. Global Change Biology, 9(2), 237–254. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00564.x
Yates, A. G., Bailey, R. C., & Schwindt, J. A. (2007). Effectiveness of best management practices
in improving stream ecosystem quality. Hydrobiologia, 583(1), 331–344.
doi:10.1007/s10750-007-0619-4
Yungblut, D. (2012). National forage & grassland assessment. Canadian Forage & Grassland
Association, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.

119