BY STAN BLADE, P.Ag.
FROM LAB
TO FIELD
Emissionpossible
IN DECEMBER, THE WORLD
gathered in Paris to talk about the need
for a legally binding and universal agree-
ment on climate, with the aim of keeping
global warming to less than 2
°
C above the
global pre-industrial temperature.
In preparation for its own representa-
tion at the Paris Climate Conference (also
known as COP21, for the Conference of
the Parties) the Government of Alberta
established a Climate Change Advisory
Panel to evaluate a wide array of indus-
tries and technologies, with the goal of
developing policy and programs to reduce
Alberta’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Agriculture was identified by the panel
as an emitter of seven to eight per cent of
Alberta’s total emissions. To compare, in
2012, one of the world’s most respected
scientific journals,
Nature
, reported that
global agriculture was responsible for
almost one-third of global GHG emissions.
Agricultural emissions are made up of
three greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is pro-
duced when carbon leaves soil as a gas due
to practices such as tillage. Methane is
produced by enteric fermentation in rumi-
nant livestock (we are talking burps, not
flatulence) and as a byproduct of anaero-
bic digestion of manure or other sources of
organic matter, such as feed. Nitrous ox-
ide emissions can originate directly from
organic and inorganic fertilizers, crop
residue decomposition, soil cultivation
and manure storage. A smaller amount of
GHGs are produced from burning biomass
and fossil fuel use on the farm.
When these gases are ranked accord-
ing to their ability to capture heat in the
atmosphere on a per-tonne basis, methane
is 20 times better at trapping heat and ni-
trous oxide is almost 300 times more effi-
cient than CO2. Due to these differences,
we refer to CO2 heat trapping as the unit
for other emissions, which are reported as
CO2 equivalents.
Western Canadian producers have
much to be proud of in the move to
reduce their carbon emissions. There are
times when new ideas and technologies
have multiple benefits. Long before there
was a concern about climate change,
western Canadian producers moved
away from summer fallow and started
to use conservation tillage as part of
their operations. This major adoption of
new technology had the additional (and
truthfully, unintended) benefit of locking
large amounts of carbon into the soil and
reducing GHG emissions.
Producers continue to enhance their
ability to reduce GHG emissions in
their operations through careful prod-
uct choice, timing, rate and location of
fertilizer application. Producers have also
adopted new genetics that have the poten-
tial to produce higher yields with reduced
input intensity. Much of the research be-
hind these new approaches was supported
in part by farmer investment in research.
What is the future for agriculture and
GHG emissions? We already have some
protocols in place that reward produc-
ers financially for reducing their GHG
footprint as an offset paid by companies
that are emitting GHGs. New tools will
continue to be developed to manage land
(and irrigation, where it is used) to reduce
GHG emissions.
Although huge strides have been made
in fertilizer application, there is still a
great deal of room to reduce the amount
of fertilization, as only a percentage of
applied nitrogen actually makes it into
the crop (depending on a wide array of
factors). Plant breeders are working on im-
proving the nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE)
of crops so that there is an increase in the
amount of grain per unit of fertilizer.
The major issue of livestock enteric fer-
mentation is receiving intensive research,
which includes genetically unique animals
with lower emission rates along with feed
products and feeding regimes that reduce
animal methane production.
In addition to these on-farm solutions,
there is the growing area of bio-industrial
use, where biomass-based products can
store carbon for long periods of time in
addition to replacing products with high-
GHG intensity, such as steel or concrete.
Will the global emphasis on GHGs go
away? I don’t think so, but producers will
use this as a new opportunity to increase
their efficiency and benefit from new
technologies that also reduce GHG emis-
sions from their operations.
Will new regulations force producers
to increase their costs with little benefit
to their own operations or to the world at
large? I hope not, and it is in our collective
best interest to ensure that does not hap-
pen by investing in good science and strong
advocacy on behalf of our industry.
Dr. Stan Blade is dean of the Faculty of
Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences
at the University of Alberta.
Winter
2016
Grains
West
44
AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY SEEKSWAYS TOREDUCEGREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS
