Questioning the accuracy of greenhouse gas accounting from agricultural waste: A case study
Journal of Environmental Quality, ISSN: 0047-2425, Vol: 42, Issue: 3, Page: 654-659
2013
- 11Citations
- 34Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory (the NZ Inventory) uses country-specific data to quantify CH emissions from anaerobic ponds treating dairy farm effluent (315 Gg CO equivalent [CO-e] in 2009). In this study, we used literature data to: (i) evaluate the accuracy of the NZ Inventory's parameters used to quantify these CH emissions; and (ii) determine whether the NZ Inventory's scope is capturing the full spectrum of sources with bio-CH potential entering anaerobic ponds. The research indicated that the current NZ Inventory methodology is underestimating CH emissions from anaerobic ponds across New Zealand by 264 to 603 Gg CO-e annually. Moreover, the NZ Inventory is currently not accounting for (i) manure from supplementary feed pads and standoffpads (annual CH emissions = 207-330 Gg CO-e); (ii) waste milk (153-280 Gg CO-e); and (iii) supplementary feed waste (90-216 Gg CO-e). Annual CH4 emissions from anaerobic ponds on dairy farms across New Zealand are thus more likely to be 1029 to 1744 Gg CO-e, indicating that the NZ Inventory is reporting as little as 18% of actual CH emissions produced by this sector. These additional wastes are not accounted for in the methodology prescribed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for estimating CH emissions from dairy manure. Consequently, other significant dairying nations will also probably be underestimating their waste CH emissions. Our research highlights that, if governments attempt to include country-specific emission factors in their greenhouse gas inventories, these factors must be based on an assessment of the full spectrum of sources contributing to greenhouse gas emissions within any given sector. © American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84879014782&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0350; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23673930; http://doi.wiley.com/10.2134/jeq2012.0350; https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/42/3/654; https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/42/3/654
Wiley
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know