Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture · PDF fileCanadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: ... Chapter 7:Summary and Future Research Areas ... Canadian

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture (C.E.E.M.A. Version 1.0)

Report 1: Model Description

April 1999

CANADIAN ECONOMIC AND EMISSIONS MODEL FOR

AGRICULTURE

(C.E.E.M.A. Version 1.0)

Report 1: Model Description

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

April 1999

CANADIAN ECONOMIC AND EMISSIONS MODEL FOR AGRICULTURE(C.E.E.M.A. Version 1.0) Report 1: Model Description

S.N. Kulshreshtha, Professor, Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

Marc Bonneau, Acting Head, Economics Section, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation AdministrationAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Regina

Marie Boehm, Associate Director (Environment)Center for Studies in Agriculture, Law, and the Environment, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

John C. Giraldez, Economist, Economic and Policy Analysis Directorate, Policy BranchAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa

This publication was made possible by way of contract between its authors and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Because of its technical nature, it is available only in the language of the author.

Any policy views, whether explicitly stated, inferred or interpreted from the contents of this publication, should not be represented as reflecting the views of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Economic and Policy Analysis DirectoratePolicy BranchApril 1999

To obtain additional copies, contact:Information Production and Promotion UnitEconomic and Policy Analysis DirectoratePolicy BranchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaOttawa, OntarioK1A 0C5Tel: (613) 759-7443Fax: (613) 759-7034E-mail: [email protected]

Electronic versions of EPAD publications are available on the Internet at www.agr.ca/policy/epad.

ISBN 0-662-27641-8Catalogue A22-185/1999EPublication 1993/EProject 99024tp

Contract 01B04-6-C096 (Dept. Rep.: Bruce Junkins)

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

Table of Contents

Foreword ....................................................................................................................... xiii

Executive Summary...................................................................................................... xv

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................... 11.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 11.2 Importance of Agricultural Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ................................. 3

1.2.1 Global Emissions................................................................................................ 31.2.2 Canadian Emissions .......................................................................................... 4

1.3 Need for the Study ........................................................................................................ 51.4 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................. 61.5 Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................... 71.6 Organization of the Report .......................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Linkages Between Agricultural Production Activitiesand Emission of Greenhouse Gases 9

2.1 Sources of Major Greenhouse Gases Emissions at the Global Scale ...................... 92.1.1 Carbon dioxide................................................................................................... 92.1.2 Methane............................................................................................................. 112.1.3 Nitrous Oxide................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Effects of Environmental and Management Factors .............................................. 132.3 Factors Affecting Emission Levels from Agricultural Activities.......................... 15

2.3.1 Factors Affecting Emissions from Crop Production................................... 152.3.2 Factors Affecting Emissions from Livestock Production........................... 18

2.4 Summary....................................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 3: Analytical Framework ............................................................................... 213.1 Review of Previous Studies........................................................................................ 213.2 Considerations Involved in the Development of the GHGE Sub-Model............ 22

3.2.1 Scope of Agriculture Production Activities ................................................. 223.2.2 Considerations in the Design of the Model ................................................. 23

3.3 Conceptual Method of Estimation ............................................................................ 233.3.1 Conceptual Linkages between Agricultural Production

Activities and Emissions................................................................................. 243.3.2 Specification of Linkages ................................................................................ 253.3.3 Estimation of Agriculturally-Induced Emission Levels............................. 28

3.4 Specification of GHGE Sub-Model ........................................................................... 323.4.1 Specification of Regions.................................................................................. 323.4.2 Specification of Production Activities .......................................................... 33

3.5 Overview of the Integrated Model............................................................................ 33

Table of Contents


Chapter 4: Methodology for the Estimation of Emission Coefficients................... 354.1 Emission Coefficients for Crop Production............................................................. 35

4.1.1 Carbon Dioxide................................................................................................ 364.1.2 Nitrous Oxide .................................................................................................. 47

4.2 Greenhouse Gases Emission Coefficients for Livestock Production................... 494.2.1 Carbon Dioxide................................................................................................ 494.2.2 Methane ............................................................................................................ 544.2.3 Nitrous Oxide .................................................................................................. 56

Chapter 5: Results for the Base Scenario..................................................................... 615.1 Agricultural Activity in the Base Year (1994) ......................................................... 615.2 Accounting Framework for Agricultural Emissions ............................................. 635.3 Agricultural Activities as a Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................... 65

5.3.1 Estimated Total Emission Levels .................................................................. 665.3.2 Distribution of Total Emissions by Activity................................................ 665.3.3 Distribution by Regions.................................................................................. 67

5.4 Total Emissions of (Non-CO2-equivalent)............................................................... 695.4.1 Carbon Dioxide................................................................................................ 695.4.2 Methane ............................................................................................................ 695.4.3 Nitrous Oxide .................................................................................................. 695.4.4 Comparison of Results with Other Studies ................................................. 69

5.5 Regional Distribution ................................................................................................. 74

Chapter 6: Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Selected Scenarios ....... 756.1 Study Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 75

6.1.1 Selection of Study Scenarios .......................................................................... 756.1.2 Description of Study Scenarios ..................................................................... 76

6.2 Results for Increase in No-Till System Scenario ..................................................... 796.3 Results for Livestock Expansion ............................................................................... 82

6.3.1 Emissions in CO2-equivalent Levels............................................................. 826.3.2 Individual Greenhouse Gases ....................................................................... 836.3.3 Regional Distribution of Emissions Levels.................................................. 85

Chapter 7: Summary and Future Research Areas ..................................................... 897.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 897.2 Major Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 917.3 Areas for Future Research ......................................................................................... 92

References ....................................................................................................................... 95

Appendix A: Specification of Regions and Production Activitiesin C.E.E.M.A. ....................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Comparison of Soil Carbon Loss by Provinces................................ B-1

Appendix C: Results of Regression Analysis ......................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Details on Selected Crop Inputs by Provinces................................ D-1

Appendix E: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases by Provinces and Activities ....... E-1


List of Tables

1.1 An Overview of Greenhouse Gases Emissions Affected byAnthropogenic Activities ............................................................................................ 2

1.2 Contribution of Agriculture to Greenhouse Gas Emissions,by Type of Gas, Global and Canada .......................................................................... 5

1.3 Estimates of Greenhouse Gases Emissions from AgriculturalActivities, Canada, 1991............................................................................................... 5

2.1 Major Sources of Global Emissions of Carbon Dioxide,Annual Flux, Average 1980 to 1999 ......................................................................... 10

2.2 Major Sources of Global Emissions of Methane, Annual Levels......................... 112.3 Major Sources of Global Emissions of Nitrous Oxide, Annual Levels ............... 132.4 Linkages between Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Activities

Related to Agriculture................................................................................................ 142.5 Factors Affecting Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Crop Production

Practices........................................................................................................................ 162.6 Factors Affecting Methane Emissions from Crop Production Practices ............ 172.7 Factors Affecting Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Crop Production

Practices........................................................................................................................ 182.8 Factors Affecting Methane Emissions from Animal Production Practices ........ 193.1 Conceptual Linkages between Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and

Crop Production Activities........................................................................................ 263.2 Conceptual Linkages between Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and

Livestock Production Activities................................................................................ 294.1 Input Data for the Estimation of Emission Coefficients for

Photosynthesis by Crops .......................................................................................... 374.2 Level of Soil Carbon Loss (from 0-30 cm depth) to the Atmosphere

from Cultivation of Crops, Canada ........................................................................ 384.3 Level of Soil Carbon Loss (from 0-30 cm depth) to the Atmosphere

by Soil Type, Canada ................................................................................................. 384.4 Level of Carbon Dioxide Released into the Atmosphere Related

to Direct Use of Fossil Fuels ...................................................................................... 424.5 Level of Carbon Released into the Atmosphere through Indirect Use

of Fossil Fuels in Agriculture .................................................................................... 424.6 Emission of Various Gases from Biomass Burning ............................................... 434.7 Average Emissions of Carbon from Selected Herbicides ..................................... 464.8 Levels of Emissions of Nitrous Oxide by Type of Fertilizer ................................ 484.9 Production of Animal and Poultry Excretions/Wastes by Type

of Animal/Poultry...................................................................................................... 504.10 Carbon Emissions from Animal Excretions/Wastes in Solid Storage................ 514.11 Carbon Emissions from Animal Excretions/Wastes in Pasture.......................... 514.12 Use of Heating Fuel by Type of Livestock Farm, 1994.......................................... 524.13 Estimates of Expenditures and Quantity of Electric Power by Type

of Livestock Farms, Canada and U.S. ...................................................................... 534.14 Distribution of Source of Electric Power Generation (Percent of Total)

by Province, 1994 ........................................................................................................ 544.15 Methane Emission Rates from Farm Animals........................................................ 55

List of Tables


4.16 Methane Emission Rates from Livestock Excretions/Wastes ............................. 554.17 Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Grazing Animal Excretions/Wastes ................ 574.18 Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Stored Animal Excretions/Wastes ................... 574.19 Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Stored Animal Excretions/Wastes

Applied in the Field ................................................................................................... 585.1 Land Use in Canada, 1994......................................................................................... 625.2 Area Cropped In Canada by Type of Crops, 1994 ................................................ 635.3 Distribution of Cropped Area in the Prairies by Tillage Systems, 1994............. 635.4 Livestock Inventories on Farms in Canada, by Type, 1994 ................................. 645.5 Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Not Included in this Study, 1994 .................... 655.6 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CO2-equivalent, by Gas, kilo

tonnes per year, 1994 ................................................................................................. 665.7 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CO2-equivalent, by Gas and GHG

Emission Activity, Crop and Livestock Production, kilo tonnesper year, 1994 .............................................................................................................. 67

5.8 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CO2-equivalent, by Gas andProvince, kilo tonnes per year, 1994 ....................................................................... 68

5.9 Estimated Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Agricultural ProductionActivities, and Comparison with Other Study Estimates, 1994 .......................... 70

5.10 Estimated Methane Emissions for Agricultural Production Activities,and Comparison with Other Study Estimates, 1994 ............................................. 71

5.11 Estimated Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Agricultural ProductionActivities, and Comparison with Other Study Estimates, 1994 .......................... 72

5.12 Distribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions* in kilo tonnes per year,Canada by Province, 1994 ......................................................................................... 73

6.1 Change in the Area Under Crops, Prairies Provinces, by TillageSystems, 1994 .............................................................................................................. 76

6.2 Area of Crops under No-Till Tillage System under Scenario One, 1994 .......... 776.3 Change in the Livestock Inventories for Beef and Hog Enterprises,

Western Canada, Scenario Two, 1994 ..................................................................... 786.4 Change in Land Use Pattern, Western Canada, Scenario Two, 1994 ................. 796.5 Total Emissions from Crop and Livestock Production, Canada, by

Gas in CO2-equivalent Level, Scenario One........................................................... 806.6 Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Agricultural Activities, Canada,

Scenario One ............................................................................................................... 806.7 Total Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Absolute and CO2-equivalent,

Canada, Scenario One................................................................................................ 816.8 Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Canada by Provinces, Scenario One ...................... 816.9 Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Absolute and CO2-equivalent and Actual,

by Province, Scenario One ........................................................................................ 826.10 Total GHG Emissions in CO2 Equivalence by Gas, Canada,

Scenario Two .............................................................................................................. 836.11 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions in CO2-equivalent, by Gas

and Emission Activity, Scenario Two ..................................................................... 846.12 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Regions, Scenario Two......................................... 856.13 Methane Emissions by Regions, Scenario Two ..................................................... 866.14 Nitrous Oxide Emissions by Regions, Scenario Two............................................ 87

List of Tables


A.1 Regional Disaggregation for C.E.E.M.A. ............................................................. A-1A.2 Specification of Crop Production Activities in C.E.E.M.A. ................................ A-2A.3 Specification of Livestock Production Activities In C.E.E.M.A. ....................... A-6A.4 List of Acronyms Used in the Greenhouse Gas Emission Sub-Model ............ A-7B.1 Estimated Change in Carbon in Agricultural Soils, by Province ...................... B-1D.1 Levels of Fertilizer Used in the Production, by Crop and Regions.................. D-2D.2 Fuel Use (in litres per acre) for Crops, by Regions ............................................ D-3D.3 Herbicide Cost per Acre, by Crop and Regions (All costs are in dollar

per acre)...................................................................................................................... D-4E.1 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, British Columbia, kilo tonnes

per year, by GHG Activities, 1994.......................................................................... E-1E.2 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Alberta, kilo tonnes per year,

by GHG Activities, 1994 ......................................................................................... E-2E.3 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Saskatchewan, kilo tonnes

per year, by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................................ E-3E.4 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Manitoba, kilo tonnes per year,

by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................................................ E-4E.5 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Ontario, kilo tonnes per year,

by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................................................ E-5E.6 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Quebec, kilo tonnes per year,

by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................................................ E-6E.7 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, New Brunswick, kilo tonnes

per year, by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................................ E-7E.8 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Prince Edward Island, kilo

tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................... E-8E.9 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Nova Scotia, kilo tonnes per year,

by GHG Activities, 1994 ........................................................................................ E-9E.10 Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Newfoundland, kilo tonnes

per year, by GHG Activities, 1994 ...................................................................... E-10


List of Figures

1.1 Contributions of Agriculture to Global Warming in the 1990’s ..............................4

3.1 Major Sources of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from AgriculturalProduction Actitivities................................................................................................24

3.2 Major Sources of Methane Emissions from AgriculturalProduction Activities .................................................................................................. 25

3.3 Major Sources of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from AgriculturalProduction Activities ...................................................................................................25

3.4 A Schematic Representation of “Carbon Cycle” involving CropProduction.....................................................................................................................27

3.5 An Overview of the Canadian Economic and Emissions Modelfor Agriculture (C.E.E.M.A.).......................................................................................34

4.1 Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Livestock Excretions/Wastes and Manures....................................................................................................45

5.1 Regional Distribution of Agriculturally-Induced Emissionsof Greenhouse Gases in Canada, 1994 ......................................................................74

7.1 Sources of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Agricultureand Agri-Food Sector...................................................................................................94

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 xiii

ForewordThe Policy Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has amandate to provide the Government of Canada with timelyinformation on the impacts that proposed new policies could have onthe agricultural sector, or what the possible outcome would be ifexisting policies and programs are altered. Increasing emphasis isbeing placed on the interrelationships between environmentalstability and the farm management practices promoted byagricultural policies. However, to date there has been a lack ofquantitative tools which could be used to address this issue.

This is one of a series of three Technical Reports which document anintegrated agro-ecological economic modelling system that can beused to simultaneously assess the economic and the greenhouse gasemission impacts of agricultural policies at regional and nationallevels. The model provides a quantitative tool which can contributeto policy analysis related to Canada's Kyoto commitment to reducegreenhouse gas emissions.

The model and results presented in this report are based oninformation that was available at the time that the analysis wascompleted. However, the scientific study of greenhouse gasemissions is a dynamic process, and estimates of emissioncoefficients need refining as scientific research evolves.Consequently, the estimates of greenhouse gas emissions associatedwith Canadian agricultural production presented here arepreliminary, and do not represent the most recent estimates of theresearch community (see the "Health of Our Air" report soon to bereleased by the Research Branch of Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada for current estimates of greenhouse gas emissions). As partof future work, the model described here will evolve and beconsistent with the latest scientific findings.

These preliminary results are an indication of the types of analysesthat may be carried out using the methods applied to this project.The emphasis is on the development of a quantitative tool for

Foreword

xiv Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

assessing both the economic and the environmental impactsof mitigative strategies for reducing greenhouse gasemissions. Refining the coefficients used in the model andanalysing the impacts of mitigative actions will requireadditional work.

The initial development of the modelling system wascontracted to the Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law andthe Environment, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,with collaboration from Policy Branch, Research Branch andthe Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration of Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada.

Brian PaddockDirectorPolicy Analysis DivisionPolicy Branch

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 xv

Executive SummaryUnder the general umbrella of the Framework Convention onClimate Change, signed in Rio de Janiero in 1992, a need forunderstanding the relationship among various anthropogenicactivities and emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmospherewas identified by various countries. Such information is needed bothfor understanding the process of emissions as well as for devisingways and means of reducing such emissions in future.

The focus of this study is on agricultural production. It was necessaryto consider the regional make up of the industry and variousproduction-related activities associated with agricultural productionin developing policy choices. This study was conducted to develop aframework estimating greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadianagriculture sector. This framework involves estimation of thetrade-offs (if any) from mitigating global warming through reductionof emissions of greenhouse gases. Such trade-offs may be in the formof economic-environmental changes. Reduction in the emission ofgreenhouse gases may have an effect on the farmers' economicstatus. Thus, it was considered necessary to look into both of theseaspects of the policy decisions. However, since examination ofeconomic aspects of various policy is common, emphasis in thisstudy is on the environmental changes, limited to emissions ofgreenhouse gases from agriculture.

To accomplish the objectives of the study, an economic resourceallocation cum planning model of Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada, called the Canadian Regional Agriculture Model (CRAM)was linked to a greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) sub-model,developed specifically for this purpose. The resulting model is calledthe Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture(C.E.E.M.A.). The model is disaggregate in nature, both in terms offarm enterprises and regions. In addition, within the GHGEsub-model, two modules, one for crops and the other for livestock,were developed. In each of these modules, twelve agricultural

Executive Summary

xvi Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

activities were identified being related to the emissions ofgreenhouse gases.

Based on the analysis presented in this report, in 1994,Canadian agricultural production-related activitiescontributed some 62.5 Mt per annum of various greenhousegases. Three gases are significant in terms of emissions,carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The estimatedemissions were converted into "Carbon Dioxide Equivalent"using their respective global warming potential over a100-year horizon. In terms of relative contributions, methanehas the highest contribution, when converted into carbondioxide equivalent levels. This contribution is 47% of thetotal greenhouse gas emissions in 1994, and is followed bycarbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide.

In terms of regional distribution, Western Canadianagriculture contributes almost two-thirds to the totalemissions, while the remaining one-third emissions aregenerated by Eastern Canadian agriculture. In the west, bothAlberta and Saskatchewan are the major contributors,whereas in the east, most of the emissions are from Ontarioand Quebec. Within agriculture, crop production contributesslightly under half (48%) of the total emissions of the threegreenhouse gases. The model was also tested in two policysimulations: effect of increased no-till practice, and expansionin livestock production in Western Canada.

Contents of this report include details only on the emissionlevels. These estimates are based on the best availablescientific research as of the time of conducting research(Middle of 1997). Some of these numbers are therefore,preliminary, since the scientific community has lessconfidence in the nature of the relationship betweenproduction activities and the factors that determine emissionsof greenhouse gases. As our knowledge base improves, it ishoped that this methodology would be helpful in revising theestimates of emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculturalindustry.

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 xvii

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation received from thefollowing individuals:

• Dr. Robert J. MacGregor for his direction and valuable advice over the course of theproject;

• Ted O'Brian for his valuable suggestion at the start of the project on the studymethodology;

• Mark Ziegler for many valuable comments on earlier drafts of this report;

• Jane Reimer, Ahmad Gheidi, Dan Hawkins, Charles Ducasse, and Clarice Springford, fortheir help in collection of information, and other clerical activities;

• Professor Clair Lipscomb, of the English Department, University of Saskatchewan, forthe technical editing of an earlier draft of this report;

• Tulay Yildirim and Dr. Hartley Furtan for assistance related to contract activities;

• Members of the Draft Report Review Committee, Mark Ziegler, Saiyed Rizvi, PhilippeRochette, Ray Desjardins, and Ted O'Brian, for many constructive criticisms andsuggestions for improving the draft report;

• Bruce Junkins for reviewing the revised draft of the report and for making many valuablesuggestions;

• Debbie Stefaniuk, of the Department of Agricultural Economics, University ofSaskatchewan, for doing a meticulous job of formatting the final draft of the report; and,

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Economic Policy and Analysis Directorate, PolicyAnalysis Division, for the financial assistance, without which this study would not havebeen completed.

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

Ever since the coining of the phrase "sustainable development" by the World Commission onEnvironment and Development1, there has been a change in the manner economicdevelopment programs are designed and implemented. As a result, efforts of manygovernment and non-governmental organizations the world over have been guided,implicitly or explicitly, by concerns for the sustainability of economic activity, socialstructures, and ecosystems. One of the major concerns/threats to sustainability is the effect ofeconomic and other anthropogenic2 activities on the ecosystem, which, in turn, affects thelong term potential for many of the resource-based economic activities.

The effect of human activities on changing the atmospheric concentration and distribution ofgreenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols is regarded as one of the most significant changesaffecting economic activities. It has been predicted that these changes, if not checked, willhave an adverse effect on the food supplies in various parts of the world. TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) both in the first assessment (see Watsonet al. 1990, and Houghton, Jenkins and Ephraums, 1990), as well as in the most recent (1995)assessment concluded the following.

Agricultural production can be maintained, relative to baseline production in the face of climate changes likely to occur over the next century (i.e., in the range of 1.0o to 4.5o C), although wide variation would exist between regions (Reilly et al., 1996, p. 429).

Studies have identified both beneficial as well as adverse effects of climate changes. Thebeneficial effects are elevated concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would increase theyield for most crops (except maize, millet, and sorghum). The adverse effects are loss of soilorganic matter (SOM), leaching of soil nutrients, salinization and erosion, and increased

1. For more discussion on the concept of sustainable development, see WCED (1987).

2. According to the Webster dictionary, anthropogenic activities are those that are related to the impact of man on nature (ecosystem).

Chapter 1

2 Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

infestation of weeds, insects, and diseases. In addition, the probability of extreme events(such as droughts and floods) is also expected to increase, which would further createinstability in regional economies3.

Consequently the recent concerns of the world community are focused on the rapidly risingatmospheric concentration of various GHGs. The major ones that have been identified,particularly in the context of agricultural production, are: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane(CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O)4. The concentration of these three GHGs has been increasingrapidly, as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: An Overview of Greenhouse Gases Emissions Affected by Anthropogenic Activities

ppmv = parts per million by volume

Source: Houghton et al. (1996)

According to the IPCC, these changes can produce radiative forcing (i.e., global warming)either by changing the reflection or absorption of solar radiation, or by the emission andabsorption of terrestrial radiation. The United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (FCCC) referred to this phenomenon as “climate change” brought about by humanactivities. Although sources of GHGs are both natural and human-induced, according toStern, Young, and Druckman (1992), population growth, economic growth, andtechnological change5 are the major driving forces for the increasing human-environmentalinteractions.

3. This is not to suggest that agriculture is the only sector affected by climate changes. Other sectors such as forests, energy production, fisheries, and human health, are also affected, some more severely than others.

4. In the context of other economic activities, a number of trace gases are included in this category. These include: water vapor, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitric oxide (NO), halocarbons and other halogenated compounds, and ozone. Halocarbons are carbon compounds that contain fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine. According to Houghton et al. (1996, p. 19), human activities is the sole source of halocarbons.

ParticularsUnit of

measurementCO2 CH4 N2O

Pre-industrial Concentration ppmv ~280 ~0.700 ~0.275

Concentration in 1990 ppmv 353 1.72 0.31

Concentration in 1994 ppmv 358 1.72 0.312

Rate of Change (1984 to 1994) % per year 0.4 0.6 0.25

Global Warming Potential

Over 20 years time horizon

Over 100 years time horizon

CO2 = 1

1

1

11

21

280

310

Atmospheric life Years 50-200 12 120

5. These three forces interact with each other, as well as with existing political-economic institutions in a given country. Interactions among them are contingent on spatial location as well as on time period.

Introduction


GHGs, which have been identified since pre-industrial times, tend to warm the earth'ssurface and to produce other changes (Houghton et al., 1996, p.3). These changes in theclimate are a major global concern. Among these effects, four are particularly noteworthy:

• change in the spatial distribution of average temperature and precipitation;

• change in the inter-annual variability in temperature and precipitation, increasing the probability of occurrence of extreme events (droughts and floods);

• change in the seasonal variation in temperature and precipitation; and,

• rise in the sea level.

Reviewing past evidence and trends, the FCCC indicated a concern that such changes mayadversely affect natural ecosystems and human kind (Mintzer and Leonard 1994, p. 335).

1.2 Importance of Agricultural Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Although the main source of GHGs is the world's fossil fuel based energy system, a verysignificant source originates from biotic, mostly land-based, sources (Watson et al. 1992), ofwhich agriculture is an important contributor6.

1.2.1 Global Emissions

For the world as a whole, Reilly and Bucklin (1989, as quoted by Swaminathan 1991)estimated that agriculture sector contributed 25.6% of the total world GHG emissions. Asshown in Figure 1.17, a majority of these emissions are from ruminants, rice paddies, andbiomass burning (particularly the burning of fuel-wood). Land use conversion, from foreststo arable lands, is the next higher source of agriculture's contribution. This is particularly truein tropical countries, where deforestation is rampant on account of pressures on currentlyavailable arable land. In addition, tilling of land and ruminant livestock production are alsoresponsible for a part of these emissions.

Duxbury, Harper and Mosier (1993) reported a distribution of the contributions ofagriculture to total global GHG emissions. Nitrous oxide is highest (at 92%), followed bymethane (at 65%), and carbon dioxide is only a quarter of the total emissions as shown inTable 1.2.

6. However, the magnitude of this contribution varies from region to region. In the complex relationship of these gases to global warming, one should also consider the interaction of these gases. For example, carbon monoxide is important because of its influence on atmospheric concentration of methane.

7. One should note the confusion in the figure because of inclusion of biomass burning counted twice. It is the authors' interpretation that one of the biomass burning is associated with fuelwood burning, while the other with burning of crop biomass.

Chapter 1


Figure 1.1: Contributions of Agriculture to Global Warming in the 1990’s

Source: Swaminathan (1991, p. 275)

1.2.2 Canadian Emissions

For Canada, estimates of levels of GHG emissions from agricultural activities are in theprocess of development, although a number of significant strides have been made. As shownin Table 1.2, based on estimates from another study8, Liu (1995) reported agriculture'scontributions to total emissions of carbon dioxide in Canada at 4% of the total. For the othertwo GHGs, agriculture's contributions are relatively higher, estimated to be almost a quarterof the total. Relative contributions of agriculture in Canada to the total emissions aresomewhat lower than those on the global scale because: the carbon in Canada's agriculturalsoils has almost reached an equilibrium9; the area of agricultural land has stabilized; and, riceproduction, which is a high contributor to methane emissions, is not important in Canada(Liu 1995).

Desjardins (1997) produced a more detailed estimation of total emissions of the three GHGsfrom agricultural and related activities, as shown in Table 1.3. Agricultural activities inCanada contribute about 17 mega tonnes (Mt)10 of carbon dioxide annually. Emissions ofmethane and nitrous oxide in 1991 were estimated to be relatively smaller, at 973 and 62 ktper year, respectively. The latter includes 39 kilo tonnes (kt)11 of emissions directly byagriculture and another 23 kt through other sources of emissions of nitrous oxide. For bothmethane and nitrous oxide, although their absolute level of emissions is low, whenconverted to "CO2 Equivalence", agriculture emits 20.4 Mt as methane, and 12.2 Mt annuallyas nitrous oxide.12

8. Liu quotes a study by Jaques (1992) as the source of these estimates.

9. Agricultural soils will be a net carbon sink by 2008 which has positive implications with respect to Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.

10. Mt refers to one million tonne (metric ton) or 1012 grams.

11. A kt refers to one thousand tonnes or 109 grams.

12. These emission levels are estimated using a carbon dioxide equivalent factor of 21 for methane, and 310 for nitrous oxide

Agriculture’s Total Contribution 25.6%

Fertilizers, cultivated natural soils, biomass burning

Ruminants, rice paddies, biomass burning

Land use conversion (deforestation)

2.6%

10%

13%

Introduction


Table 1.2: Contribution of Agriculture to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by Type of Gas, Global and Canada

Source: Global: Duxbury, Harper and Mosier (1993), as reported by Liu (1995). Canada: Jaques (1992) as reported by Liu (1995).

Table 1.3: Estimates of Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Agricultural Activities, Canada, 1991

*kt = Kilo tonne, equal to 103 (thousand) tonnes

Source: Desjardins (1997).

1.3 Need for the Study

After two years of intensive negotiations and discussions, in June 1992, some 153 countriesaround the world, including Canada, signed the United Nations FCCC at Rio de Janeiro. Thepurpose of this Convention was to set up strategies to stabilize the concentration of all GHGsin various parts of the globe in order to reduce one of the major threats to sustainabledevelopment.

The Convention required all parties to develop national inventories of anthropogenicemissions of GHGs (Khanna and Prakash 1993, p. 252). In addition, signatories from thedeveloped countries also committed to “adopt national policies and take correspondingmeasures on the mitigation of climate change by limiting anthropogenic emissions ofgreenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs”

Particulars Unit CO2 CH4 N2O

GLOBAL

Total Anthropogenic Emissions Mt yr -1 24,933 340 3.77

Emissions from the Agricultural Sector Mt yr -1 6,483 221 3.47

Agriculture's Share % of total 26 65 92

CANADA

Total Anthropogenic Emissions Mt yr -1 467 3.7 0.11

Emissions from the Agricultural Sector Mt yr -1 20.8 1 0.03

Agriculture's Share % of total 4 26 29

SourceCO2

kt yr -1CH4

kt yr -1*N2O

kt yr -1

Direct Soil Emissions 6,300 12 32.34

Stationary and Transport Combustion 10,700 - -

Animal Production - 961 7.1

Indirect Emissions - - 16.79

Other Sources - - 5.69

TOTAL 17,000 973 61.92

Chapter 1


(Mintzer and Leonard 1994, pp. 342-343). Furthermore, these measures included, amongothers, formulation, implementation, publication, and (updating) national strategies forabatement of and adaptation to climate change.

Under the FCCC, each of the signatories was expected to identify and review periodically itsown policies and practices which contribute to GHGs. However, this requires two types ofinformation. One is more precise estimates of total GHGs in various countries (includingCanada) for the base period; and, the other is knowledge of change in the emission levelsthrough the adoption of a selected set of policies.

Integration of environmental considerations in the decision-making process for agriculturalproduction activities is warranted on another ground. In order to select appropriatefarm/agricultural policies, policy makers require information, not only on the assessment ofeconomic effects of the selected program(s), but also on their environmental effects. This isconsistent with the consideration of sustainability. As Faeth (1995) indicated “Credibleinformation of the ... impacts of movements toward sustainability is sorely needed.” Policiesneed priorities not only on the basis of their short-term economic returns, but also in terms ofthe long-term damage to the environment, and through that, on the long-run returns fromagricultural production. In fact, one could visualize a trade-off between the economic andenvironmental objectives, where decrease in the environmental damage may be associatedwith some economic sacrifices.

In order to provide a balanced perspective, policy analysis, in the context of mitigating thegreenhouse effect, must consider the costs and benefits of such measures. For farmers,adoption of some mitigative measures may result in loss of economic benefits. This suggestsa need for an integrated modelling of agricultural activities, where both economic andenvironmental (for example, in this study, GHG emissions) indicators are estimatedsimultaneously. In addition, economic policies, if implemented, would also change thenature and levels of economic activities. This again suggests the need for an integrated modelfor Canadian agriculture, where the economic activities are integrated with environmentalchanges such as GHG emissions.

At the present time, an economic planning model for Canadian agriculture, called CRAM —does exist13. This model can be used to evaluate alternative economic policies using economiccriteria. However, in preparation for developing mitigating policies for GHG emissions,there is a need for integrating the CRAM with a model that can estimate the emissionsinduced by various agricultural activities.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The major objective of this study is to develop a methodology to estimate the emission levelsof the three major greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide — CO2, methane — CH4, and nitrousoxide — N2O) that various agricultural activities produce. This is accomplished byconstructing the C.E.E.M.A. This model has two sub-models, one economic planning sub-model, and the other, GHG emissions sub-model. The methodology for the GHG sub-modelis formalized as an accounting block, which is then linked to CRAM. Using this model,impacts of changing agricultural policies can be estimated, in terms of both economicobjective(s) and emission levels for major GHGs.

13. For more details on CRAM, see Horner et al. (1992).

Introduction


A secondary objective of this study is to apply the integrated model for evaluation of twopolicies: Increased livestock production on the Prairie provinces, and adoption ofconservation tillage systems on farms in Western Canada. These scenarios were chosen inlight of their current interests and in terms of the ease of their implementation.

1.5 Scope of the Study

In this study, as mentioned above, three major GHGs are studied: carbon dioxide, methane,and nitrous oxide. Although other gases may be relevant, the available evidence does notsuggest that they play an important role in the process of climate change, and for that reason,are not included in this study. The sub-model for the estimation of the GHGs takes intoaccount the direct linkages between agricultural activities and emission levels of GHGs.Even here, the scope of estimation was limited to only crop production and livestockproduction activities. Within livestock production, the scope of estimation was furtherlimited to major livestock only, beef and dairy cattle, hogs, and poultry. Any activity notdirectly related to the production of crops or livestock was not included in this study14.Unlike the IPCC evaluation of GHG emission levels, no natural-source emission levels areestimated in this study.

In addition to model limitations of scope of the study, another source of uncertainty in theresults of the model is the preliminary nature of the information. The scientific communityhas low to moderate degree of confidence in the estimation of some of the GHG emissions.Since this study adopted their state-of-the-art, the results contained in this study should beconstrued as preliminary. As better estimates of emission of GHGs become available, theseresults could be upgraded.

1.6 Organization of the Report

The rest of the report is divided into six chapters. In Chapter 2, a conceptual basis fordeveloping a sub-model for emission of GHGs is outlined. Included here are the conceptuallinkages between agricultural production activities and nature of emissions of GHGs. Anoverview of the GHGE sub-model, and the considerations involved in its development, areprovided in Chapter 3. A description of the methodology that was adopted in the estimationof the various emission coefficients for crop and livestock production activities follows inChapter 4. Results of the base line scenario, agricultural production in 1994 as estimated inCRAM sub-model, and the induced emissions, are shown in Chapter 5. Results for the twoalternative scenarios are presented in Chapter 6. A summary of the report and areas forfurther research are discussed in Chapter 7.

14. Several other activities were identified as being relevant in the context of agriculturally- induced emissions of greenhouse gases. More details on the activities not included in the estimation are provided in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.


Chapter 2: Linkages Between Agricultural Production Activities and Emission of Greenhouse Gases

The major objective of this chapter is to describe the role played by various agriculturalproduction activities in determining the level of emission of three major GHGs. In addition,agriculturally-induced (physical or management) factors that affect these emission levels arealso reviewed. This helps the development of the analytical framework for estimating theemission of GHGs from Canadian agricultural activities.

2.1 Sources of Major Greenhouse Gases Emissions at the Global Scale

The three GHGs selected for this study, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, havedifferent cycles and levels of fluxes. Each of these is described below.

2.1.1 Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is continuously exchanged among atmosphere, oceans, and all livingorganisms (biota). Land and the associated biota are net sinks for carbon, which can bereleased through various anthropogenic activities, including agricultural activities. Majorsources of emission of CO2 over the globe are shown in Table 2.1, with the estimated level offlux and the role played by agriculture.

Chapter 2


*A Gt (giga tonne) is equivalent to one bullion (109) tonnes.

Source: Schimel et al. (1995), p. 5.

According to these estimates, burning of fossil fuels and cement production are the majorsource of CO2 emissions. Agricultural production activities contribute to these emissionsthrough combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Change in land use from naturalvegetation (woodlands and forests) to arable lands for agricultural production also releasedstored carbon (C) to the atmosphere, but since much of this activity in Canada took placeduring the early part of the 20th century15, it is outside the scope of current levels of directemissions from agricultural production.

Atmospheric CO2 provides a link among the processes of plants, animals, and human beings.The carbon cycle involves photosynthesis which fixes atmospheric CO2 in plants, the increaseof organic carbon in the soil by plant residues and the spreading of manure, and the increasein atmospheric CO2 by respiration. Photosynthesis is very important for the reduction of CO2

emissions from agriculture. Through increasing the annual amounts of the photosyntheticprocess, more atmospheric CO2 is fixed in plant tissue and potentially in the soil organicmatter.

The amount of soil microbial respiration, which reflects the amount of soil organic carbonbeing converted to atmospheric CO2, is also an important element of carbon cycling.Measuring the soil microbial respiration provides information on the factors governing thecarbon flux between the soil and the atmosphere. The balance between soil microbialrespiration and photosynthesis determines whether the ecosystem is a net source or sink ofatmospheric CO2 (Ellert, Janzen and McGinn 1994). This balance is affected by severalfactors, especially the nature of crops grown and their subsequent use (exports versuslivestock feed). If a crop material is used further as a livestock feed, this balance will befurther modified by contribution of livestock production to the emission of the GHGs.

The balance between soil microbial respiration and photosynthesis is crucial whenattempting to control the increasing global emissions (Daynard and Strankman 1994). Inaddition, Anderson (1995) suggested that other factors being equal, organic carbon generallyincreases with clay content of the soil, although the role played by clay may be reduced incolder temperatures.

Table 2.1: Major Sources of Global Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Annual Flux, Average 1980 to 1999

Source of EmissionsAverage Annual Flux*

in Gt of C yr -1

Role of AgriculturalProduction Activities

Fossil fuel consumption and cement production

5.0 - 6.0Major, through use of fossilfuels directly or indirectly

Changes in tropical land use 0.6 - 2.6Minor in terms of direct agricultural production

Total 6.0 - 8.2 --

15. Such deforestation is still taking place in tropical countries of Central and South America.

Linkages Between Agricultural Production Activities and Emission of Greenhouse Gases


2.1.2 Methane

After water vapor and carbon dioxide, methane is the most abundant greenhouse gas in thetroposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere (Prather et al. 1995, p. 85). In addition,methane is eleven times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, and its concentrationin the atmosphere is increasing faster (about 1-2% per annum) than any of the other GHGs.Since the industrial revolution, methane has increased by 115%, which is much higher thanthe increases of 26% and 7% seen in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, respectively (Steedand Hashimoto 1994). The concern over methane is its infrared radiation absorption capacity,which is 58 times16 larger than that of CO2 on a mass basis, and methane generates carbondioxide, ozone (O3) and water vapor in the troposphere and stratosphere above thetroposphere (Lauren, Pettygrove and Duxbury 1994).

The annual levels of methane (CH4) emission are smaller than those for CO2. Global estimatesrange from 410 to 660 tera17 grams (Tg) of CH4 (Table 2.2). Methane emissions are producedfrom both natural and human-related (anthropogenic) sources. The natural sources includeintestinal fermentations in ruminants (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and deer) and certaininsects, animal excretions/wastes, and the decomposition of organic matter under anaerobicconditions from water-logged (saturated) soils. Combustion of coal, natural gas leakage frompipelines, burning of plant matter in the tropics, and municipal landfills are some of theanthropogenic sources of methane (Lessard et al. 1994), which account for 65% of globalmethane emissions.

Source: Prather et al. (1995), p. 86.

16. One should note differences, among studies, related to radiation absorption capacity of methane.

17. A tera gram refers to a billion grams or 1012 grams, equivalent to one million tonnes.

Table 2.2: Major Sources of Global Emissions of Methane, Annual Levels

Source of EmissionsAverage Annual Flux

in Tg of CH4 yr -1Role of Agricultural

Production Activities

Natural Sources of Emissions 110 - 220 None

Production of Fossil Fuels 70 - 120 None

Enteric Fermentation 65 - 100 Major

Rice Paddies 20 - 100 None in Canadian context

Biomass Burning 20 - 80 Minor

Landfills 20 - 70 None

Animal Excretions / wastes 20 - 30 Major

Domestic Sewage 15 - 80 None

Total 410 - 660 --

Chapter 2


Anaerobic fermentation is the primary source of methane from contemporary biologicalsources, both agricultural and natural18. Methane is generated through anaerobicfermentation by microorganisms in lower intestines of animals and in various habitats suchas large heaps of organic matter which could be buried and peat bogs. Basically, methanegeneration occurs wherever microorganisms carry out decomposition with the absence offree oxygen, as well as sulphates, nitrates, and ferric iron (Topp and Patty 1997). In this sense,it is an anaerobic equivalent to carbon dioxide in the carbon cycle. Among the agriculturalsources of methane, burning of biomass, and raising of cattle and other ruminants are themost significant sources19. All animals discharge a part of their feed energy in the form ofmethane as a consequence of fermentation of carbohydrates during the process of digestion.

On the other side of the methane cycle, major sinks include the chemical reaction withhydroxyl radical in the troposphere, and possibly soil methanotrophic bacteria (Lessard et al.1994).

2.1.3 Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is an even more powerful GHG than methane or carbon dioxide, being270 to 31020 times as effective per molecule as CO2. However, its emissions into theatmosphere are much smaller than those of the other two GHGs. Nitrous oxide is aradiatively active trace gas produced from various biological sources in both soil and water.In the 1980s, N2O contributed approximately 6% to the changes of radiative forcing (i.e.,global warming), as compared to 50% for CO2 and 18% for CH4. It is increasing at a rate of 0.2to 0.3% per year (Curtin et al. 1994; Li, Narayanan and Harriss, Undated). Though N2O ischemically inert in the troposphere, it absorbs radiation in the infrared band, thus accountingfor 5-10% of the total greenhouse effect. Only a small amount of the N2O released into theatmosphere from the earth is returned to the surface. Photochemical decomposition of N2Oto O2 and N2 in the stratosphere is the major atmospheric loss process (Curtin et al. 1994).Most of the N2O in the atmosphere comes from terrestrial soils and is mainly formed by twoprocesses: de-nitrification and nitrification.

Total emissions of N2O are estimated to be between 10-17 tera grams (Tg) of nitrogen (N) peryear (Table 2.3), from natural and anthropogenic sources. Among the natural sources, oceansand soils in tropical forests are the top contributors (Watson et al. 1990; and Bolin et al. 1986).All of the large anthropogenic sources of N2O, fertilizer use, biomass burning, and grazing ofcattle on pastures and in feedlots are the largest contributors21, are associated withagricultural activities.

18. Natural sources include all kinds of wetlands, especially peat bogs in northern latitudes. Another source of methane, particularly under global warming, is methane hydrate, which is trapped in sediments under permafrost and on continental margins.

19. In addition, rice cultivation in paddies is also a major contributor of methane; however, it is not very significant in the context of Canadian agriculture.

20. As noted in Table 1.1, the effectiveness of nitrous oxide depends on the length of time considered. For a 20-year time horizon, this level is estimated at 280, while the latter (310) is for a 100-year time horizon.

21. There is some doubt about which one of these sources contributes more. The fossil fuels can contribute between 0.1 to 0.3 Tg N per year, whereas the fertilizers could contribute between 0.01 to 2.2 Tg N per annum. However, Wuebbles and Edmonds (1988) estimated fossil fuel combustion at 4 Tg N and fertilizer use at 0.8 Tg N per annum.



Source: Prather et al. (1995), p. 90.

2.2 Effects of Environmental and Management Factors

Agricultural activities in a temperate climate, such as in Canada's, produce GHGs throughvarious processes. Seven broad categories of linkages between agricultural processes andGHG emissions can be hypothesized. These include:

1. Deforestation and clearing of lands for agricultural activities;

2. Tilling of land for crop production purposes, and other related operations;

3. Raising of livestock on farms;

4. Marketing and transportation of agricultural products;

5. Procurement of inputs needed for agricultural production, crop or livestock;

6. Other farm operations, not accounted for above; and,

7. Second-round effect on emissions through production and distribution of agricultural inputs.

The interrelationship among these activities and GHG emissions is shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.3: Major Sources of Global Emissions of Nitrous Oxide, Annual Levels

Source of EmissionsAverage Annual Flux

in Tg of N yr -1

Role of Agricultural Production Activities

Natural Sources of Emissions 6 -12 None

Cultivated Soils 1.8 - 5.3 Major

Biomass Burning 0.2 - 1.0 Large

Industrial Sources 0.7 - 1.8 None

Cattle and Feedlots 0.2 - 0.5 Major

Total 10.0 - 17.0 --

Chapter 2


Note: Shaded area are designated as those beyond the scope of the present study.

Change in land use has been accepted as a major source of CO2 flux from agriculture. Angers(1997) reported a decrease of 15 to 30% in soil carbon in forest soils when converted foragricultural uses. However, in Canada, much of the deforestation (if any) and clearing oflands for agricultural activities took place around the early 1900s. Although a relativelysmaller level of conversion of non-agricultural lands into cropped lands still takes place, theamount each year is marginally small, and thus, its inclusion was not considered significant.Furthermore, since the purpose of this study is to estimate current levels of emissions, theseemissions were excluded.

Tillage of land for crop production and related operations, as well as raising livestock cancontribute significantly to the GHG emission levels. More details on these activities areprovided in the next two sections (Sections 2.3 and 2.4).

In addition to crop production, other agricultural activities not directly related to either cropor livestock production may also generate GHG emissions. These activities include:transportation of crops and livestock from farm to the assembly points (such as grainelevators for crops, and to stockyards and local abattoirs for livestock); purchase of farminputs by farmers, particularly fertilizers, and chemicals; maintenance and repairs of farmmachinery, and other crop or livestock related uses of energy inputs. However, theseemissions are not estimated in this study.

Other farm operations, such as use of energy inputs for farm yards, contribute to theemissions of GHGs. In addition, many farms have incorporated tree shelterbelts as a measureagainst wind erosion. Although these trees act as a sink for CO2 (Kort and Turnock 1997),they are also not included in this study.

Table 2.4: Linkages between Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Activities Related to Agriculture

Description Effect of CO2 Effect on CH4 Effect on N2O

1 Change in Land Use Significant and Positive Negative Minor

2 Crop Production Negative (sink) through photosynthesis and soil but

Positive from farm operations, depending on the

tillage regime and farming system used

Uncertain Minor

3 Animal Production Uncertain Positive and Significant

Minor

4 Marketing of Output Positive -- Minor

5 Procurement of Inputs Positive -- Minor

6 Other Farm Operations Positive from use of farm inputs, but Negative from

shelterbelts

-- Minor

7 Second Round Emissions Significant and positive Positive Minor



In addition to direct emissions through various agricultural practices, many of theagricultural inputs have embodied energy, and their production and marketing require theuse of raw materials which themselves generate greenhouse gas emissions. For example,energy used in the production, storing and transportation of fertilizers has been reported at60,700 kJ22 per kg of nitrogen, 12,500 kJ per kg of phosphate, and 6,700 kJ per kg of potash (asreported by Manaloor and Yildirim 1996, p. 11). The major sources of these energy inputs areelectricity, liquid fossil fuels, and natural gas. Furthermore, depending upon the region,electrical power generation requires the use of coal and natural gas23. Use of these types offuels yields emissions of GHGs, notably CO2. These emissions are called Second-roundemissions24. Since these emissions are more difficult to estimate25, they are also excludedfrom this study.

2.3 Factors Affecting Emission Levels from Agricultural Activities

Within the agriculturally-induced emissions of GHGs, crop and livestock production are themost significant players. GHG emissions from these production activities are affected by aset of factors, some of which are anthropogenic in nature. The management practices offarmers are included in this category. An understanding of these factors is crucial forestimating the emission coefficient (EC) for various types of agricultural activities.

Since the knowledge of fluxes and biochemical processes causing emissions is essential toreduce related uncertainties, and to devise means to reduce such emission levels, Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) undertook a major research initiative entitled "GreenhouseGas Research in Agriculture"26. The following discussion is primarily, although notexclusively, based on the results of this research initiative. In selecting other relevant studies,emphasis was first placed on those undertaken for Canada. The next preference was given tostudies for the temperate zone of North America. These were supplemented, wherevernecessary, by other studies as a source of information for estimation of ECs used in thisstudy.

2.3.1 Factors Affecting Emissions from Crop Production

Various management and environmental factors can be identified for the emissions of GHGsfrom crop production in Canada. These are described here in the context of each of the threemajor GHGs. This summary is based on a review of various studies.

22. A "kJ" stands for kilo joule, which represents 103 joules, where the "joule" is a measure of energy required.

23. In addition to coal and natural gas, electrical power is generated using water and nuclear fusion. These sources of power do not contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases.

24. These emissions are more distant in nature. Agricultural operations require the use of various inputs, which on account of their specific production function, require inputs which themselves create emissions of greenhouse gases. These emissions are therefore, called Second-round emissions.

25. An example of the complexity in these estimations can be seen by the need for an input-output model for each major type of energy input that is required to produce output of various agricultural inputs. Development of such models, although has been attempted, requires resources that were not available for this study.

26. The research was carried out at three levels: process, ecosystem, and integration. Several research projects were initiated. A summary of selected projects can be found in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1997).

Chapter 2


2.3.1.1 Carbon Dioxide

A number of factors may affect the exchange of atmospheric CO2 from crop productionactivities. Although a list of plausible factors is presented in Table 2.5, major factors affectingit would include those which lead to gains or losses of carbon stored in SOM. Those practicesadding to the SOM pool include: crop biomass production, rotations followed (particularlythose that exclude summerfallowing) and crop residues left in the field. Those practicesresponsible for depletion of SOM include: frequent soil disturbance by tillage, inclusion ofsummerfallow in soil rotation, and removal and/or burning of crop residues.

The role played by tillage has been a subject of intensive research in Canada and in the U. S.Results vary from situation to situation, and also on the length of time — short-run or long-run. For short-run changes, a study by Rochette and Desjardins (1997) suggested that SOMlevels in Eastern Canada are not different in no-till soils than in soils tilled with amouldboard plough. Similar conclusions are reached by Campbell et al. (1997b), Carter,Gregorich and Bolinder (1997), and by Rochette, Fortin and Desjardins (1997) for no-till andconventional tillage operations. In addition, for Western Canada, Campbell et al. (1997b)reported that the carbon sequestration in soils is found to be much more dependent oncropping frequency than on method of tillage. Carbon sequestration will occur in systemswhere crop residue additions exceed soil carbon losses and the soil is sufficiently protectedby residue cover to prevent losses by wind and water erosion. Examples are systems withzero or minimum tillage, continuous cropping (those in which summerfallow has beeneliminated), and adequate replacement of nutrients removed from the soil by the crop. Manyresearchers have measured increases in the organic matter content of surface soil after 20 to30 years of low-disturbance, continuous cropping systems that replaced conventional tillageand summerfallow-based crop production (Boehm and Anderson 1997; Beare, Hendrix andColeman 1994; Campbell and Zentner 1993; Janzen 1987).

Besides tillage, other factors also affect SOM. The rate of soil microbial respiration is one(McGinn and Akinremi 1997), and is dependent on soil temperature (Rochette andDesjardins 1997), and soil moisture. Straw removal reduces CO2 flux, whereas retention of

Table 2.5: Factors Affecting Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Crop Production Practices

Management Practices Environmental Factors

Tillage practices Temperature

Rotation followed Precipitation

Application of manure Soil moisture content

Use of chemicals and type of herbicide Organic carbon content

Timing of application of chemicals Oxygen availability

Use of other chemicals Porosity

Crop type pH

Irrigation Micro-organisms

Residual organic matter from cropsand other sources



straw increases it (Campbell et al. 1997a; Curtin et al. 1997). The type of straw added to thefield (fresh straw collected shortly after harvest, and standing stubble straw that hadweathered in the field for a year) did not have any significantly different effects on CO2

emissions.

Evidence on the relationship between manure and CO2 flux is relatively poor. Addition ofmanure is reported to increase soil carbon (Angers 1997; Rochette et al. 1997a), and throughthat process, affects the level of CO2 flux.

2.3.1.2 Methane

Methane emissions related to agricultural operations are from two major sources: ruminantanimals on farms, and livestock excretions and their subsequent use for crop production. Ofthese, only the second one is relevant to crop production. Factors that may affect thismethane emission are listed in Table 2.6.

2.3.1.3 Nitrous Oxide

Major sources of N2O emissions are from the use of fertilizer and manure to supplement cropnutrient requirements. Factors affecting such emissions are listed in Table 2.7.

The important factors that affect emissions of N2O from the soil are temperature, pH, and O2

availability. Research into the effect of weather and precipitation suggests that freeze andthaw cycles have a significant effect on the distribution of emissions within a year (Prevostand van Bochove 1997; Jones and van Bochove 1997; Brown et al. 1997). A study by Pattey etal. (1997b) reported that 61% of N2O emissions from the application of urea occurs during theperiod of snow melt, when soils are saturated and the level of oxygen in the soils is limited.Van Bochove et al. (1997) reported that freeze/thaw cycles increase de-nitrification.

Table 2.6: Factors Affecting Methane Emissions from Crop Production Practices


Tillage practices Temperature

Rotation followed Precipitation

Application of manure Soil moisture content

Types of crops receiving manure Organic carbon content

Timing of application of manure Oxygen availability

Irrigation Porosity

Residual organic matter from crops and other sources

pH

Micro-organisms

Chapter 2


Source: Eichner (1990); Gleig and MacDonald (1995).

Farming practices also affect N2O emissions from the soils (Rochette et al. 1997b). Amongthese, application of manure is perhaps the most important. The type of manure and rate ofapplication, according to Pattey et al. (1997b), contribute to emission levels. Fertilization isalso an important contributor to N2O emissions. The impact of type of fertilizers is alsoreported to vary significantly from one type to another (Ouyang, Fan, and McKenzie 1997;and Webb, Wagner-Riddle and Thurtell 1997). Wagner-Riddle (1997) also reported the effectof the incorporation of alfalfa in crop rotations on N2O emissions. Tillage affects theseemission levels, in that reducing tillage reduces emissions (Lapierre and Simard 1997), andthat 80% of the emissions occurred following fertilization and tillage operations.

2.3.2 Factors Affecting Emissions from Livestock Production

Based on a review of the literature, livestock production affects emissions of GHGs bothdirectly and indirectly. The indirect emissions, i.e., those through crop production, arealready included in the discussion above. In this section only the direct emissions fromlivestock production are included.

2.3.2.1 Carbon Dioxide

The direct linkage between livestock production and CO2 emissions is through therespiration process of farm animals. In addition, animal excretions/wastes (and manureapplied to crop production) contribute to the level of CO2 emissions.

Table 2.7: Factors Affecting Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Crop Production Practices


Fertilizer type Temperature

Application rate Precipitation

Application technique Soil moisture content

Timing of application Soil Texture

Tillage practices Soil nitrogen content

Use of other chemicals Organic carbon content

Crop type Oxygen availability

Irrigation Porosity

Residual nitrogen and carbonfrom crops and fertilizer

pH

Freeze and thaw cycle

Annual variation

Micro-organisms



2.3.2.2 Methane

Based on the review of the literature, several factors can be identified that affect the emissionof methane from livestock operations. A list of factors, further classified into managementfactors and environmental factors, is shown in Table 2.8.

According to Burke and Lashof (1989), methane emissions levels are primarily affected bythe quantity and type of feed material, body weight, energy expenditure, and entericecology. In addition to the type of animals, emissions of methane are affected by weather,leading to different seasonal patterns (Mathison et al 1997). Using Rusitecs (artificial rumensystems), Dong et al. (1997) showed that use of chemicals reduces CH4 emissions.

Another major source of methane emissions is animal excretions/wastes. Associated withthese are the manure handling systems, which are a major factor affecting emission levels, assuggested by McCaughey, Wittenberg, and Corrigan (1997), and Pattey et al. (1997a).Management practices, such as the use of chemicals, are reported to decrease methaneemissions.

2.3.2.3 Nitrous Oxide

Based on available information, no direct linkage between livestock production andemissions of nitrous oxide exists. Such emissions from the application of manure to croplands are accounted for above under Section 2.3.1.3. However, a certain amount of indirectlinkages could exist, since some livestock operations require various forms of energy inputs.

2.4 Summary

In this chapter a discussion of factors affecting emission levels of major GHGs was presented.Since the nature of factors related to crop production and livestock production aresubstantially different from each other, the estimation of agriculturally- induced emissions ofGHGs should be carried out separately. Furthermore, within each of these productionactivities, the nature of factors affecting emission levels for each gas is such that an aggregateapproach is not going to provide realistic estimates of total emission levels. These, togetherwith other methodological considerations, were used in the design of the estimationprocedures, discussed in the next chapter.

Table 2.8: Factors Affecting Methane Emissions from Animal Production Practices


Type of animal Temperature

Size and weight of the animal Precipitation

Type of feed and other dietary inputs Genetic characteristics of animals

Type of building and shelter used

Manure handling systems and use of chemicals

Building heating equipment used

Building cooling equipment used


Chapter 3: Analytical Framework

In this chapter, the methodology used for estimating the total emissions of GHGs resulting from agricultural activities is described. As mentioned above, this involved developing a model called C.E.E.M.A. This model has two sub-models: One, an economic planning and resource allocation sub-model, called CRAM; and two, a GHGs emission estimation sub-model, called GHGE sub-model, which together with CRAM, was used to estimate the total agriculturally-induced emissions. Since CRAM is capable of estimating impacts of changes in economic policies, appending the GHGE sub-model provides a methodology to assess both the economic effects and the environmental effects, measured in this study solely in terms of emissions of major GHGs.

This chapter is divided into four sections. Section 3.1 includes a review of pertinent studies, reporting either methodology or results for agriculturally-induced emissions of GHGs. Since CRAM has been described in Horner et al. (1992), further discussion were considered not warranted. Therefore, in Section 3.2, considerations involved in the development of the GHGE sub-model are presented. A conceptual method of estimation is reported in Section 3.3, which is followed by a specification of the GHGE sub-model in Section 3.4.

3.1 Review of Previous Studies

The study of GHGs emissions from agricultural activities has been brought into focus since the climate change studies carried out for the IPCC. A summary of these results is presented in Watson et al. (1990). The Watson et al. study evaluated the quality of information on the process, as well as on the major sources and sinks. The review indicated that the mechanisms underlying the release of methane and nitrous oxide are, relatively speaking, poorly understood. Furthermore, even less well understood is the extent to which effective mitigative measures could be designed by changes in the farming practices. In spite of these challenges, a significant number of strides have been made in understanding these processes.

Since much of the IPCC work is global in nature, and includes only major sources and sinks of GHGs in a global perspective, the usefulness of such estimates for a specific country or region is somewhat limited. Several studies have addressed the GHG emissions at a less aggregate level, at a country or regional level. Kreileman and Bouwman (1994) developed a GHG emission model, as a part of an integrated model IMAGE 2.0, Integrated Model to

Chapter 3


Assess Greenhouse Gases Emissions. Emission levels were linked to changes in land use or land cover. The model generated estimates for various continents as well as global maps. A country-level evaluation was not presented as a part of this integrated model, although since the signing of the FCCC, interest in such an exercise has increased27.

In the U.S., estimation of GHGs has been carried out both as a part of policy evaluation, as well as for understanding the emissions, and development of mitigative measures. Faeth (1995) included GHG emissions as one of 10 environment indicators for evaluation of various policy scenarios. However, Faeth’s methodology for the estimation of GHG emissions was not described in detail. A descriptive evaluation of agriculturally-induced emissions is provided by Greene and Salt (1993), whereas a systematic evaluation of various emissions sources in the U. S. has been provided by Jackson (1992).

In Canada, an estimation of agriculturally-induced emissions of GHGs was carried out under the Canada’s Green Plan. A five-year initiative of “Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture” was undertaken to “find ways to quantify the sources and sinks of GHG and to develop practical means to minimize the Canadian agricultural sector’s contribution to the problem and maximize its contribution to the solution”.28 Under this initiative, various studies estimated sources and sinks of the three GHGs. A balance for the three gases has been developed by Jaques (1992), and by Liu (1995), and more recently by Desjardins (1997). In addition, the contribution of agriculture to emissions of CO2 was estimated by Curtin et al. (1997). Similarly, CH4 emissions were estimated by Mathur (Undated), McAllister (1997), and by Desjardins (1997), and for N2O, by Gleig and MacDonald (1995). These studies served as a basis for identifying various sources and estimating some of the emission coefficients which were used in the GHGE sub-model of the C.E.E.M.A..

3.2 Considerations Involved in the Development of the GHGE Sub-Model

3.2.1 Scope of Agriculture Production Activities

The following activities, as part of agricultural production, contribute to the release of GHGs:

• use of farm cash inputs in the production of crop and livestock products;

• direct emissions of livestock on farms; and,

• management activities for crops and livestock production leading to direct emissions of GHGs.

This means that the following types of GHG emissions are excluded from this study:

• transportation of farm products from farm gate to an assembly point;

• procurement of farm inputs, if undertaken by producers;

27. For example, India initiated an assessment of greenhouse gases emissions, including the role played by agriculture, as reported by Mehra and Damodaran (1993).

28. For details on various studies under the Green Plan, see Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1997), p. 13.

Analytical Framework


• any other farm related activity not included above; and,

• family or personal related uses of sources of emissions.

In addition, emissions (positive or negative) from non-cultivated lands (wetlands, shelterbelts, among others) were also excluded. Furthermore, the emissions of GHGs during the manufacturing and storage of the farm inputs (such as fertilizer, chemicals, farm machinery and equipment) are also excluded. Forward linkages of agriculture with agri-processing industries are also not included in this study.

3.2.2 Considerations in the Design of the Model

The designing of the C.E.E.M.A. was guided by the need for integrating the GHGE sub-model with the CRAM, which has its own set of specifications of agricultural activities. In order to make the two sub-models compatible, the following considerations guided the development of the GHGE sub-model:

• Since each of the three GHGs is affected by a specific set of factors and agricultural practices, estimation of total emissions needs to be carried out on an individual greenhouse gas level.

• CRAM is a disaggregate model over various provinces and, for some provinces, even over sub-regions. The GHGE sub-model should, therefore, be disaggregated over provinces, and over sub-regions, where applicable.

• Since the magnitude of crop or livestock production activities varies from region to region, and since these are major variables determining greenhouse gas emission levels, separate modules need to be specified for crop production and livestock production.

• Since the type of crop or livestock is a major determinant of emission levels, disaggregation of total production activities by type of crop or livestock is necessary.

• Within a crop or livestock production activity, one can hypothesize a number of activities that may give rise to emissions of one gas or another. Thus, it is necessary to identify various sources (as well as sinks) of GHGE, and to base estimates of emission levels on such a disaggregated approach.

These considerations suggest that the GHGE sub-model, by necessity, has to be disaggregated in nature. Two separate modules need to be estimated: One, for crop production and the other for livestock production. Each module needs to be specified over production regions, for each of the three GHGs, and by major agricultural activities that lead to the emissions of one or more of these gases.

3.3 Conceptual Method of Estimation

An essential part of the design of the GHGE sub-model was the identification of the various agricultural activities which lead to emission of the three GHGs, and methodology for estimating the ECs. This is presented here. However, since the designing of the GHGE sub-

Chapter 3


model required specification of regions and type of production activities (crop and livestock), and compatibility with CRAM, these specifications were made identical to those in CRAM. These are described in detail in the next section (section 3.4) of this chapter.

3.3.1 Conceptual Linkages between Agricultural Production Activities and Emissions

Development of linkages between emissions of GHGs and agricultural activities was carried out in two steps. For each of the three gases, various production-specific farm activities were identified, and then the linkages between the identified activities and enterprises were hypothesized. Step one resulted in three charts, shown in Figures 3.1 to 3.3.

Figure 3.1: Major Sources of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Agricultural Production Actitivities

For carbon dioxide, as shown in Figure 3.1, eight major linkages can be identified between its emissions and activities related to agricultural production. These include photo-synthesis as a sink, while the other seven are sources. Among various sources, tillage operations affecting release of soil carbon, and use of various agricultural inputs, are significant.

For methane emissions, only three sources can be identified, as shown in Figure 3.2,. These are all related to livestock production, although there is a link between livestock and crop enterprises through the use of manure.

Nitrous oxide emissions are more complex because these are derived from many sources, and because of the interdependence of crop and livestock production activities. Eight such sources are identified in Figure 3.3. Two of these are directly related to livestock production, and the other six to crop production activities. Among these, use of fertilizers and tilling of land are the most significant ones.

TILLING LAND

MANURE

LIVESTOCKMANAGEMENT

PLANT PHOTOSYNTHESIS

ATMOSPHERE

CROPLAND and PASTURELAND(SOILS)

BIOMASS BURNING

LOSS OF SOIL ORGANIC

MATTER

FOSSIL FUELS

CHEMICALS

LIVESTOCKEXCRETIONS /

WASTES



Figure 3.2: Major Sources of Methane Emissions from Agricultural Production Activities

Figure 3.3: Major Sources of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Production Activities

3.3.2 Specification of Linkages

The relationship between emissions of GHGs and agricultural production activities was based on a review of various past studies of estimation of GHG emission levels. Each of the two modules — Crop and Livestock — were specified separately.

LIVESTOCKMANAGEMENT

MANURE


ATMOSPHERE

FARM ANIMALS

LIVESTOCKEXCRETION/

WASTE

FOSSIL FUELS

CROPRESIDUES

HERBICIDES

BIOMASSBURNING

NITROGENFIXINGCROPS

LOSS OF SOIL ORGANIC

MATTER

TILLINGLAND


ATMOSPHERE

FERTILIZERS

MANURELIVESTOCK

EXCRETIONS/WASTES

Chapter 3


3.3.2.1 Crop Production Module

Various agricultural production-related activities were identified as a potential source or sink of GHGs. Of these, twelve were selected for inclusion in the GHGE sub-model. The relationship between these twelve activities, their relevance to crop production, and their possible relationship with emission of the three GHGs were hypothesized further. These are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Conceptual Linkages between Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Crop Production Activities

Note: Dark shaded cells are hypothesized to be not relevant for crop production. Light shaded cells were excluded on account of being of minor importance. *Loss of soil organic matter is related through tilling of land.

Of these activities, photosynthesis creates a sink for CO2. Although agricultural soils can serve as sinks for carbon and nitrogen, these were not identified as sinks in the GHGE sub-model. Instead, loss of soil carbon (or nitrogen) in the form of CO2 (or N2O) was estimated on a net loss basis, making soils either a source or a sink, for GHGs. One should also keep in mind that photosynthesis is one of the components of the carbon cycle, as shown in Figure 3.4. In order to define this cycle, one must start with the boundary of the ecosystem, since all flows of CO2 are relative to this. Photosynthesis converts CO2 to organic C, but plants also respire CO2. A portion of the plant organic C is converted to SOM, some of which is released through tilling of the land. One should therefore, be careful to conclude from this that crop production related photosynthesis is a net sink of CO2.

Activity No.

DescriptionCarbon Dioxide

Methane Nitrous Oxide

1 Photosynthesis #1(Sink)

2 Soil Organic Matter* #2 #8

3Fossil Fuels (Incl. crop management activities)

#3 #9 (Minor)

4 Biomass Burning #4 #10

5 Crop Residues #11

6 Use of Fertilizers #12

7 Use of Manures #5 #7 #13

8 Nitrogen Fixing Crops #14

9 Chemicals #6 #15(N.E.)(Minor)

10 Farm Animals

11 Livestock Excretions / wastes

12 Livestock Management



Use of agricultural inputs, fertilizer, manure, chemicals, and fuel for the operation of farm machinery, are the next major source of GHG emissions. In fact, manure provides the link between the crop production and livestock production modules. However, on account of poor information available on the manure handling systems and on practice of manure applications, these emissions were not included in this module29. Since manure is the only source of emission of methane from crop production, and is excluded from this estimation, this means that methane emissions from crop production are zero. This is not to suggest that these emissions were totally excluded from the GHGE sub-model. In fact, all emissions from the livestock excretion/wastes were included under the Livestock Production Module.

Figure 3.4: A Schematic Representation of “Carbon Cycle” involving Crop Production

Note: Figures shown are symbolic and not actual estimates necessarily.

Source: Ray Desjardins, Personal Communications, 1998.

3.3.2.2 Livestock Production Module

Of the twelve agricultural activities, only three are relevant to livestock production: farm animals, animal excretions/wastes and their handling, and use of fossil fuels for livestock management. Linkages between them and GHG emissions are shown in Table 3.2.

29. As noted later on, these emissions were included in the Livestock module.

Ecosystemboundary

Soil organicmatter

Net Annual Exchange of CO2 by Crops(Tg)

Energy

Product

CO29

300

520 90

130

130

Chapter 3


Farm animals, particularly the ruminants, produce methane through microbial decomposi-tion in the intestines, called enteric fermentation. Animal excretions/wastes are related to the generation of all three gases. Since a part of these excretions/wastes becomes an input into the crop production enterprises (through manure), and given that emission of GHGs through manure was not estimated, all emissions were accounted for in this Module.

In addition, certain livestock enterprises require energy inputs for the production of farm output. These inputs are included under livestock management, and include heating or cooling of buildings, ventilation, and some direct production-related operations, such as milking of dairy cows, and distribution of feeds.

3.3.3 Estimation of Agriculturally-Induced Emission Levels

3.3.3.1 Considerations Involved

The estimation of GHG emissions from Canadian agriculture is based on several assumptions or considerations. Many of these are suggested by the studies reviewed and presented in the previous chapter. The ECs in this study reflect the following characteristics:

• The ECs in this study are, in most cases, direct coefficients30. Thus, only that part of the total emissions that is a direct result of the said activity is captured by these coefficients. The ECs do not reflect that part of the emissions of the GHGs that is embodied (i.e., those emissions that result from the production and marketing of the inputs used in farming).

• The ECs are static in nature. No effort is made here to capture the dynamic or cumulative effect of various agricultural activities on the GHG emissions.

• The ECs reflect the annual rate of emissions. No seasonal distribution of emission levels is taken into account.

• The ECs are based on secondary information. No primary data were collected in the estimation of these coefficients.

• The ECs reflect differences in Canada's different ecological regions, subject to availability of data and information.

• The estimated ECs for crop production are based on crops, rotations, and other cultural practices as reflective of the situation as it existed in 1994. In some cases, data for 1994 were unavailable, and a close time domain was used instead.

• The estimated ECs for livestock production reflect the livestock mix of various parts of Canada, as well as other management practices.

The above characteristics of the ECs should be kept in mind while making interpretations to the total GHG emissions.

30. In addition to the direct emissions from crop and livestock production, some emissions of GHGs are related to other farm operations, which are not included in this study.



Table 3.2: Conceptual Linkages between Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Livestock Production Activities

Note: Dark shaded areas are hypothesized to be not relevant for livestock production.

3.3.3.2 Estimation of Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

The estimation of total emissions of GHGs, which are agriculturally-induced, was carried out separately for each GHG. The total Canadian emissions is simply a sum of provincial (or regional) emissions from a particular agricultural activity. For each of the gases, total regional emissions were sub-divided into two sources/types of emissions, crop production and livestock production, as shown in equation (3.1), each of which was estimated in its own respective module. Total GHG emissions may be expressed as:

where

Activity No. DescriptionCarbon Dioxide

Methane Nitrous Oxide

1 Photosynthesis

2 Soil Organic Matter

3 Fossil Fuels

4 Biomass Burning

5 Crop Residues

6 Use of Fertilizers

7 Use of Manures

8 Nitrogen Fixing Crops

9 Chemicals

10 Farm Animals #3

11 Livestock Waste # 1 #4 #5

12 Livestock Management #2 #6

TAIEGrg = total agriculturally-induced emissions of the gth greenhouse gas in the rth region,

CRPEGrg = crop production-based emissions of the gth greenhouse gas in the rth region,

LSPEGrg = livestock production-based emissions of the gth greenhouse gas in the rth region,

g = various greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O)

r = various regions.

TAIEGrg = CRPEGrg + LSPEGrg (3.1)

Chapter 3


Thus, on account of the scope of this study, total agricultural emissions are caused by either crop or livestock production. Each of these needs to be estimated separately. In each of the two modules, total emissions were a product of the scale of economic activity and an average EC. Estimation of the ECs was, therefore, the central focus of the study. The development of these coefficients is described in the next two sub-sections.

3.3.3.3 Estimation of Crop Production Induced Emissions

In order to estimate total crop production-induced GHG emissions, total farm lands were classified into three types: crop lands, hay lands, and pasture lands. Crop lands were devoted to the production of cereals, oilseeds, pulse crops, and other cash or non-cash crops. Hay lands were similar to crop lands, except the production activity involved various types of forage crops. The pasture lands were either improved pastures or unimproved pastures. Thus, the regional total GHG emissions were estimated as a total of emissions from the three types of lands, such that:

where

All these emissions were estimated using a specific methodology, discussed below.

Emissions from crop lands were estimated as a weighted sum of emissions coefficients for each crop activity, times the scale of operation. Let different crops be denoted as subscript p:

where

The weighted EC for the pth crop activity, ECC1prg, was based on a sum of emission coefficients for various GHG emission activities listed in Table 3.1 (denoted as subscript “a” -- {1,..., 12}) that are involved in the production of that crop.

CRPEGrg = total emissions of gth gas in the rth region,

CRPEG1rg = emissions of gth gas from crop lands in the rth region,

CRPEG2rg = emissions of gth gas from hay lands in the rth region, and

CRPEG3 rg = emissions of gth gas from pasture lands in the rth region.

P = number of crop activities

ECC1prg =

emission coefficient for pth crop per unit of land base for the gth gas in the rth region, and,

S1pr = scale of operations for the pth crop in the rth region.

CRPEGrg = CRPEG1rg + CRPEG2rg +CRPEG3rg (3.2)

CRPEG1rg ' jP

p'1ECC1prg ( S1pr (3.3)

ECC1prg ' j12

a'1ECC1parg (3.4)



where

GHG emissions from hay lands were estimated using a methodology similar to that above. No distinction was made between the establishment year and the production year of the forage crop. Estimation of coefficients was similar in nature as discussed above. Estimated emissions from pasture lands were limited to those directly related to vegetation growth and management practices. All relevant activities, as listed in Table 3.1, were included initially. If some activities were carried out periodically, allowances were made for such practices. Since pasture and hay lands produce the very same product, forage, methodology for estimation of their emissions was identical to that for hay lands.

3.3.3.4 Emissions Induced by Livestock Production

Two factors relevant to the emissions of various GHGs in the context of livestock production are: number and type of livestock, and environmental factors, which vary from region to region. Both direct and indirect emissions (through the use of animal excretions/wastes) were related to these two factors in this study. Regional differences were recognized through the nature of livestock enterprises in various regions. At this time, regional differences in the rate of emissions (through climatic or other factors) could not be incorporated due to lack of data.

The total Canadian emissions from livestock operations were simply a sum of such emissions in various provinces (production regions). For a given region, the total emissions of a GHG from livestock production can be shown as:

where

ECC1parg = emission of greenhouses gases for the pth crop, ath production activity for the gth gas in the rth region.

LSPEGrg = emissions of gth GHG from livestock production in region r;

DLSrg =

direct emissions of gth greenhouse gas from livestock production in the rth region

WLSrg = indirect (through animal excretions/wastes) emissions of gth greenhouse gas from livestock production in the rth region; and,

LMArg = direct emissions of gth greenhouse gas from livestock management activities in the rth region

LSPEGrg ' DLSrg % WLSrg % LMArg (3.5)

Chapter 3


Direct emission levels were estimated as a weighted average of emissions from various types of livestock on farms in various regions, as shown in equation (3.6):

where

The indirect emissions were also prorated on the basis of structure of livestock operations in various regions. Thus, for a given region, such emission levels were simply a product of size of production activity and the respective emissions from a given type of livestock operation. Since livestock and crop production activities are interdependent through the use of manure, an adjustment in these emissions is necessary to avoid double-counting.

where

The last component of emissions for livestock operations in equation 3.5 is related to livestock management. This component was estimated in a similar manner as the direct emissions in equation (3.5). These emissions include those produced through activities such as: heating and cooling of buildings for various livestock (particularly for dairy cattle, exotic beef cattle, hogs, and poultry); and, use of mechanical devices for feed handling, and for manure handling and applications.

3.4 Specification of GHGE Sub-Model

The GHGE sub-model contains ECs for each of the three GHGs. Method of estimation for these coefficients is the subject of the next chapter. As noted above, these coefficients are linked to the estimated scale of agricultural activity (crop or livestock production) in various CRAM regions. Specification of the GHGE sub-model, thus, would have to be compatible with the specification of the CRAM. In this section, these specifications are described.

3.4.1 Specification of Regions

The regionalization in CRAM is based on a combination of availability of information, and on the homogeneity of production conditions. For these reasons, livestock production and crop production activities have a different regional character. For livestock production,

EClrg = emission coefficient for direct emissions for the gth greenhouse gas by lth type of livestock in rth region; and,

Slr =

number of lth type of livestock on farms in the rth region

IEClrg = indirect emission coefficient for the gth greenhouse gas by the lth type livestock in rth region; and,

ADJlrg =

proportion of livestock waste by lth type of livestock applied as manure for the gth greenhouse gas, in the rth region.

DLSrg ' jN

l'1EClrg ( S lr (3.6)

WLSrg ' jN

l'1IEClrg ( [1&ADJlrg] ( Slrg (3.7)



Canada is divided into ten provinces31. The crop production regions are the same as the provinces, except for the Prairies where each province is sub-divided into crop districts. The number of these regions and sub-regions is listed in Appendix A, Table A.1.

3.4.2 Specification of Production Activities

3.4.2.1 Crop Production Activities

Crop production activities were specified for each crop production region in an identical manner. These are listed in Appendix A, Table A.2. A total of 109 activities were specified, which included the following major crops: barley (feed and malting), canola, corn (grain and silage), field peas, flax, lentils, oats, potatoes, soybeans, and wheat (spring as well as durum). The activities also included summerfallow, forage and pasture (both improved and unimproved).

3.4.2.2 Livestock Production Activities

Four types of livestock production operations were included: (1) beef; (2) dairy ; (3) hog; and (4) poultry. For each of these operations, various type of products produced (intermediate or final) were specified. A total of 30 such products were included, which are shown in Appendix A, Table A.3.

3.5 Overview of the Integrated Model

The GHGE sub-model was used together with CRAM in an integrated manner. CRAM is a regional linear programming model of Canadian agriculture. It simulates production, marketing and transportation of major agricultural (crop and livestock) commodities produced in Canada (and its various regions) within the constraints of available land resources (in each region) and final demand for the products.

The nature of this linkage between CRAM and the GHGE sub-models is shown in Figure 3.5. The GHGE Sub-model uses the output generated by the CRAM. The nature of this output includes the level of production that is determined by CRAM to be optimal. The optimal level is determined when consumer surplus and producer surplus (return over cash costs) are maximized under the given level of available resources. The emissions levels are subsequently determined by the GHGE sub-model through the use of the ECs. Development of these ECs is the key to the estimation of GHG emissions from Canadian agricultural activities. It should be noted that the nature of feedback between the two sub-models is one-way, from the CRAM to the GHGE Sub-model. It is conceivable that in the long-run, the feedback effects may be two-way. However, the effect of the GHG emissions on agriculture is not included in the present study, since most of the estimates of climate change impacts project them to be experienced around 2060.

31. The Northwest Territories and Yukon are not included in the model.

Chapter 3


Figure 3.5: An Overview of the Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture (C.E.E.M.A.)

PRODUCER SURPLUS

MANAGEMENT

BASICHERD

CROPYIELDS

RESOURCEAVAILABILITY

BY TYPE

DEMAND FORPRODUCTS

PRICES

CROPMODULE

LIVESTOCKMODULE

AREA UNDER LEVEL OFCROPS LIVESTOCK

EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROMCROPS LIVESTOCK

GREENHOUSE GASESEMISSION SUB-MODEL

ECONOMIC SUB-MODELCANDIAN REGIONAL AGRICULTURE MODEL

CROP EMISSIONCOEFFICIENTS

LIVESTOCK EMISSIONCOEFFICIENTS


Chapter 4: Methodology for the Estimation of Emission Coefficients

In the previous chapter, the basic structure of the two GHGE modules, crop module andlivestock module, was described. A central and essential feature of these modules areemissions coefficients for various regions, production activities, and various agriculturalactivities that lead to GHG emissions. As noted, these coefficients were estimated usingsecondary data and no primary data were collected. Sources and bases for the estimates areprovided in this chapter. This chapter is divided into two major parts: Section 4.1 providesdetails on the crop emission coefficients, and Section 4.2 provides the same for the livestock.Furthermore, the crop module discussion is divided into two sub-sections, one each for CO2,and N2O, whereas the discussion for the livestock module has three sub-sections, one eachfor CO2, CH4 and N2O.

4.1 Emission Coefficients for Crop Production

Although crop production activities can contribute to the emissions of all three greenhousegases, only CO2, and N2O were estimated. The reason for excluding methane emissions fromcrop production was the lack of data on: the amount of animal excretions/wastes applied asmanure in different production regions, the crops that receive such treatment, and,distribution of crops by type of manure (e.g., pig manure versus dairy manure).

Under the above limitations, although 12 sources of GHG emissions related to cropproduction activities were identified in Table 3.132, three were excluded since they arerelevant to livestock production activities. Six of the remaining nine sources were linked toemissions of CO2, and eight to emissions of N2O. Method of determining the ECs for each ofthese sources is described in this section.

32. In Table 3.1, each of the production activities that was hypothesized to be linked with the GHG emissions was numbered. Twelve such cells were identified.

Chapter 4


4.1.1 Carbon Dioxide

Of the six crop production activities listed in Table 3.1 as potential sources of CO2 emissions,one was a sink, while the other five were, on a net basis, a source. Three sources relate to cropproduction inputs, while the other two to management practices. Each of these is discussedin this sub-section.

4.1.1.1 Photosynthesis

Liu (1995) estimated CO2 emissions (intake) related to various crops, using dry matter as theprimary factor. These emissions vary by crop type, since crop yields are different, andbecause their respective water contents also vary. On a dry matter equivalent, 0.45 gram ofcarbon per gram of dry matter is used by plants through carbon fixation.

The estimation of emission (in this case intake) coefficients for photosynthesis was dividedinto two parts: coefficients for crop residues that remain in the field, and coefficients for theseed (grain or other products) that are removed. The first coefficient was estimated using thefollowing equation:

where

The last coefficient (3.6664) was the conversion factor between carbon and carbon dioxide.The moisture contents and biomass factors used in the study are shown in Table 4.1. Thesecond emission (intake) coefficient, one for grain, was also estimated using equation (4.1),except that the BMS for all crops was set equal to one.

In order to estimate the EC using equation(4.1), data on yields for various crops, forages, andpastures in different regions were required. These yields were taken from the CRAM inputfiles for the year 1992 (the latest available). In order to facilitate the estimation of thesecoefficients, some assumptions had to be made on account of lack of information. These arelisted as follows:

• Water contents and biomass factors for pastures, potatoes, and corn silage were not available. These were respectively equated to: tame hay, sugar beets, and fodder corn.

• Durum wheat was assumed to be similar to spring wheat in terms of the biomass factor and moisture content.

ECCPHTSpr = emission (Intake) coefficient for carbon dioxide through

photosynthesis by pth crop plants, in tonnes of CO2 per ha;

YLDpr = yield of the pth crop in t ha-1 in the rth region;

Wp = water contents, expressed as a proportion of plant biomass;

BMSp = biomass factor for the pth crop; and

C = carbon content of dry matter.

ECCPHTSpr ' [YLDpr ( (1 & Wp) ( BMSp] ( C ( 3.6664 (4.1)

Methodology for the Estimation of Emission Coefficients


• For Western Canada, yields for oats were not available. For Saskatchewan, these were estimated using data from Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (1995), for various soil zones and crop districts. For other provinces, oats yields were estimated using a ratio between barley and oats yield for a given soil zone in Saskatchewan.

Estimated yields, along with water contents and biomass factors, were used to estimate theCO2 for plant biomass and grain. Both of these were combined together to obtain a single ECfor photosynthesis.

Table 4.1: Input Data for the Estimation of Emission Coefficients for Photosynthesis by Crops

* Dry matter equivalent = 1 - Proportion of water in the biomass

Source: Compiled using data presented by Jackson (1992).

4.1.1.2 Loss of Soil Organic Matter

Change in SOM is an important part of the carbon balance. Carbon stored in the soil is adynamic process and is affected by a complex set of factors. This has prompted scientists todevelop models of soil-carbon dynamics, such as CENTURY Model33. This model has beenvalidated for Canadian conditions, and results from these applications are reported by

Crop Dry Matter Equivalent*Biomass Factor (kg of Total Biomass per kg dry yield)

Barley 0.12 2.12

Corn 0.05 2.46

Durum 0.14 2.15

Flax 0.12 2.15

Field Peas 0.12 2.15

Hay 0.05 1.30

Lentils 0.12 2.15

Oats 0.11 3.44

Other Crops 0.14 2.15

Pasture 0.05 1.30

Potatoes 0.77 2.15

Soybeans 0.10 2.46

Summerfallow 0 0

Unimproved Pastures 0.05 1.30

Wheat 0.14 2.15

33. The CENTURY Model is a site-specific computer simulation of the dynamics of SOM. This model was developed in the U.S. and has been validated under short- and long-term field experiments in several countries, including Canada. For details of the model, see Parton et al. (1993).

Chapter 4


Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995), and Smith et al. (1995). The latter study also reported rateof loss of soil organic carbon in different Canadian provinces and in different soil zones.These details are shown in Table 4.2 for various Canadian provinces, and in Table 4.3 forimportant soil types.

Table 4.2: Level of Soil Carbon Loss (from 0-30 cm depth) to the Atmosphere from Cultivation of Crops, Canada

Source: Smith et al. (1995), p. 11.

Table 4.3: Level of Soil Carbon Loss (from 0-30 cm depth) to the Atmosphere by Soil Type, Canada

Source: Smith et al. (1995), p. 13.

The estimates of soil carbon loss on a provincial basis or by soil type, although providing anexcellent start, are appropriate only for aggregate studies. For the purposes of this study,however, they were considered unsuitable. In addition, soil organic carbon loss is affected bytwo other factors: type of crop grown and rotation followed, and nature of tillage operations.Coxworth et al. (1995, p. iv) suggested that relative to conventional tillage, minimum tillageand zero tillage generate 95% and 86%, respectively, of the emissions of carbon. In CRAM,for the three Prairie provinces, various crops can be grown under one of three tillage regimes:

Province/RegionRate of Change in kg ha-1 per Annum

1980 1985 1990

Atlantic -12.5 -9.6 4.3

Quebec -40.2 -37.2 -34.5

Ontario -6.6 -5.7 -4.1

Manitoba -76.7 -73.2 -66.1

Saskatchewan -39.3 -36.5 -22.5

Alberta -84.0 -79.9 -74.5

British Columbia -33.7 -31.1 -16.1

Soil TypeRate of Change in kg ha-1 per Annum

1980 1985 1990

Brown Chermozemic -26.9 -27.4 -22.6

Dark Brown Chermozemic -38.4 -35.6 -15.6

Black Chermozemic -94.8 -89.1 -84.1

Dark Gray Chern./Luv. -77.5 -69.7 -59.6

Gray Brown Luvisolic -8.7 -9.3 -10.1

Gray Luvisolic -22.3 -25.5 -20.1

Greysolic -9.7 -8.6 -1.7



intensive, moderate, and zero (or no) till. Since these factors may have a profound effect on aregion’s rate of soil carbon loss, their incorporation was considered an important feature forthe crop module.

In order to estimate soil carbon loss by production regions, crops, and tillage practices, adifferent methodology was devised. Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995, Appendix B)provided details of various CENTURY model runs made at the soil polygon level for each ofthe ten provinces. For each province, major rotations were defined, and in addition, for somepolygons in the three Prairie provinces, rotations included both conventional tillage and notillage systems.

Although it was technically possible to classify various soil polygons included in the resultsreported by Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995) by CRAM production regions, and userelative weights of various rotations for each of these regions, these classifications werebeyond the scope of this phase of activity. A somewhat short-cut method was devised. Thismethodology along with various assumptions made is described below.

• For provinces with no further disaggregation (British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, three Atlantic provinces, and Newfoundland), all soil polygons were used to derive an emission coefficient. The EC was a weighted average of all soil polygons, weighted by relative size of the polygon. For the three Prairie provinces and for each of the 22 crop districts, the larger soil polygons34 were selected. The selected polygons were used as representative for the entire crop district. It was further assumed that the rotations included for the polygon were representative of the region.

• For a given crop district (or province), the EC for each crop was derived from the results of the CENTURY model run for a rotation. All crops included in that rotation were given an identical coefficient. For example, if the rotation was “CWF – canola, wheat, fallow”, and it had a soil carbon loss of 6 grams per square meter (gm m-2), all three crops, wheat on stubble, canola on fallow, and fallow — were given the same coefficients.

• If the results of the CENTURY model run included more than one rotation involving a crop, a weighted average, using the size of the polygon as the weights, was estimated.

• For some regions, some crops were not included in the CENTURY model runs. These included durum wheat, other crops on stubble or summerfallow, oats, pasture, unimproved cultivated pastures, and corn silage. In these cases coefficients were approximated using the following rules:

Rule 1: If information on fallow rotation was not available, the ECs were equatedto those for the stubble rotations for that soil polygon.

Rule 2: Corn silage was equated to corn grain.

Rule 3: Other crops on stubble or fallow were taken as an average of all rotationsfor the selected soil polygon.

34. The choice of this polygon was decided by the rotation. For each rotation and tillage system, a different polygon was therefore, selected.

Chapter 4


Rule 4: Coefficient for the unimproved pasture was apportioned using thecoefficient for pasture on the basis of forage yield differences.

Rule 5: For some crop districts, if a crop was not included within the chosen soilpolygon, estimates were taken from an adjoining (but similar soil zone)polygon.

• As noted above, the CENTURY model runs included, in some soil polygons, two types of tillage practices: conventional tillage and no till. For this study, conventional tillage was assumed to be the same as the intensive tillage in CRAM. The coefficients for no till were used for the no till systems in CRAM. However, two problems that were encountered in this context: One was that for some crop districts, there was no information for the two types of tillage operations. The other was there were no data from the CENTURY model runs for the minimum tillage crops in CRAM. To solve these problems, two further rules were applied:

Rule 6: For the polygons, and crops for which CENTURY model results forconventional and no tillage systems were available, the coefficient forminimum tillage was estimated as a simple average of the two emissionlevels. This is consistent with the results presented by Coxworth et al.(1995) for selected rotations.

Rule 7: For the polygons with no such information, CENTURY model runs wereassumed to apply to conventional tillage, and the coefficients for the othertwo tillage systems were estimated as follows: minimum tillage: 95% ofconventional tillage; and, no tillage, 90% of conventional tillage.

Estimated coefficients were compared against the provincial average coefficients as reportedby Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995, p. 18). This comparison is shown in Appendix B. Thisstudy estimated the emissions of C from soils at 49.36 kilograms per hectare per year (kg ha-1

y-1), against Smith, Rochette and Jaques’ estimate of 39.8 kg ha-1 y-1. Comparison was alsomade on a provincial basis and the coefficients were found to be fairly close, except forManitoba, and British Columbia.

4.1.1.3 Burning of Fossil Fuels

Canadian farms use three types of fuels for farm business operations: diesel oil, natural gas,and electricity35. Diesel oil is related to crop production, and the operation of farm machineryused for various cropping activities. Natural gas and electricity are used more for other farmoperations related to crop production. For this reason, total emissions were divided into twoparts: direct emissions; and indirect emissions.

Direct Fuel Use on Farms for Crop Production

Several factors were used in the estimation of the ECs for direct fuel use. They include: typeof fossil fuel, crop type, soil type, tillage system, and type of rotation. Since diesel oil is thepredominant fuel, no further consideration of the type of fuel was made.

35. Although regular gasoline is used by farmers, its use for the farm business is very small, and therefore, not included. Most crop production-related activities involve the use of machinery fuelled by diesel oil.



In order to maintain some consistency between inputs of fuel cost in CRAM and the ECs(which are related to the level of use), an attempt was made to find a conversion factor forfuel cost into physical quantity. For this effect, data on physical quantities of fuel used forcrop operations in Saskatchewan were obtained from Rutherford and Gimby (1988). Thesedata were available by three soil types, and for four crops: spring wheat, winter wheat,coarse grains, and oilseeds. Regression analysis was used to determine the relationshipbetween quantity of fuel used and cost. Results are shown in Appendix C (Section C.1).Results were very poor. The coefficient for fuel cost was not significantly different from zero,suggesting there was no statistical basis for using these results for obtaining ECs. As a result,this approach was abandoned.

An attempt was made to obtain this information from Statistics Canada (1983), and from theCensus of Agriculture (Statistics Canada, 1993). Both these sources were found to be deficientfor this study. The first source provided quantity of fuel used on a per farm basis andreflected the 1981 situation. This did not reflect 1994 emission levels. The second source didnot provide any suitable information on the physical quantities of fuel used.

Attempts were made to obtain this information from other secondary sources, such as theCanadian Agricultural Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Center. However, no suitabledata were found.

The approach used in this study to estimate the ECs included collection of data on quantityused for various crops in different provinces. Farm budget data showing the quantity of fuelused for the production of various crops were collected for the provinces of Saskatchewan,Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. For Saskatchewan, this informationincluded details on conventional and no tillage systems for the three soil zones — Brown,Dark Brown, and Black. Information for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland was very weak;available data pertained to fewer crops, with much of the details not provided36. Thisinformation was not used in this study. Data for the remaining regions are shown inAppendix D.

The above information was used for various regions in the following manner: Saskatchewaninformation was also used for British Columbia and Alberta, according to the appropriatesoil zone. Crop districts were classified according to the predominant soil type, or an averageof two soil types, if the situation warranted. Manitoba data were used for that province only.Ontario data were used for all the Eastern Canadian provinces.

No budgets were available for potatoes, corn silage, hay, or other crops (stubble or onsummerfallow), or for pastures or unimproved pasture lands. For other crops, the followingrule was applied: other crops in Western Canada were assumed to be similar to wheat, andin Eastern Canada, similar to corn. No satisfactory budget for potatoes was available for anyprovince. Fuel quantities were assumed to be double the quantity of fuel used in theproduction of canola. Similarly, fuel quantities for pasture land were assumed to be doublethose for barley. For the unimproved pastures, it was assumed that no fuel is required37.

36. Major deficiency in this data set was that details on quantities of inputs were not provided.37. This was based on the cost information used for CRAM. The fuel costs for this enterprise was zero.

Chapter 4


The quantity of fuel used per hectare was converted into an emission coefficient using therelationship between use of liquid fuels and CO2 emissions. These coefficients are shown inTable 4.4 (based on Smith, Rochette and Jaques 1995) and in Table 4.5 (based on Manaloorand Yildirim, 1996). In order to use the conversion coefficient, it was assumed that one litre ofdiesel contains 0.03868 GJ38 of energy.

Table 4.4: Level of Carbon Dioxide Released into the Atmosphere Related to Direct Use of Fossil Fuels

Source: Estimated from data presented in Smith et al. (1995), p. 20.

Table 4.5: Level of Carbon Released into the Atmosphere through Indirect Use of Fossil Fuels in Agriculture

Source: Data presented in Manaloor and Yildirim (1996), based on Marland and Turhollow (1990).

Indirect Fuel Use on Farms for Crop Production

Indirect fuel use includes use of electricity for operations directly related to crop production,such as machine maintenance and crop drying. Unfortunately no reliable information isavailable for this amount so used. For this reason, emissions from this source were notestimated in this study.

4.1.1.4 Biomass Burning

Burning of biomass (crop residues) is a common practice in certain agricultural regions, andfor certain crops. It releases the carbon contained in organic matter into the atmosphere.Factors that may affect its release include: type of crop, amount of biomass burnt, andburning practices. Unfortunately, reliable information on these factors is not available.Through personal communications, the Manitoba Crop Insurance suggested that somewhere

38. A GJ, giga joule, is one billion joules, where a joule is a measure of active energy in a product.

Fuel TypeEmissions in terms of kt CO2 per annum

per TJ of energy in the fuel

Natural Gas 0.04967

Motor Gasoline 0.06799

Kerosene and Stove Oil 0.06744

Diesel Oil 0.07070

Light Fuel Oil 0.07311

Heavy Fuel Oil 0.07390

Fuel TypeEmissions in terms of kg C per annum

per GJ of energy in the fuel

Natural Gas 13.78

Liquid Fuels 22.29

Coal 24.65



between 10% and 40% of cereals are burnt. The consensus is that canola is hardly ever burnt.However, the practice of burning flaxseed residues is more common and may extend to80% - 95% of this crop’s area.

In light of the above, the following assumptions were made. All crops except canola, pasture,unimproved pastures, and summerfallow were assumed to be burning some biomass. Forthese crops, a proportion of 5% was used, whereas for flaxseed this proportion was assumedto be 90%.

At this time, no reliable information is available for an emission coefficient from biomassburning in Canada. Mehra and Damodaran (1993) estimated emissions of various gases intothe atmosphere from burning of biomass, which are shown in Table 4.6. However, theappropriateness of these estimates for Canada can be questioned.

Table 4.6: Emission of Various Gases from Biomass Burning

Source: Mehra and Damodaran (1993) p. 29.

In this study, estimation of EC was related to the production of biomass, and burningpractices. This required estimation of the dry matter weight of the biomass for various crops.This was taken from estimates done under Section 4.1.1.1, Photosynthesis. The CO2 releasedinto the atmosphere was assumed to be totally related to the carbon content of the dry matterweight as estimated for photosynthesis.

4.1.1.5 Use Of Manures

To provide additional nutrients to plants, farmers use some animal excretions/wastes(manure) as fertilizer. The results is some leaching of the nutrients, and at the same time,some oxidation, releasing CO2. Conceptually, direct emissions of manure application dependon soil texture, method of application and quantity of manure. Soil texture is important indetermining leaching versus emission rates. Information is also needed on crops receivingmanure application, rate of application, type of manure (nutrient contents), and rate ofleaching of nutrients into the soil by soil type.

An overview of the different ways in which GHG emissions from livestock excretions/wastes take place is shown in Figure 4.1. Livestock excretions/wastes can be applied asmanure in one of two ways: either direct from the farm animals themselves, such as those onpasture lands; or by spreading manure on crop fields. Therefore, a separate emissionestimate was made for each method of application. It was further assumed that regionaldifferences occurred among emission coefficients on account of weather and leaching effects.

Ideally, one needs to develop a total gaseous budget starting with the production of animalexcretions/wastes, emissions during their handling, loss of animal excretions/wastesbetween livestock enterprises and crop fields, and ECs for crop fields which explicitly take

Type of Gas EmittedRate of emission in tera grams (Tg)

per Tg of dry matter

Carbon dioxide 1.4865

Carbon monoxide 0.0946

Methane 0.0054

Nitrous oxide 0.00005

Chapter 4


into account leaching of nutrients. Attempts were made to obtain this information from theStatistics Canada (1996b) survey. However, much of this information was found to bedescriptive and qualitative, and did not shed any light on the nature of manure handling andapplication practices by farmers in various provinces.

Since appropriate information was not available, emissions through manure applicationwere tied to production of livestock excretions/wastes. Details on the methodology followedfor CO2 is shown in Section 4.2.1.2, for CH4 in Section 4.2.2.2., and for N2O in Section 4.2.3.1.

4.1.1.6 Use of Chemicals

In order to control pests and diseases, farmers apply chemicals — herbicides, fungicides, andinsecticides, to crops. Some of these contain carbon, and when applied, release that as CO2

into the atmosphere. Major factors affecting this type of emissions include: herbicide type,crops treated, level of treatment by rotation and tillage, regional differences, as culminatedthrough soil and climatic factors.

Methodology for the estimation of these emissions was almost parallel to that for fuel. Aregression analysis was undertaken between the quantities of chemicals used onSaskatchewan farms (as provided by Rutherford and Gimby 1988), and the CRAM costs. Theresults, as shown in Appendix C (Section C.2), were very poor and this approach wasabandoned.

Emissions of CO2 from use of pesticides is dependent on the energy contents of thechemicals. Manaloor and Yildirim (1996), based on work by Pimentel (1980), suggest anemission of 20.7339 kg C per GJ of energy contained in the chemicals. However, estimates ofenergy contents of various chemicals, along with the quantity of various chemicals are notreadily available.

In this study, EC for chemicals was estimated by multiplying the quantity of chemicals usedby their respective per unit emissions. The quantity that is needed in this context is one bycrops, regions, and tillage practices. Thus, this procedure was divided into two steps. Stepone included estimation of the quantities of chemicals as based on crop budgets presented inAppendix D. In the second step, a carbon emission coefficient was derived from the carboncontent of the herbicides most commonly used, based on the chemical formula (Table 4.7).The EC was based on the assumption that 70% of the carbon in a pesticide was mineralizedand emitted as CO2 per application.

Chapter 4


Fig

ure

4.1

Em

issi

on

s o

f G

reen

ho

use

Gas

es f

rom

Liv

esto

ck E

xcre

tio

ns/

Was

tes

and

Man

ure

s

Chapter 4


Tab

le 4

.7:

Ave

rag

e E

mis

sio

ns

of

Car

bo

n f

rom

Sel

ecte

d H

erb

icid

es

a Hoe

gras

s 28

4 an

d To

rch

b Pum

a an

d To

rch

c Gly

phos

phat

e an

d B

anve

l.

Sou

rce:

Est

imat

ion

Bra

nd

Fo

rmu

laM

ean

W

eig

ht

CA

ctiv

e In

gre

die

nt

C C

on

ten

t M

ean

A

pp

licat

ion

R

ate

C p

er

Ap

plic

atio

nE

mis

sio

ns

g%

g L

-1g

L-1

L h

a-1g

C h

a-1g

C h

a-1 y

r-1

Bas

agra

nC

10H

12N

2O3S

240.

3049

.94

480

239.

702.

0047

9.40

336

2,4-

D a

min

eC

3H6O

3Cl 2

221.

0416

.29

700

114.

011.

1012

5.41

88

Ban

vel

C8H

6O3C

l 222

1.04

43.4

348

020

8.47

0.26

54.2

038

Ho

egra

ss 2

84C

16H

14O

3Cl 2

325.

1959

.04

284

167.

682.

6544

4.35

311

Ho

egra

ss II

a60

2.10

45.8

431

014

2.10

3.50

497.

3634

8

Ed

ge

C12

H12

N3O

4F3

319.

2445

.11

10.

301.

650.

500

Pu

ma,

exc

elC

12H

16N

O5C

l36

1.78

39.8

092

36.6

21.

0036

.62

26

Las

erb

839.

3140

.03

237

94.6

82.

5023

6.69

166

Ro

un

du

pC

3H8N

O5P

169.

0721

.29

356

75.7

01.

5011

3.70

80

Ru

stle

r 2c

390.

1133

.84

192

64.9

72.

8018

1.91

127

MC

PA

C9H

903C

l20

0.62

53.8

340

021

5.33

1.18

253.

0217

7

Sen

cor

C8H

14N

4OS

214.

3044

.80

500

223.

990.

4610

3.59

73

Po

ast

C17

H29

NO

3S32

7.50

62.2

918

411

4.61

1.40

160.

4611

2

Ava

dex

C10

H16

NO

Cl 3S

304.

7039

.38

400

157.

533.

5055

1.36

386

Tref

lan

C13

H16

F3N

3O4

335.

2846

.53

545

253.

582.

5063

3.95

444



4.1.2 Nitrous Oxide

Eight agricultural activities were identified in Table 3.1, which are related to emissions ofN2O. Since emissions from manure, as discussed earlier, are accounted under livestockproduction-induced emissions, they are excluded from this section. Of the remaining sevencrop production activities, three are related to the use of farm inputs (fossil fuels, fertilizer,and chemicals), while the remaining through crop management practices. Two activities areparticularly relevant to the N2O emissions, crop residue, and production of nitrogen fixingcrops, such as legumes.

4.1.2.1 Loss of Soil Organic Matter

Organic matter is about 10% nitrogen, which can be oxidized into N2O through microbialdecomposition of organic matter, a process which is accelerated by tillage. Various factorsaffect the amount of N2O emitted through loss of organic matter, but the following ones maybe considered important: crops, regions (as exemplified through soil type and climaticvariables), tillage practices, yield, and crop rotation.

The methodology for the estimation of ECs for N2O was almost identical to that followed forthe CO2, with the exception that the data on the loss of nitrogen were used instead of loss ofcarbon. These data were also obtained from Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995).39 Acoefficient of 1.5716 (ratio of the molecular weights of N2 : N2O) was used to convert nitrogeninto N2O. 40

4.1.2.2 Burning of Fossil Fuels

The burning of coal and natural gas releases N2O, according (Lashof and Tirpak 1989), asdoes burning of oil. However, because of the lack of available data, as noted earlier, indirectenergy use was not included for crop production activities.

Using the results provided by Mehra and Damodaran (1993), it was estimated that the ratioof CO2 emissions to those of N2O is 1:0.00008. In this study this coefficient was multiplied bythe CO2 emissions to generate a coefficient for N2O.

4.1.2.3 Biomass Burning

Burning the biomass releases nitrogen as N2O. Factors that determine the emission levels are:crop type, amount of dry matter (as affected by tillage and rotations), and burning practices.For estimating the EC, total dry matter produced by plants and proportion of area burntwere taken from Section 4.1.1.4. The conversion coefficient for dry matter into N2O waspresented in Table 4.6. This coefficient was used to determine the emission coefficient forN2O from biomass burning.

4.1.2.4 Crop Residues

In Canada, inevitably some crop residues are left in the field after harvest. These residuescontain some nitrogen, a part of which can become N2O. To estimate this emission,information provided by Desjardins (Undated) was used. It was assumed that one kg of drybiomass contains 0.015 kg of nitrogen. Of this nitrogen, 1.25% finds its way into the

39. These data were presented in Appendix B of Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995) study.40. For details see Desjardins (Undated).

Chapter 4


atmosphere as N2O. The amount of dry matter equivalent biomass has already beenestimated in the context of Biomass Burning. This amount was multiplied by a factor of0.0002947 kg of N2O per kg of dry biomass.

4.1.2.5 Use of Fertilizers

Fertilizers are added to the soil to supplement nutrients needed by plants. Many fertilizerscontain nitrogen, a part of which is released into the atmosphere as N2O. The level of theseemissions depends on several factors such as: type of fertilizer, crops fertilized by region,tillage, and rotations, rate of fertilization. The relationship between the application offertilizers and emissions of nitrous oxide is shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Levels of Emissions of Nitrous Oxide by Type of Fertilizer

Source: Eichner (1990).

In this study, the EC for N2O from fertilization was estimated by taking into account thequantity used, by type of fertilizer. Since the quantity used is different for various crops andtillage systems, a methodology similar to that followed for fuel (as well as chemicals) wasadopted. Results are shown in Appendix C (section C.3). Unlike the previous two regressionanalyses, results suggested that the relationship between CRAM fertilizer cost and quantityis statistically valid. However, in order to keep consistency among various ECs, the approachto estimate quantities from CRAM cost data was not used.

The quantity of fertilizer used for various crops in various regions under different tillagesystems was obtained from the crop budgets noted under Section 4.1.1.3, Use of Fossil Fuels.It was assumed that most fertilizers used were in the form of urea or some form ofammonium nitrate (or sulphate). This resulted in a coefficient of 0.0017 kg of N2O per tonneof fertilizer applied to a given crop.

4.1.2.6 Production of Nitrogen Fixing Crops

Nitrogen-fixing crops are able to convert atmospheric N into organic N though symbioticassociation with microorganisms. Desjardins (1997) has reported a nitrogen content of0.03 kg N per kg of dry matter for nitrogen fixing crops. Further assuming that 1.25% of thenitrogen is converted into N2O leads to an emission factor of 0.0005894 kg N2O per kg of drymatter.

Fertilizer Type% of N evolved to

atmosphere as N2OMedian Value

Anhydrous Ammonia 1 to 5 1.63

Aqua Ammonia 1 to 5 1.63

Urea 0.05 to 0.50 0.11

Ammonium Nitrate 0.04 to 0.50 0.12

Ammonium Sulphate 0.04 to 0.50 0.12

Diammonium Phosphate 0.10 -

Nitrogen Solutions 0.05 -

Sodium Nitrate 0.05 -



The nitrogen fixing crops in this study included: field peas, lentils, and tame pastures. Thedry matter equivalent biomass for these crops has previously been estimated under BiomassBurning. These estimates were multiplied by the above factor to yield an EC.

4.1.2.7 Chemicals

Some chemicals may contain nitrogen. However, since the evidence for this is very poor,estimation of an EC for chemicals was not included.

4.2 Greenhouse Gases Emission Coefficients for Livestock Production

Livestock operations contribute to all three GHG emissions through various sources listed inTable 3.2. These emissions can be divided into two types: direct emissions, and, indirectemissions. Direct emissions are by farm animals, and their excretions/wastes. Indirectemissions include use of fossil fuels for production-related activities, such as feeddistribution, heating/cooling of buildings, among others. In this section, methodologyadopted for estimating EC for these sources of GHG emissions is described.

Description of the methodology in this section is divided into three parts, one for each GHG.The relevant sources of emissions, whether direct or indirect, are included within thediscussion for each GHG.


Carbon dioxide is generated both directly and indirectly by livestock operations. Sources ofthese emissions and methodology for estimating their respective emission coefficients arepresented in this section.

4.2.1.1 Farm Animals

As part of a biological cycle, animals exhale CO2. However, other than a single Canadianstudy by Kinsmen et al. (1995), no estimation of this emission has been made. Kinsmen’sstudy estimated total emissions of CO2 from a dairy barn at 381 litres per day per cow. Noother information about other livestock enterprises is available. Even in this study, theestimation is only for the barn as a whole, and does not separate the contribution of farmanimals from that of animal excretions/wastes. Since this is the only available study forCanada, it was used to estimate the direct CO2 emission coefficient for farm animals.

In order to apply the results of Kinsman et al. (1995, p. 2764) to this study, a ratio betweenmethane emissions per cow and carbon dioxide emissions per cow was estimated41. For dairycows, this led to a coefficient of 0.37523 tonnes of CO2 per head per annum. For otheranimals, the coefficients were estimated using their equivalence in terms of amount ofvolatile solids excreted. The procedure required estimation of total animal or poultryexcretions/wastes by type of livestock enterprises. These figures were obtained from Liu(1995), and are shown in Table 4.9. This implicitly assumes that CO2 emissions are related tobody weight and feed intake, which can be accurately measured by the quantity of volatilesolids excreted. Furthermore, it should be noted that these figures are for both respiration aswell as animal excretions/wastes, and no attempt was made here to separate the two becauseof lack of information.

41. This ratio was 29.82 g of CO2 per g of CH4.

Chapter 4


4.2.1.2 Livestock Excretions/Wastes

Another major source of CO2 emissions by livestock production is through production ofanimal excretions/wastes. Details on this emission rate are very poor because a number offactors. Emissions of GHGs from animal excretions/wastes can be determined by disposalmethod used by producers. Animal excretions/wastes may be disposed in one of three ways:direct application as plant nutrients by farm animals (such as on the pasture lands),application by farmers as manure on crop fields, and/or disintegration by manure handlingsystems. Under all these options, some carbon contained in the excretions/wastes is eitherreleased as CO2, or is retained as part of the SOM. As noted above, this source of emissionsoverlaps with those from crop production.

Table 4.9: Production of Animal and Poultry Excretions/Wastes by Type of Animal/Poultry

Source: Liu (1995), p. 11.

Carbon dioxide from livestock excretions/wastes was assumed to originate either frommanure stored in solid storage systems, or directly from pasture. It was assumed that mostcarbon loss from liquid or anaerobic storage systems was in the form of CH4. The proportionof excretions/wastes from each animal type stored in solid systems, from Desjardins andMathur (1997), was used to determine the carbon (C) contained in solid stockpiles, assumingthat excretions/wastes were 45% carbon (Table 4.10). It was assumed that 57% C in manurewas mineralized during the stockpile period (Kachanoski and Berry, 1997). Further losses,estimated to be 60% of the remaining C per year, occur when the stockpiledexcretions/wastes are spread in the field. Mineralization of 60% per year was based on theassumption that 40% C added in the current year would be mineralized, plus an additional20% loss from manure added in previous years. The total amount of CO2 (in kilograms perhead per year — kg hd-1 y-1) mineralized from manure in solid stockpiles is:

Total C mineralized (kg hd-1 y-1) + C mineralized in pasture (kg hd-1 y-1) *44/12 (4.2)

Animal TypeVolatile Solid (VS) in kilo tonnes

per head per year

Dairy Cattle 2,260.5

Other Cattle 1,103.8

Pigs 140.3

Sheep 338.8

Lambs 338.8

Chicken 5.6

Hens 7.9

Turkeys 22.6



Table 4.10: Carbon Emissions from Animal Excretions/Wastes in Solid Storage.

Source: Compiled using data from Kachanoski and Berry (1997).

A similar methodology was adopted for the emissions from animal excretions/wastes forpasture animals. Results for these emission coefficients are shown in Table 4.11.

4.2.1.3 Contributions through Livestock Management

Carbon dioxide emissions from livestock management-related activities can be broadlyclassified into two types: from direct use of fossil fuels and from indirect use of fossil fuels,such as through use of electricity. Each of these requires a different method of estimation.

Table 4.11: Carbon Emissions from Animal Excretions/Wastes in Pasture

* Volatile Solids

Source: Desjardins and Mathur (1997).

Emissions from the direct use of fossil fuels are associated with the use of mechanical devicesin livestock operations, such as feed distribution systems, manure handling systems, andmilking equipment. In addition, some buildings are heated by natural gas. Indirect use offossil fuels includes use of electrically powered devices, such as milking machines, heaters,fans, and some use to livestock housing.

Factors that affect these emission levels include: types of livestock requiring managementoperations, type of management operations, and type of fuel used. All these factors wouldalso have a regional dimension; in other words, all regions of Canada could not be assumedto be homogenous in this respect. Estimation of the ECs was done separately for direct andindirect energy uses.

Animal TypeVolatile

Solids kg head-1 yr -1

Solid StorageMineralized C

kg yr -1 Total C Mineralized

kg head-1 yr -1

%kg

C head-1yr -1 Stockpile Field

Dairy cow 1,898 47 401 229 104 332

Non-dairy cow 762 15 51 29 13 43

Swine 465 24 50 29 13 42

Poultry 4 90 2 1 1 1

Sheep 369 12 20 11 5 17

Animal TypeVS*

(kg head-1 yr -1)

C Content of Manure in PastureC Mineralizedkg head-1 yr -1

% kg head-1 yr -1

Dairy cow 1,898.00 0 0 0

Non-dairy cow 762.00 84.00 640.00 384.00

Swine 465.00 0 0 0

Poultry 4.00 1.00 0.04 0.02

Sheep 369.00 88.00 325.00 195.00

Chapter 4


Direct Use of Fossil Fuels

Information related to the use of various types of energy inputs for livestock managementoperations in different regions of Canada is relatively poor. As a first step, data on theexpenditures on heating fuels purchased by various types of livestock farms were obtainedfrom Statistics Canada (1996a) for the year 1994. Details on this information are provided inTable 4.12. According to these estimates, all livestock farms purchase some heating fuel.However, since most cattle farms do not provide buildings or other shelters for cattle, it wasassumed that this expenditure is equal to zero. Other values were taken at face value.

The second step in the estimation of the EC was to calculate the coefficient on the basis of perdollar of expenditures on heating fuels. For this purpose, data from Statistics Canada (1983)were obtained. According to these data, three types of fuels are used as heating fuels forbusiness purposes: liquid petroleum gas, heating oil, and natural gas. The total amount ofthese fuels used on Canadian farms was estimated by multiplying the total amount by theproportion of that fuel used to heat building.

For liquid petroleum gas and heating oil, it was assumed that these have emissions similar tothose of diesel oil. Thus, for these fuels, an EC of 0.003159 tonnes of C per litre was applied.For natural gas, an EC of 0.01378 tonnes of C per GJ was used. The total emission of CO2 wasobtained by multiplying the quantity used by the EC. Total emissions were divided by theexpenditures in 1981 and converted into 1994 prices42. This yielded an EC of 0.0101094 tonnesof C per dollar of expenditures on heating fuels. This coefficient was multiplied by theexpenditures on heating fuels by dairy and hog farms, as shown in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12: Use of Heating Fuel by Type of Livestock Farm, 1994

Source: Estimated from data in Statistics Canada (1996b).

For poultry farms, this methodology yielded large levels of emissions, and therefore, it wasabandoned. Instead data on the use of heating fuels was obtained from Ostrander (1980).Three types of fuels were used for heating: propane, fuel oil, and natural gas. Assuming thatthe make-up of the total energy used in Canada is identical to that in the U.S., ECs per birdwere estimated. In order to differentiate these emissions from the indirect fossil-fuel basedemissions, these are shown under “Section 4.1.2.2, Burning of Fossil Fuels”.

Indirect Use of Fossil Fuels

Indirect use of fossil fuels is through the use of electricity for livestock managementactivities. The starting point in this estimation was a collection of data on expenditures onelectric power by various types of livestock operations. Two sources of data were consulted:Statistics Canada (1996b), and Pimentel (1980). The latter source provided articles by Cook,

42. For this purpose, farm input price index for petroleum products for Canada was used.

Type of Livestock Farm Expenditures on Heating Fuels $ per Head

Dairy 5.373

Cattle 3.230

Hogs 1.660

Poultry 0.668



Combs and Ward (1980) for beef production, Oltenacu and Allen (1980) for dairy production,Ostrander (1980) for poultry production, and Reid et al. (1980) for hog production systems.Details on this information are shown in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: Estimates of Expenditures and Quantity of Electric Power by Type of Livestock Farms, Canada and U.S.

# All poultry.

Sources: *Statistics Canada (1996b). **Estimated from Column (2) using a price of $0.06 per KWh. ***Pimentel (1980).

As can be seen from Table 4.13, the Canadian expenditures were significantly higher thanthose estimated for the U.S. Two plausible explanations are: Canadian expenditures are grossvalues (including farm overhead use of electrical power); and/or overestimated values ofprice of electrical power used for computing the quantity. For these reasons, coefficientssuggested in the last column of this table were used.

Next was the identification of those sources of electrical power that lead to CO2 emissions.Data were collected for each of the provinces on the source of electrical power generation, asshown in Table 4.14. British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland produce mostof their power through hydroelectric sources. In this study, it was assumed that hydroelectricpower, and other sources of electrical power (mainly nuclear power), do not yield anyemissions; steam power generation involves exclusively the use of coal; and internalcombustion power generation is through the burning of natural gas.

Under these assumptions, the quantity of electrical power used by livestock farms wasdivided into two categories: generated by coal, and generated by natural gas. For both, anemission coefficient of 0.000874 tonnes of CO2 kW-1 h-1 was used.

Type of FarmExpendituresin $ head-1*

kWh head-1

(1994)**U.S.

KWh head-1

(1980)***Canada

Dairy 43.09 718 437

Cattle 9.12 152 93

Hogs 5.52 92 28

Poultry: Broilers 0.61# 10.3# 0.169

Turkeys 0.510

Hens and Chickens 2.843

Chapter 4


Table 4.14: Distribution of Source of Electric Power Generation (Percent of Total) by Province, 1994

Source: Statistics Canada (1997).

4.2.2 Methane

For methane emissions, two sources, direct by livestock, and through animalexcretions/wastes, were identified (Table 3.2). Coefficients for both sources were estimated,and the methodology is reported in this section.

4.2.2.1 Farm Animals

Different types of ruminant animals produce different levels of methane, according to thelevel of feed intake, and their body weight. These emissions levels have been estimated fordifferent parts of the world, as well as for Canada. Crutzen, Aselmann, and Seiler (1988)reported such estimates for broad categories of animals, which are shown in the middlecolumn of Table 4.15. The most significant source of this gas is cattle (ruminants), whichproduce 55 kg of methane annually per animal. Sheep and goats also generate somemethane, approximately 5-8 kg of methane per animal per annum. These estimates have twomajor limitations. They are somewhat outdated; and, furthermore, since they represent aglobal average, they may or may not apply fully to Canada. Various Canadian studies were,therefore, consulted and these estimates are shown in the last column of Table 4.15. Thesecoefficients were used in this study. Total methane emissions from farm animals wereestimated by multiplying the EC per head by the number of animals on farms by the type ofanimals.

Province SteamInternal

CombustionHydro Other Total

British Columbia 12.5 0.1 85.9 1.5 100.0

Alberta 90.6 0.1 4.2 5.0 100.0

Saskatchewan 74.1 0.0 25.2 0.7 100.0

Manitoba 0.6 0.1 99.3 0.0 100.0

Ontario 12.9 0.0 26.0 61.1 100.0

Quebec 0.1 0.1 96.8 2.9 100.0

New Brunswick 66.5 0.0 21.0 12.5 100.0

Prince Edward Island 83.2 0.0 0.0 16.8 100.0

Nova Scotia 90.3 0.0 9.6 0.1 100.0

Newfoundland 4.1 0.2 95.7 0.0 100.0



Table 4.15: Methane Emission Rates from Farm Animals

Sources: @Crutzen, Aselmann, and Seiler (1988) *McAllister (1997) **Mathur (Undated) ***Desjardins (Undated)

Table 4.16: Methane Emission Rates from Livestock Excretions/Wastes

*Volatile Solids.

Source: Desjardins and Mathur (1997).

Type of AnimalMethane Emission

(kilograms per head per year)@

Estimated Coefficient (kilograms per head per year)

Cattle 55

Beef cow 65*

Bull 75*

Feeder Calves 8*

Beef Yearling 52**

Stocker Calves 21*

Feedlot Cattle 15*

Dairy Cows 140

Dairy Yearlings 62**

Dairy Calves 29**

Pigs 1-1.5

Sows 3.3**

Pigs 20-60 lbs 1.4**

Poultry 0.0045***

Sheep 5-8

Goats 5

Horses 18

Mules/Asses 10

Animal TypeMethane emission rate

kg of methane per kg of VS*

Dairy cow 0.019

Non-dairy cow 0.011

Swine 0.043

Poultry 0.024

Sheep 0.019

Chapter 4


4.2.2.2 Contribution through Livestock Excretions/Wastes

In addition to CO2 emissions, part of the carbon contained in the animal waste is convertedinto methane. The amount of such emissions varies by type of animal, since these are alsoaffected by the animals excretion rates and methane production potential, which, in turn, isaffected by feed intake, and climatic effect. For Canadian climatic conditions, Desjardins andMathur (1997) provided the estimates, as shown in Table 4.16. The amount of volatile solidsassociated with animal excretions/waste by type of animal is given in Table 4.9. The EC forCH4 from animal excretions/wastes was estimated as follows:

where

Total emissions were a product of the EC and the number of animals by type of animal.Estimates were made for each province and aggregated for Canadian emissions.

4.2.3 Nitrous Oxide

The two livestock production activities that are linked to emissions of N2O are: production ofanimal excretions/wastes and use of fossil fuels indirectly through the use of electricity forlivestock management activities.

4.2.3.1 Livestock Excretions/Wastes

The contribution of emission of N2O from animal excretions/wastes is based on estimates byMonteverde, Desjardins and Pattey (1997). Nitrous oxide emissions were estimated fromthree sources of animal excretions/wastes: grazing animals on pasture (Table 4.17), storedmanure (Table 4.18), and, stored manure after its application to soils in the field (Table 4.19).Emissions from all sources are based on the amount of nitrogen produced in waste by eachanimal type, taken from Monteverde, Desjardins and Pattey (1997) and shown in Table 4.17.

Emissions from grazing animals were determined for non-dairy cattle, poultry and sheep,based on the proportion of their excretion/waste production that occurs over a year inpasture (Table 4.17). The emission coefficient (0.02) is from Monteverde, Desjardins andPattey (1997).

ECLM.WST = emission coefficient from livestock waste (kilograms of methane per animal per year)

QNTYLWST =

quantity of waste as volatile solids (kilograms of methane per animal per year)

MEVS = methane emissions (kilograms of methane per animal per year)

ECLM.WST = QNTYLWST * MEVS (4.3)



Table 4.17: Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Grazing Animal Excretions / Wastes

Source: Monteverde, Desjardins and Pattey (1997).

Nitrous oxide emissions from storage systems (Table 4.18) was based on the proportion ofmanure from each animal type held in one of four types of storage (AL - anaerobic lagoons,LS - liquid storage, SSD - solid storage, and OS - other). The EC for each type of storagesystem is from Monteverde, Desjardins and Pattey (1997).

Table 4.18: Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Stored Animal Excretions/Wastes

1AL - Anaerobic lagoon, emission coefficient = 0.001; LS - Liquid storage, emission coefficient = 0.001; SSD - Solid storage, emission coefficient = 0.02; OS - Other, emission coefficient = 0.005.


Animal Type

Nitrogen Excretionkg of Nitrogen per

animal per yearAmount in Pasture

%

Grazing Emission EFG kg of Nitrogen per animal per year

Dairy cow 63.0 0 0

Non-dairy cow 39.0 84.0 0.65520

Swine 14.0 0 0

Poultry 0.6 1.0 0.00012

Sheep 6.0 88.0 0.10560

Animal TypeManure in each storage system (%)1 Storage Emission

EFS kg of Nitrogen per animal per yearAL LS SSD OS

Dairy cow 10 23 23 7 0.52

Non-dairy cow 0 1 14 1 0.112

Swine 25 50 18 6 0.065

Poultry 5 4 0 90 0.0028

Sheep 0 0 2 10 0.0054

Chapter 4


Table 4.19: Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Stored Animal Excretions/Wastes Applied in the Field


It was assumed that nitrogen remaining in manure after storage continued to be released asN2O after being spread in the field (Table 4.19). It was further assumed that all stored manurewas eventually field applied. The field EC was estimated as follows::

where

The factor 0.2 was derived using Monteverde et al. (1997) as:

The total nitrous oxide emission coefficient was determined as follows:

where

Animal TypeProportion of stored

manure applied to field %

Emission coefficientField emission EFF

kg N animal-1 yr-1

Dairy cow 100 0.0125 0.788

Non-dairy cow 16 0.0125 0.078

Swine 100 0.0125 0.175

Poultry 99 0.0125 0.007

Sheep 12 0.0125 0.009

EFF = field emission coefficient

kg N animal-1 yr -1 = amount of N produced animal-1 animal type-1 yr -1

Proportion applied = % of total produced applied to field

EF = 0.0125 (Monteverde et al.,1997)

ECN.WST = total nitrous oxide emission (kg N2O animal-1 yr -1)

EFG = nitrous oxide emissions from grazing animals (kg N animal-1 yr -1)

EFS = nitrous oxide emissions from stored manure (kg N animal-1 yr -1)

EFF = nitrous oxide emissions from field applied manure (kg N animal-1 yr -1)

44/28 = conversion factor for N to N2O

EFF = (kg N animal-1 yr-1 * proportion applied* EF) * 0.2 (4.4)

kg NH3 + NOx - N per kg N excreted (4.5)

ECN.WST = EFG + EFS + EFF * 44/28 (4.6)



4.2.3.2 Livestock Management Activities

The energy inputs used directly for livestock management activities do not contain anynitrogen, and therefore, there are no direct emissions of N2O from that source. The indirectenergy inputs, use of electricity, and through that use of coal and natural gas, contain a smallpart of nitrogen. These emissions are estimated in this section.

As noted earlier (Section 4.2.1.3), two types of electricity (steam generated, and internalcombustion based) are associated with emissions of GHGs. The quantity of coal and naturalgas required to produce this electric power has already been estimated in Section 4.2.1.3. Theonly additional information required now is the emission level of N2O from the use of coaland natural gas. These emissions were estimated using the relative ratio of CO2 and N2Oemissions (1:0.00008, as reported in Section 4.1.2.2).

The above noted methodology for the GHGE sub-model (containing crop and livestockproduction modules) was used to estimate various ECs for the three GHG emissionactivities, production activities, and production regions. The results of total emissions for thethree GHGs are presented in the next chapter.


Chapter 5: Results for the Base Scenario

Emission coefficients, as estimated using the methodology reported in the previous chapter,were multiplied by the base scenario results from CRAM for the area under various cropsand by the size of the livestock enterprises. Section 5.1 describes agricultural production inCanada, and various provinces, as estimated by CRAM. Both crop and livestock productionare included in this discussion. The estimated levels of GHG emissions are presented for theabove set of agricultural production patterns in the rest of the chapter. The sink functionprovided by crops is discussed in Section 5.2. The next two sections (5.3 and 5.4) deal withthe emission of GHGs (sources). Results are presented in terms of emissions by enterprises,by regions, and by GHG emission activities. These results are also compared in this chapter,to those in other Canadian studies. A regional distribution of GHG emissions is presented inthe last section.

5.1 Agricultural Activity in the Base Year (1994)

Agricultural activity in CRAM is estimated both in terms of physical indicators, area andproduction, as well as in terms of economic indicators — value of sales, producer surplus,and government expenditures, among others. Since the GHG emission levels werehypothesized to be related to the physical indicators, economic indicators are not presentedin this chapter.

Let us start with the overall land use in Canada. The area under major land uses, as estimatedby the model is listed in Table 5.1. In 1994, there were a total of 62.2 million hectares ofagricultural lands43. Of this land, 7.2 million hectares is in Eastern Canada, with theremaining 55 million hectares in the three Prairie provinces and British Columbia. In terms ofuse of this land, 57% of the total is cropped area. This area includes summerfallowing, since itis a part of the major rotations followed in the Prairies. The remaining 43% of the total landsis under forage, either producing hay or as pastures (improved or unimproved).

43. The land area shown here is arable, and excludes uncultivated area.

Chapter 5


Table 5.1: Land Use in Canada, 1994

*Excluding area under summerfallow

Source: C.E.E.M.A. output.

With the exception of summerfallowing, the proportion of each land use type is not differentbetween Eastern and Western Canada. In Eastern Canada, hay lands constitute some 30% ofthe total agricultural land base, as compared to only 9% for the Western Canada.

The nature of crops grown in the two regions is shown in Table 5.2. It illustrates significantdifference between the two regions. In Eastern Canada, soybeans, and corn (for grain) are themajor crops. In contrast, in Western Canada, wheat and canola make up over half the totalarea.

Another major difference in the nature of crop production in the two regions is the tillagesystem. In the three Prairie provinces, farmers have started to substitute conventional (orintensive) tillage systems by systems that require less tillage, but more cash inputs (notablyfertilizer and chemicals). During 1994, according to CRAM, conventional tillage systemswere practised on about two thirds of the total cropped area,44 as shown in Table 5.3.

The other major component of agriculture industry in Canada is livestock production. Asnoted earlier, only four types of livestock enterprises were included in this study. Thesewere: beef cattle, hogs, dairy, and poultry. The number of livestock and poultry is shown inTable 5.4, as are details on types of livestock inventory on farms. For example, there were10.6 million beef cattle in various parts of Canada during 1994, of which almost 4 millionhead were beef cows.

Details on the nature of agricultural production activities as presented here will assist thereader in appreciating the results of emission levels of various greenhouse gases in Canadaand its regions. This is because, as noted earlier, all emissions were linked to variousactivities related to GHG production.

ParticularsArea in Thousand Hectares

% of Total for Canadian Area

Eastern Canada Western Canada Canada

Area under Crops* 3,184 25,196 28,380 45.6

Summerfallow Area 0 6,828 6,828 11.0

Area under Hay 2,170 4,743 6,913 11.1

Area under Improved Pastures

741 3,400 4,141 6.3

Area under Unimproved Pastures

1,110 14,853 15,963 25.7

Total Area 7,205 55,020 62,225 100.0

44. One should note that the proportion of area under different tillage systems was based on the 1991 Census of Agriculture. The 1996 Census of Agriculture (see Statistics Canada, 1993) reports significantly higher proportion of the total area under minimum- and zero-tillage systems.

Results for the Base Scenario


Table 5.2: Area Cropped In Canada by Type of Crops, 1994


Table 5.3: Distribution of Cropped Area in the Prairies by Tillage Systems, 1994


As noted above, crop production can lead to both emissions (source) as well as sequestration(sink) of CO2. Each is presented separately.

CropsArea in Thousand Hectares

% of Total Area in Canada

Eastern Canada Western Canada Canada

Wheat 365 8,281 8,645 30.5

Durum 0 2,346 2,346 8.3

Barley for Feed 703 1,762 2,465 8.7

Malt Barley 0 2,558 2,558 9.0

Oats 0 1,675 1,675 5.9

Canola 0 5,775 5,775 20.3

Flaxseed 0 732 732 2.6

Corn for Grain 933 0 933 3.3

Corn for Silage 143 8 151 0.5

Lentils 0 399 399 1.4

Field Peas 0 696 696 2.5

Potatoes 91 35 126 0.4

Soybeans 820 0 820 2.9

Other Crops 129 938 1,067 3.7

Total 3,184 25,196 28,380 100.0

Tillage SystemsArea in Thousand

Hectares% of Total Area

Intensive (Conventional) Tillage 17,479 69.4

Moderate (Minimum) Tillage 6,461 25.6

No (Zero) Tillage 1,256 5.0

Total 25,196 100.0

Chapter 5


5.2 Accounting Framework for Agricultural Emissions

Although conceptually, various agricultural activities discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 arerelated to agricultural production activities, some are anthropogenic, while others are a partof the natural cycle (such as the carbon cycle). The latter includes three sources:photosynthesis, biomass burning, and CO2 emissions from the livestock excretions/wastes. Itshould also be noted that for some sources, such as N2O emissions from SOM, available data

Table 5.4: Livestock Inventories on Farms in Canada, by Type, 1994


Livestock Type Number

Beef Cattle (Thousand Head)

Cow-Calf 3,980

Replacement Animals 942

Stocker Calves 2,318

Feeder Calves 2,018

Feeder Yearlings 1,122

Bulls 218

Sub-total 10,598

Hogs (Thousand Head per Period)

Sows 1,101

Growers 7,935

Sub-total 9,036

Dairy Cattle (Thousand Head)

Dairy Cows 1,273

Dairy Heifers 406

Dairy Heifer Calves 594

Veal Calves 421

Sub-Total 2,694

Poultry (Thousands of birds)

Broilers 290,869

Layers 15,247

Turkeys 12,857

Sub-Total 318,973



and information has not yielded reliable estimates45. For this reason, these emissions wereexcluded from the total GHG emissions from agricultural activities.

Estimated levels of emissions related to these activities are shown in Table 5.5. Results arepresented in terms of actual quantity of each gas, as well as in terms of its effect on globalwarming. The latter is called “CO2-equivalent” emissions. As noted in Chapter 1, CO2

equivalence for methane was 21, while that for nitrous oxide was 310.

Table 5.5: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Not Included in this Study, 1994

* A negative sign on the emissions indicates a sink of greenhouse gas.


Let us start with the emissions not included in the agriculturally-induced total GHGemissions. Results are shown in Table 5.5. Photosynthesis absorbs a total of 361,238 kt ofatmospheric CO2, and thus, constitutes the largest sink (among agriculturally relatedactivities). The other activities included under the carbon cycle are relatively smallercontributors. Biomass burning generates only 6,656 kt of CO2, while livestock excretions/waste generates another 13,621 kt. Although in absolute quantity, the emissions of N2O arevery small (about 535 kt), when this value is converted into CO2-equivalent level, emissionlevels increase to almost 165,923 kt. As noted earlier, because of relatively lower level ofconfidence in the last set of data, these emissions were excluded.

One should be careful in interpreting these quantities. The sink function of agriculturalproduction as stated here is in terms of gross levels, and represents the carbon cycle onlypartially. Since the scope of source function activities included in this study is narrow (i.e.,limited to farm level production-related activities), these estimates might give a somewhatbiased estimate of the net contributions of agriculture. Although plant photosynthesis resultsin the sequestration of CO2 in the plant biomass, the products so produced subsequentlybecome a source of GHG emissions. Some of these sources are included in the presentanalysis, while others are not. For example, the cereal grains and oilseeds are either exportedor consumed locally. The exported products are typically destined for use by either people orfarm animals. Both people as well as animals (in the importing countries) are a source ofsome GHG emissions, which are not included in the above accounting of the sink function.For this reason, these estimates may be somewhat overestimated.

45. Using the CENTURY model, Smith (1995) provided a rate of these emissions, but the level of confidence in these results is rather poor.

Activity GasLevel of Emissions in

kt yr-1 CO2-equivalent

Photosynthesis CO2 -361,238* -361,238*

Biomass Burning CO2 6,656 6,656

Livestock Waste CO2 13,621 13,621

SOM Loss N2O 535 165,923

Chapter 5


5.3 Agricultural Activities as a Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In addition to photosynthesis, eight crop production-related activities and three livestockproduction-related were identified as possible sources of emissions of various greenhousegases46. The results of the levels of emissions in Canada are presented in this section. Themeasurement of emission levels can be carried out at two levels: either at the individual gaslevel or at the CO2-equivalent level, which reflects the global warming potential of variousGHGs.

5.3.1 Estimated Total Emission Levels

In 1994, total GHG emissions (in CO2-equivalent basis) were estimated to be 62,501 kt peryear. This level is based on the 1994 production levels and agricultural practices as portrayedin CRAM. As shown in Table 5.6, crop production activities contribute almost 48% of thistotal. Among various gases, CO2 emissions are only 30.8% of the total emissions. The largestcontributor to total emissions of GHGs in Canada is methane, which constitutes roughly 47%of the total, in terms of its CO2-equivalent emissions.

Table 5.6: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CO2-equivalent, by Gas, kilo tonnes per year, 1994


5.3.2 Distribution of Total Emissions by Activity

Distribution of total emissions by specific agricultural activities that are linked to GHGemissions is shown in Table 5.7. When the global warming potential of each gas is taken intoaccount, animal excretions/wastes contribute the most. This source is estimated to haveemitted 35% of the total agriculturally-induced emissions of greenhouse gases in Canada.The loss of SOM, thereby releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, seems to the second highestcontributor. Some 10,631 kt of GHGs are emitted by this source, which constitute 17% of thetotal CO2-equivalent emissions in Canada.

Also, from crop production, CO2 appears to be the major gas being emitted, while methanedominates emissions from livestock production. The major livestock activities producingmethane include the ruminant process of farm animals and their excretions/wastes, both ofwhich are large producers of methane.

46. These activities are listed in Table 3.1 of this study.

Greenhouse GasCrop

ProductionLivestock

Production

Total Agricultural

Activities% of the Total

Carbon dioxide 17,864 1,407 19,271 30.8

Methane 0 29,152 29,152 46.6

Nitrous Oxide 12,353 1,726 14,079 22.6

Total 30,217 32,285 62,501 100.0

% of the Total 48.4 51.7 100.0



Table 5.7: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CO2-equivalent, by Gas and GHG Emission Activity, Crop and Livestock Production, kilo tonnes per year, 1994


5.3.3 Distribution by Regions

Distribution of CO2-equivalent emissions by various provinces is shown in Table 5.8.According to these estimates, Western Canadian agricultural production contributessignificantly higher levels of emissions than Eastern Canadian agriculture. For allagricultural activities, Eastern Canadian agriculture contributes 36.9% of the totalagriculturally-induced emissions of greenhouse gases in Canada.

In terms of all gases, Alberta and Saskatchewan top the list in crop production, and Alberta,Ontario, and Quebec in livestock production. For crop production-related emissions, 87% ofthe total emissions are generated in Western Canada, but only 44% for livestock production.

Activity CO2 CH4 N2O Total

CROP PRODUCTION

Biomass Burning 0 0 114.2 114.2

Crop Residue 0 0 7,495.1 7,495.1

Fertilizer 0 0 2,234.1 2,234.1

Manure 0 0 1,110.4 1,110.4

Fossil Fuel 7,159.4 0 195.1 7,354.5

Chemicals 73.8 0 0 73.8

Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 0 1,203.7 1,203.7

Soil Organic Matter 10,630.7 0 0 10,630.7

Sub-Total 17,863.9 0 12,352.7 30,216.6

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

Raising Livestock 0 9,263.1 0 9,263.1

Livestock Management 1,407.1 0 0 1,407.1

Animal Waste 0 19,888.7 1,725.9 21,614.6

Livestock Total 1,407.1 29,151.8 1,725.9 32,284.8

Grand total 19,271.0 29,151.8 14,078.6 62,501.4

Chapter 5


Table 5.8: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CO2-equivalent, by Gas and Province, kilo tonnes per year, 1994


Province CO2 CH4 N2O Total

CROP PRODUCTION

British Columbia 335.1 0 449.2 784.3

Alberta 7,231.9 0 3,403.3 10,635.3

Saskatchewan 5,738.9 0 4,268.4 10,007.3

Manitoba 3,298.6 0 1,577.0 4,875.6

Ontario 722.4 0 1,565.0 2,287.4

Quebec 486.1 0 885 1371

New Brunswick -22.6 0 68.6 46.0

Prince Edward Island 81.3 0 47.2 128.5

Nova Scotia -7.3 0 71.8 64.6

Newfoundland -0.6 0 17.2 16.6

Total Crops 17,863.9 0 12,352.7 30,216.6


British Columbia 37.3 1,044.6 80.2 1,162.1

Alberta 331.0 5,320.0 374.4 6,025.3

Saskatchewan 142.7 2,603.6 192.2 2,938.5

Manitoba 147.4 3,697.2 180.9 4,025.5

Ontario 345.3 7,655.7 423.0 8,423.9

Quebec 342.6 7,854.1 417.8 8,614.6

New Brunswick 15.4 261.1 16.5 293.0

Prince Edward Island 18.5 284.4 16.1 319.0

Nova Scotia 24.6 381.3 21.9 427.8

Newfoundland 2.2 49.9 3.0 55.1

Total Livestock 1,407.1 29,151.8 1,725.9 32,284.8

Grand Total 19,271.0 29,151.8 14,078.6 62,501.4



5.4 Total Emissions of (Non-CO2-equivalent)

The estimated GHG fluxes for each of the three GHGs are presented in this section (in actualquantities, as opposed to in terms of their global warming potential, as estimated in terms ofCO2-equivalence). The estimates of this study are compared with recent Canadian studies.The results are shown in Table 5.9 for CO2, Table 5.10 for CH4, and in Table 5.11 for N2O.


Since the equivalence factor for the CO2 is equal to one, these results are identical to thosepresented above. For this gas, major sources of emissions include loss of soil organic carbon(released through tillage systems used, plus microbial activities), and burning of fossil fuels(see Table 5.9). Other sources, such as the use of chemicals, also contributed, but only to aminor extent, to total emissions. One should note that the fossil fuel use in this study waslimited to that used directly for crop production activities, and did not include any indirect(overhead) farm business-related operations.

5.4.2 Methane

For emissions of methane from agricultural activities, crop production was estimated tomake no contribution. This is because of the methodology selected for this study, where alllivestock excretions/wastes, whether applied to the crops as manure or not, were allocatedto emissions from livestock operations. The total methane emission level was estimated to be1,390 kt (Table 5.10). Among the major livestock production activities, farm animalsproduced almost two thirds of the total methane emissions.

5.4.3 Nitrous Oxide

In absolute quantities, emissions of N2O are the smallest among the three gases. Its annuallevel of emissions from agricultural activities is estimated to be 45 kt, most of which (88%) isfrom crop production activities (Table 5.11). Loss of SOM is the major source of this emission.

5.4.4 Comparison of Results with Other Studies

In Tables 5.9 to 5.11, a comparison of estimates of this study is made with those of recentCanadian studies. Before making this comparison, some caveats should be noted:

• Studies have a different scope of estimation; therefore total emissions are not exactly comparable.

• The scope of agricultural activities included in this study is slightly different from other studies; in this study it is defined by the specification of CRAM.

• The scale of agricultural activities (such as number of livestock on farms, or farm inputs used in the production process) may also be slightly different.

Chapter 5


Table 5.9: Estimated Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Agricultural Production Activities, and Comparison with Other Study Estimates, 1994

--Not estimated/reported* These emissions are for stationary combustion.

Source: Column "Estimated Amount": C.E.E.M.A. output. Column "Other Estimates": Source shown in the last column.

No. DescriptionEstimated

Amount in kt yr-1Other Estimates

in Mt yr-1Source for Other

Estimates

1 Photosynthesis (361,238) -308.7 Liu (1995)

2 Soil Organic Matter 10,6316.30

7.20

Desjardins (1997)

Liu (1995)

3 Fossil Fuels (crops) 7,159 8.00

10.40

Desjardins (1997)

Liu (1995)

4 Biomass Burning 0 –

5 Crop Residues 0 –

6 Use of Fertilizers 0 3.2 Liu (1995)

7 Use of Manures 0 –

8 Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 –

9 Chemicals 74 –

Sub-Total Crop Production

17,864 –

10 Farm Animals 0 –

11 Livestock Excretions/Waste 0 –

12 Livestock Management 1,407 –

Sub-Total Livestock Production

1,407 –

Excluded from this Study* 2.7 Desjardins (1997)

TOTAL - Sink

TOTAL - Source

-361,238

19,271

-308.70

17.00



Table 5.10: Estimated Methane Emissions for Agricultural Production Activities, and Comparison with Other Study Estimates, 1994

--Not estimated/reported.

Source: Column "Estimated Amount": C.E.E.M.A. output.

However, in spite of these differences, a comparison of these results suggests that themethodology followed in this study yields results that are comparable to other researchers.For example, for CO2 emissions, this study estimated a total of 19 Mt, as against 17 Mt byDesjardins (1997). Similarly for N2O emissions, this study estimated an annual emission levelof 45 kt, as against that by Desjardins (1997) of 62 kt47. Thus, because of the differences in thescope of investigations, the two studies lead to somewhat different estimates of emissions ofGHGs. For methane, however, the estimate of this study of 1,390 kt is slightly higher thanthat by Liu (1995) of 984 kt per annum.

No. DescriptionEstimated Amount

in kt yr-1Other Estimates

in kt yr-1Source for Other

Estimates

1 Photosynthesis 0 0

2 Soil Organic Matter 0 –

3 Fossil Fuels (crops) 0 2 Liu (1995)

4 Biomass Burning 0 –

5 Crop Residues 0 –

6 Use of Fertilizers 0 –

7 Use of Manures 0 –

8 Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 –

9 Chemicals 0 –


0 2

10 Farm Animals441 706

887

Liu (1995)

McAllister (1997)

11Livestock Excretions / Waste

949 276 Liu (1995)

12 Livestock Management 0 –


1,390

TOTAL 1,390 984 Liu (1995)

47. This excludes 36 kt of nitrous oxide from sources that were not included in this study.

Chapter 5


Table 5.11: Estimated Nitrous Oxide Emissions for Agricultural Production Activities, and Comparison with Other Study Estimates, 1994

--Not estimated / reported*These emissions are from atmospheric deposition, nitrogen leaching and runoff, human sewage, and

from other sources.

Source: Column "Estimated Amount": C.E.E.M.A. output.

No. DescriptionEstimated Amount

in kt yr-1Other Estimates

in kt yr-1Source for Other

Estimates

1 Photosynthesis 0 –

2 Soil Organic Matter 0 –

3 Fossil Fuels 0.63 –

4 Biomass Burning 0.37 –

5 Crop Residues 24.18 21.00Desjardins

(1997)

6 Use of Fertilizers 7.21 15.00Desjardins

(1997)

7 Use of Manures 3.58 –

8 Nitrogen Fixing Crops 3.88 9.00Desjardins

(1997)

9 Chemicals 0 –


39.85 45.00

10 Farm Animals 0 –

11Livestock Excretions / Waste

5.57 17.00Desjardins

(1997)

12 Livestock Management 0 –


5.57 17.00

Excluded from this Study* -- 36.00Desjardins

(1997)

TOTAL 45.42 98.00Desjardins

(1997)



5.5 Regional Distribution

Relative distribution of GHG emissions (in CO2-equivalent levels) by various provinces isshown in Figure 5.1. Western Canadian provinces contribute more than half of the totalemissions. Distribution of greenhouse gas emission levels by various Canadian provinces isshown in Table 5.12. In fact, 62.5% of the total Canadian emissions of GHGs are produced bythe Prairie provinces and British Columbia. In the case of Eastern Canada, Ontario andQuebec produce the larger emissions. These two provinces together contribute almost onethird of the total Canadian emissions.

Figure 5.1 Regional Distribution of Agriculturally-Induced Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in Canada, 1994

Relative distribution of GHGs is identical to that for the CO2-equivalent emisssion levels. Forthe CO2 and N2O emissions, Alberta and Saskatchewan are the regions with largest emissionlevels. This is because these two provinces have the largest cropped area. For CH4, Alberta,Ontario, and Quebec produce the largest quantities, because of their relative large scale oflivestock enterprises. Detailed information on the contribution of various agriculturalactivities by province is shown in Appendix E.

Que.15.96%

Ont.17.12%

Man.14.22%

Sask.20.69%

N.S.0.79% N.B.

0.54%

P.E.I.0.72%

Nfld.0.11%

Alta.26.63%

B.C.3.11%

Chapter 5


Table 5.12: Distribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions* in kilo tonnes per year, Canada by Province, 1994

*Emissions in this table are in non-CO2-equivalent terms. Thus, the methane and nitrous oxide emission here will not match with those shown in Table 5.8.


Production Province CO2 CH4 N2O

CROP PRODUCTION

British Columbia 335.13 0 1.45

Alberta 7,231.93 0 10.98

Saskatchewan 5,738.92 0 13.77

Manitoba 3,298.63 0 5.09

Ontario 722.38 0 5.05

Quebec 486.07 0 2.85

New Brunswick -22.57 0 0.22

Prince Edward Island 81.28 0 0.15

Nova Scotia -7.26 0 0.23

Newfoundland -0.63 0 0.06

Total Crops 17,863.87 0 39.85


British Columbia 37.34 49.74 0.26

Alberta 330.95 253.33 1.21

Saskatchewan 142.68 123.98 0.62

Manitoba 147.42 176.06 0.58

Ontario 345.34 364.56 1.36

Quebec 342.58 374.01 1.35

New Brunswick 15.44 12.43 0.05

Prince Edward Island 18.47 13.54 0.05

Nova Scotia 24.64 18.16 0.07

Newfoundland 2.19 2.38 0.01

Total Livestock 1,407.06 1,388.18 5.57

Grand Total 19,270.93 1,388.18 45.42


Chapter 6: Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Selected Scenarios

The development of an empirical model is not complete without testing its forecasting abilityin terms of accuracy and consistency of forecasts based on the model. To this effect, theC.E.E.M.A. was tested for two situations, called scenarios. The first scenario was related tothe adoption of conservation tillage systems in the Prairie provinces, whereas the secondscenario was related to expansion in the livestock industry in Western Canada. Results foreach of these scenarios are presented in this chapter.

6.1 Study Scenarios

6.1.1 Selection of Study Scenarios

Two policy scenarios were selected for testing the forecasting ability of the C.E.E.M.A.. Thesewere:

• increase in the area of “Zero-till or No-till” Tillage System in the Prairies, and

• increase in Red Meat Production (Beef and Hog Enterprises) in the Prairies.

The reasons for selecting these two scenarios are: ease of running CRAM; policy relevance,particularly for Western Canada; and, higher contribution of Western Canadian agriculturalactivities to the total GHG emissions in Canada. The policy relevance of the first scenario ishigh because of frequent recommendations by those endorsing soil conservation throughadoption of conservation tillage systems (minimum-till or no-till). The second scenario wasselected on the grounds that many of the Western provinces are considering major initiativesto increase the production and processing of livestock products, particularly beef cattle andhogs. In Saskatchewan, for example, hog production has increased significantly during thelast decade. The number of pigs on farms on January 1, 1987 was 644,000, which increased46% to 942,000 by January 1, 1995.

Chapter 6


6.1.2 Description of Study Scenarios

6.1.2.1 Increase in “No-Till” Systems

In this scenario, “no-till” cropped area (excluding area under summerfallow) in Alberta,Manitoba, and Saskatchewan was doubled, from the present 1.256 million hectares to 2.512million hectares. The other two types of tillage systems were allowed to adjust to the marketrealities and price conditions. The model-based results for estimates of cropped area areshown in Table 6.1. The increase in the no-till cropped area resulted in a reduction of 5-6% inthe area under the other two types of tillage systems. For example, the cropped area underintensive tillage decreased by 856,000 hectares, from 16.35 million in 1994. In addition, therewas a minor increase (of 25,000 hectares) in the area under crops for the three prairieprovinces.

Table 6.1: Change in the Area Under Crops, Prairies Provinces, by Tillage Systems, 1994

* This area represents that used in the production given demand conditions for various products. It will not match with figures shown in Table 5.3.


Under this scenario no-till area under each of the crops was doubled, which resulted, in somecases, in a net increase in the total area under that crop, while for others, a net decrease.These results are shown in Table 6.2. Increases in the overall area under the scenario werenoted for canola, durum, lentils and peas. All other crops had a decrease in the area, withwheat decreasing the most.

Tillage SystemArea Under the

Scenario*, 103 haArea Under the Scenario, 103 ha

Change in Area, 103 ha

% Change from the Base Area

Intensive Tillage 16,350 15,495 -856 -5.2

Medium Tillage 6,463 6,087 -436 -5.8

No Tillage 1,256 2,512 1,256 100.0

Total 24,069 24,094 25 0.1

Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Selected Scenarios


Table 6.2: Area of Crops under No-Till Tillage System under Scenario One, 1994

Source: C.E.E.M.A. output

6.1.2.2 Increase in Livestock Production in Western Canada

In this scenario, red meat production was assumed to increase in the four Western provinces.It was assumed in this scenario that hog numbers would double, and beef cattle numberswould increase by 50%. No change in the poultry and dairy enterprises were assumed,primarily because of their supply management environment. Furthermore, no spill-overeffects on crop or livestock production in Eastern Canada were assumed to take place as aresult of these changes in Western Canada.

Results for the changes in the livestock numbers for the beef and hog enterprises in WesternCanada are shown in Table 6.3. All beef cattle numbers increased approximately by 50%, andthe hog numbers by 100%. In aggregate, the number of head of cattle increased by 4.14million, an increase of about 48%. The hog numbers in the scenario doubled from the presentherd of 3.2 million to 6.4 million.

CropArea under No-Till Tillage

System, 103 HaChange in Total Area Under

Scenario, 103 Ha

Wheat 492 -122

Durum 209 54

Barley 172 -16

Oats 75 -27

Flax 39 -4

Canola 213 104

Lentils 31 25

Field Peas 26 15

Total 1,256 26

Chapter 6


Table 6.3: Change in the Livestock Inventories for Beef and Hog Enterprises, Western Canada, Scenario Two, 1994


Increase in herd size for beef and hog enterprises would result in a change in the land usepattern in Western Canada, particularly in light of the change in forage demand48. Again, itwas stipulated that the increased demand for feedgrains and forages would be met byproduction of these crops within the Western Canadian region, and the Eastern Canadianregion would not experience any significant spill-over effects. Results for the change in theland use are shown in Table 6.4. In general, area under cereal crops, except for barley,decreased, whereas various forages increased. The largest relative decline was estimated foroats, flax, and wheat. In all these cases, area in this scenario was expected to decline by over10% from the base area. Barley production (both for feed and malting barley) was expected toincrease, as was the area under corn for silage. The net effect on the total cropped area inWestern Canada was to decrease by 1.07 million hectares.

Consistent with the decline in the cropped area is the decrease in the area undersummerfallow. Since it is a significant part of the rotations followed in some soil zones, adecline in the area under certain cereals, primarily wheat, would also result in a decline inthe area under summerfallow. The decrease in cropped area is transferred to hay production,which increased by 2.7 million ha, an increase of 81% of the base area. The net result of allthese changes is to decrease the crop and forage land base in Western Canada by 1.15 millionha, 2.1% of the present base.

Particulars

Number of Livestock in

Scenario in 103 Head

Base Number of Livestock, in 103

Head

Change in Number of

Livestock, in 103 Head

% Change from Base Number of Livestock

Cow-calf 4,912 3,298 1,613 48.9

Replacement Cattle 1,162 780 382 48.9

Stocker Calves 2,777 1,852 926 50.0

Calves 2,322 1,637 685 41.9

Yearling 1,316 871 445 51.1

Bulls 262 176 86 48.9

Total Beef Cattle 12,752 8,615 4,137 48.0

Sows 898 449 449 100.0

Market Pigs 6,419 3,209 3,209 100.0

Total Hogs 7,317 3,658 3,659 100.0

48. CRAM specifies a maximum hay land area for each region. If the forage demand generated from livestock inventories exceeds the available supply, then crop land within the region is converted to hay land in order to meet the demand.



Table 6.4: Change in Land Use Pattern, Western Canada, Scenario Two, 1994

*One should note that figures in this column are model output, and may not match with the actual land use in Chapter 5.

Source: C.E.E.M.A. Output.

6.2 Results for Increase in No-Till System Scenario

The adoption of no-till tillage systems on 1.26 million ha in the Prairies would slightly reducethe total GHG emissions in Canada. As shown in Table 6.5, in this scenario, emissions of allgases are reduced by 242 kt per annum in CO2-equivalent basis. The change is only 0.39% ofthe base crop production emission level in Canada. However, since the scenario consideredthe adoption of no-tillage systems on only about 5% of the total Prairie cropland, widespreadadoption of conservation tillage would lead to more significant reductions in greenhouse gasemissions. Since there is no change in the size of livestock enterprises, change in emissionsfrom livestock production is zero, and therefore, not shown here.

Particulars Base Period

Area* in Thousand Ha

Area in Scenario Two in

Thousand Ha

Change from Base Area, Thousand Ha

% Change

Wheat 8,281 7,433 -848 -10.2

Durum 2,346 2,255 -91 -3.9

Barley for Feed 1,762 2,212 450 25.6

Malting Barley 2,558 2,877 319 12.5

Oats 1,675 1,384 -291 -17.4

Flaxseed 732 640 -92 -12.6

Canola 5,775 5,363 -411 -7.1

Lentils 399 394 24 -1.2

Field Peas 696 665 15 -4.4

Corn for Silage 8 12 4 52.5

Potatoes 35 35 0 0

Other Crops 937 861 -76 -8.1

Total Area under Crops 25,204 24,131 -1,000 -4.3

Summerfallow 6,820 6,352 -467 -6.8

Total Cropped Area 32,024 30,483 -1,467 -4.8

Hay Land 3,332 6,015 2,693 81.1

Improved and Unimproved Pastures

18,253 18,253 0 0

Total Crop and Forage Lands

53,599 54,751 1,152 2.1

Chapter 6


Table 6.5: Total Emissions from Crop and Livestock Production, Canada, by Gas in CO2-equivalent Level, Scenario One


Let us examine emissions for individual GHGs. For the CO2, among activities that affectemission levels under the adoption of no-till systems, emission levels of GHGs are reducedthrough smaller losses of soil carbon, and through reduced use of fossil fuels, and burning ofbiomass (Table 6.6). The last reduction is because of the decrease in the area under crops,particularly flaxseed. However, emissions increase due to the use of chemicals and manure.

Table 6.6: Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Agricultural Activities, Canada, Scenario One


Since CH4 emissions remain unchanged, no further discussion of these is needed. For theemissions of N2O, results are shown in Table 6.7. The agriculture production activities relatedto these emission levels are similar to those for the CO2, except here on account of increasedarea for lentils and field peas, emissions increase, because of release of nitrogen fixation bythese crops.

Particulars Emissions under

Scenario, kt Change from Base

kt % Change

Carbon dioxide 19,041 -230 -1.19

Methane 29,152 0 0

Nitrous Oxide 14,067 -12 -0.09

Total All Gases 62,260 -242 -0.39

ActivityLevel of Emissions under Scenario in kt

Change from Base in kt

% Change from Base

Biomass Burning 0 0 0

Crop Residues 0 0 0

Fertilizer 0 0 0

Fossil Fuel 7,108 -52 -0.72

Manure 0 0 0

Chemicals 75 1 0.97

Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 0 0

Soil Organic Matter 10,452 -179 -1.68

Total Crop Emissions 17,634 -230 -1.29

Livestock Production 1,407 0 0

Total Emissions 19,041 -230 -1.19



Regional distribution of CO2 emissions is shown in Table 6.8, and of N2O in Table 6.9. Figuresare presented by province only for the Western provinces. Also both actual levels and CO2-equivalent emission levels are included.

Table 6.7: Total Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Absolute and CO2-equivalent, Canada, Scenario One

Source: C.E.E.M.A. output

Table 6.8: Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Canada by Provinces, Scenario One


ActivityEmissions

under Scenario kt

Emissions in CO2-equivalent k

Change from Base Level

(CO2-equivalent) k

% Change from Base Levels

Biomass Burning 0.37 114 -0.84 -0.73

Crop Residues 24.15 7,485 -9.85 -0.13

Fertilizer 7.15 2,226 -4.13 -0.19

Manure 3.58 1,110 -0.21 -0.02

Fossil Fuel 0.62 194 -1.59 -0.82

Chemicals 0 0 0 0

Nitrogen Fixing Crops 3.90 1,209 4.50 0.37

Soil Organic Matter 0 0 0 0

Total Crop Emissions 39.81 12,338 -12.12 -0.10

Livestock Production 5.57 1,729 0 0

Total Emissions 45.38 14,067 -12.12 -0.10

ProvinceEmissions under

Scenario in kt

Change in Emissions from Base Scenario in

kt% Change from Base

British Columbia 372 0 0

Alberta 7,537 -26 -0.34

Saskatchewan 5,689 -192 -3.27

Manitoba 3,422 -24 -0.68

Total W. Canada 17,020 -242 -1.40

Eastern Canada 2,021 0 0

Total Canada 19,041 -242 -1.26

Chapter 6


Table 6.9: Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Absolute and CO2-equivalent and Actual, by Province, Scenario One


According to the results of this scenario, expansion of the conservation tillage systemreduced total emissions of GHGs. In this scenario, the total cropped area under no-till tillagesystems was increased by 5% of the total (1.256 million hectares), which decreased the totalCO2-equivalent emissions by 242 kt per annum. Thus, every hectare converted into no-tilltillage system leads to a reduction of 0.193 tonnes of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions. If the15.5 million hectares currently under intensive tillage were converted to no-till, CO2-equivalent GHG emissions would be reduced by 2,991 kt per annum. If no-till farmingreplaced intensive tillage systems as the dominant method of crop production, significantreductions in emissions of CO2 and N2O could be expected.

6.3 Results for Livestock Expansion

6.3.1 Emissions in CO2-equivalent Levels

Expansion of red meat production in Western Canada could have a significant impact on theGHG emissions from agricultural activities, as shown in Table 6.10. Results are presented forthe three GHGs in CO2-equivalent form. In this scenario, total emissions of GHGs areestimated to increase by 10.82 Mt per annum. About 94% of these increased GHG emissionsare generated by livestock production and related activities. The remaining 6% occursindirectly through changes in crop mix induced by increased livestock production. As notedabove, increased livestock production requires increased production of feedgrains andforages, which alter the crop mix of the region. The change in this crop mix gives rise to adifferent GHG emission level from that estimated for the base situation. In terms of thedistribution, all three gases are emitted in almost equal proportions, with CH4 leading theway at about 85% of the total change in emission level.

ProvinceEmissions under

Scenario ktCO2-equivalent Emissions kt

Change in CO2-equivalent

Emissions from Base kt

% Change from Base

British Columbia 1.45 449 0 0

Alberta 10.98 3,404 -0.78 -0.12

Saskatchewan 13.73 4,258 -10.81 -0.25

Manitoba 5.08 1,575 -2.15 -0.14

Total W. Canada 31.34 9,686 -12.18 -0.13

Eastern Canada 11.45 4,381 0 0

Total Canada 45.38 14,067 -12.18 -0.10



Table 6.10: Total GHG Emissions in CO2 Equivalence by Gas, Canada, Scenario Two


6.3.2 Individual Greenhouse Gases

Details on individual GHGs, both in terms of actual change, and in terms of CO2-equivalentchanges for various agricultural activities, are presented in Table 6.11. The results arepresented in both actual and CO2-equivalent level of emissions.

Emissions of CO2 in the expanded livestock (red meats) production scenario increase by 3.4%of the base emissions level. Much of this increase (81% of the total) is a result of increasedlivestock numbers. Within crop production-related emissions, a small amount is added bythe use of fossil fuels, and chemicals.

Emissions of CH4 are generated solely from livestock production, particularly throughlivestock excretions/wastes. In this scenario, CH4 emissions increase by 31.6% of the baselevel of emissions.

Although N2O emissions in absolute terms are small, their effect is almost comparable to thatof CO2, in terms of their potential for global warming. Under this scenario, emissions levelsincrease by 6.73%. Increase in the area under nitrogen fixing crops leads to emissions of soilnitrogen as N2O. In addition, production of animal excretions/wastes is the other leadingsource of N2O emissions.

GasLevel in CO2-

equivalent Amount, kt

Change from Base, kt

% Change from Base

CROP PRODUCTION

Carbon Dioxide 18,023 159 0.89

Methane 0 0 0

Nitrous Oxide 12,857 504 4.08

Total 30,880 603 2.19


Carbon Dioxide 1,896 488 34.71

Methane 38,378 9,227 31.65

Nitrous Oxide 2,169 443 25.66

Total 42,443 10,158 31.46

Grand Total 73,322 10,821 17.31

Chapter 6


Tab

le 6

.11:

To

tal G

reen

ho

use

Gas

Em

issi

on

s in

CO

2-eq

uiv

alen

t, b

y G

as a

nd

Em

issi

on

Act

ivit

y, S

cen

ario

Tw

o

–Les

s th

an o

ne k

ilo to

nne

Sou

rce:

C.E

.E.M

.A. o

utpu

t.

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

Act

ivit

y

CO

2C

H4

N2O

Act

ual

E

mis

sio

ns

kt

% C

han

ge

fro

m b

ase

Act

ual

Lev

el k

t

CO

2-E

qv.

L

evel

kt

% C

han

ge

Act

ual

Lev

el

kt

CO

2-E

qv.

L

evel

kt

% C

han

ge

CR

OP

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N

Bio

mas

s B

urn

ing

00

00

00.

3611

1-3

.18

Cro

p R

esid

ues

00

00

024

.13

7,48

1-0

.19

Fer

tiliz

er0

00

00

7.14

2,21

5-0

.87

Man

ure

--0.

070

00

3.59

1,11

30.

26

Fo

ssil

Fu

els

7,27

01.

540

00

0.64

198

1.64

Ch

emic

als

740.

580

00

00

0

Nit

rog

en F

ixin

g C

rop

s0

00

00

5.61

1,73

944

.46

So

il O

rgan

ic M

atte

r10

,678

0.45

00

00

00

Su

b-T

ota

l Cro

ps

18,0

230.

890

00

41.4

712

,857

4.08

LIV

ES

TO

CK

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N

Rai

sin

g L

ives

tock

00

526

11,0

5219

.31

00

0

Liv

esto

ck M

anag

emen

t1,

896

34.7

10

00

06

0

An

imal

Exc

reti

on

s/W

aste

s0

01,

301

27,3

2637

.47

2,16

925

.66

Su

b-T

ota

l Liv

esto

ck1,

896

34.7

11,

828

38,3

7831

.65

72,

169

25.6

6

Gra

nd

To

tal

19,9

183.

361,

828

38,3

7831

.65

48.4

715

,026

6.73



6.3.3 Regional Distribution of Emissions Levels

Change in red meat production in Western Canada will affect primarily the emissions ofGHGs in Western Canada provinces. The results are shown in Table 6.12 for CO2, in Table6.13 for CH4, and in Table 6.14 for N2O. For CO2 and CH4, the largest increase in emissionlevels was noted in Alberta, followed by Manitoba. For CH4 emissions, all three Prairieprovinces experienced similar increases. These results are consistent with the distribution oflivestock numbers in these provinces. Some small amounts of emissions levels are alsogenerated by Eastern Canadian provinces; however, the amounts are insignificant, and canbe assumed to be zero.

Table 6.12: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Regions, Scenario Two


Province Actual Emissions

in ktChange from Base in

kt% Change from

Base

CROP PRODUCTION

British Columbia 212.51 -122.62 -36.59

Alberta 7,476.81 244.83 3.39

Saskatchewan 5,687.04 -51.90 -0.90

Manitoba 3,390.52 91.89 2.79

Western Canada Total 16,766.88 162.19 0.98

Eastern Canada 1,255.84 -3.43 -0.27

Total Canada - Crops 18,022.72 158.76 0.89


British Columbia 60.02 22.36 60.73

Alberta 562.43 231.48 69.95

Saskatchewan 243.36 100.68 70.56

Manitoba 284.32 136.90 92.87

Western Canada Total 1,150.14 491.74 74.69

Eastern Canada 745.38 -3.28 -0.44

Total Canada - Livestock 1,895.52 488.46 34.71

Grand Total 19,918.24 647.22 3.36

Chapter 6


Table 6.13: Methane Emissions by Regions, Scenario Two


ProvinceActual

Emissions in ktCO2-equivalent Emissions in kt


from Base in kt

% Change from Base

CROP PRODUCTION

British Columbia 0 0 0 0

Alberta 0 0 0 0

Saskatchewan 0 0 0 0

Manitoba 0 0 0 0

Western Canada Total 0 0 0 0

Eastern Canada 0 0 0 0

Total Canada - Crops 0 0 0 0


British Columbia 74.88 1,572.00 528.00 50.53

Alberta 437.21 9,181.00 3,861.00 72.58

Saskatchewan 211.23 4,436.00 1,832.00 70.37

Manitoba 321.10 6,743.00 3,046.00 82.38

Western Canada Total 1,044.42 21,933.00 9,267.00 73.17

Eastern Canada 783.13 16,446.00 (41.00) -0.25

Total Canada - Livestock 1827.55 38,378.00 9,227.00 31.65



Table 6.14: Nitrous Oxide Emissions by Regions, Scenario Two


ProvinceActual

Emissions in ktCO2-equivalent Emissions in kt


Emissions from Base in kt

% Change from Base

CROP PRODUCTION

British Columbia 1.53 473.00 24.00 5.26

Alberta 12.06 3,740.00 336.00 9.88

Saskatchewan 13.97 4,331.00 63.00 1.48

Manitoba 5.42 1,679.00 102.00 6.49

Western Canada Total 32.98 10,223.00 526.00 5.42

Eastern Canada 8.50 2,634.00 -21.00 -0.80

Total Canada Crops 41.47 12,857.00 504.00 4.08


British Columbia 0.33 102.00 22.00 27.64

Alberta 1.88 583.00 209.00 55.73

Saskatchewan 0.96 298.00 106.00 55.02

Manitoba 0.96 297.00 116.00 64.20

Western Canada Total 4.13 1,280.00 453.00 54.69

Eastern Canada 2.87 888.00 -10.00 -1.09

Total Canada Livestock 7.00 2,168.00 443.00 25.66

Grand Total 48.47 15,026.00 947.00 6.73


Chapter 7: Summary and Future Research Areas

A major change in the world climatic patterns could translate into significant impacts on theeconomic systems of the world. For this reason, climatic changes are regarded as a majorthreat to the future sustainability of present economic activities, and some changes, both interms of the nature of anthropogenic activities as well as environmental policies, have to bedevised. Given this predicament, various countries including Canada, signed an agreementon the Framework Convention for Climate Change in 1991. Under this convention, countrieswere expected to quantify the GHG emissions related to their anthropogenic activities. Thisstudy was undertaken to account for agricultural production activities49, and in particularmajor crop and livestock production activities.

7.1 Summary

The primary objective of this study was to develop a methodology to estimate GHGemissions related to crop and livestock production in Canada, and its regions. In addition,the methodology was to be made compatible with the existing policy simulation model ofAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CRAM. A secondary objective was to demonstrate theuse of the methodology developed in the study to two somewhat simple scenarios. Thesescenarios were: an increase in the area under no-till farming, and expansion of livestockproduction in Western Canada.

To meet the above objectives, a model called C.E.E.M.A. was developed. This contained twosub-models, one for economic planning (resource allocation), and the other for estimation ofGHG emissions. The economic planning sub-model was the existing CRAM. In the GHGemissions sub-model, three greenhouse gases were included in this study: carbon dioxide,methane, and nitrous oxide. The methodology for estimating their emissions involved first aconceptual identification of linkages among various agricultural production activities andthe emissions of the three gases. As a result, the GHG emissions from nine crop productionactivities and three livestock production activities were quantified using C.E.E.M.A.. For

49. One should note that the scope of agricultural activities as defined here is somewhat narrower than the entire gamut of agricultural activities in Canada.

Chapter 7


crops, these included: photosynthesis, loss of soil carbon through loss of organic matter,application of energy inputs, such as burning of fossil fuels, either directly by farmers orindirectly (through the use of electricity, burning of crop biomass, use of fertilizers, use ofmanure in crop and pasture fields, growing of nitrogen fixing crops, and use of chemicals.For livestock production, these included: raising of farm animals, livestock excretions/wastes, and livestock management activities. Of these activities, photosynthesis and SOMwere considered to be potential sinks of GHGs, while the other ten were, on a net basis,sources of GHGs. However, studies of SOM loss have suggested that even this activity couldbe both a sink and a source. Therefore, in this study, SOM was estimated as a net source ofGHGs.

In order to make the methodology of estimating GHG emissions compatible with CRAM,Canada was disaggregated into 29 crop production regions, and into 10 livestock productionregions. For crop production, each province, with the exception of the three Prairieprovinces, was treated as a single region. The Prairie provinces were further divided intoseveral sub-regions50. For the Prairie provinces, there were three alternative tillage systems:intensive (or conventional), medium (or minimum till), and no-till (or zero till).

The emission level for a GHG was estimated by multiplying the scale of production by anEC. The GHG emissions sub-model was linked with CRAM at its scale of production levels.Thus, the major effort of the study was to estimate the average EC for each GHG and for eachof the relevant crop and livestock activities identified in CRAM. Secondary informationprovided the basis to estimate various EC in this study. To accomplish this, a review ofexisting studies was undertaken, starting first with the Canadian studies. When Canadianstudies were inadequate to provide a basis to estimate the coefficient, international studies,particularly those used by the IPCC were consulted.

Results from the C.E.E.M.A. were obtained for the year 1994. CRAM was calibrated to reflectthe level of these enterprises. The total area under cereal crops and forages (includingimproved and unimproved pastures) was estimated to be 65.6 million hectares. About 42million hectares of this were under crops and summerfallow, and the remaining 23.6 millionhectares under hay production and pastures (improved and unimproved). For Canada as awhole, wheat and canola were the major crops, constituting slightly over half the totalcropped lands, excluding summerfallow.

The livestock enterprises included in this study were: beef cattle, hogs, dairy cattle, andpoultry production. The beef herd was estimated to consist of 10.6 million head. Similarly,hog inventories per period were estimated at 9 million sows and grower pigs. Dairyinventories included a herd of 2.7 million, and the poultry production was based on almost319 million birds, which included broilers, egg layers, and turkeys.

7.2 Major Conclusions

Although the major purpose of this study was to develop a methodology for the estimationof emission levels of major GHGs from agricultural production practices, some results wereobtained on the nature of contribution agriculture makes to these emissions. These becamethe basis for the following conclusions:

50. The following is the number of sub-regions in Prairie provinces: Alberta: 7 sub-regions; Saskatchewan: 9 sub-regions; and Manitoba: 6 sub-regions.

Summary and Future Research Areas


• Production of various cereal and forage crops in Canada serves both as a source and a sink for CO2. In terms of the sink, in 1994, it is estimated that 361 Mt of CO2 were fixed in plant tissue through photosynthesis. However, one should recognize that this activity is an integral part of the carbon cycle. A number of activities that are not considered in this study could reduce this amount. In addition, this estimated level of sink is contingent upon the scope of agriculture as defined in this study. Some of the cereals and forages are consumed by people and/or used for further processing. It is conceivable that use of agricultural products would be responsible for some emissions of GHGs, either in Canada or wherever cereals are consumed, if exported. Some of these emissions were not included in this study.

• In terms of agriculture production as a source of GHGs, this study estimated the total contribution to be 62.5 Mt per annum in terms of their global warming potential (CO2-equivalent). Crop production contributed slightly under half of these emissions.

• Methane is the major greenhouse gas emitted from agricultural operations, when all gases are converted in terms of their global warming potential. This gas contributes about 47% of total emissions; nitrous oxide makes the smallest relative contribution (22.6%) among the three GHGs.

• In terms of global warming potential, animal excretions/wastes, and loss of soil carbon through loss of organic matter are the major contributors to the total GHG emissions from agricultural production. These two sources generate about 52% of the total.

• Regional distribution of emission levels suggests that the Western provinces contribute a significantly higher level of GHG emissions from crop production, whereas the Eastern provinces from livestock production. The following shares are estimated:

Thus, for all agricultural products, Western Canada’s share is 65% of the total. Much of this contribution is because of the concentration of crop production in Western Canada, which is responsible for 48% of all emissions in terms of CO2-equivalents.

• A comparison of the estimates of this study with those of other studies showed they were fairly close. This suggests that the methodology used in this study is consistent with those of major Canadian studies. This is not to suggest that methodology followed here is without limitations.

• According to the results of the first scenario, expansion of the conservation tillage system reduced total emissions of GHGs. A doubling of the no-till area from 1,256 hectares to 2,512 hectares, which affected only about 5% of the crop land on the prairies, resulted in small reductions in both CO2 and N2O emissions. If no-till

Crop Products Livestock ProductsAll Agricultural

Products

(Share of total Canadian emissions)

Western Canada 87% 44% 65%

Eastern Canada 13% 56% 35%

Chapter 7


farming replaced intensive tillage systems as the dominant method of crop production, significant reductions in emissions of CO2 and N2O could be expected.

• Expansion of red meat production in Western Canada will have implications for the emissions. In terms of global warming potential, the total emissions in CO2-equivalent terms increase by 10.8 Mt per annum from the base line emissions. The largest part of this increase is caused by methane emissions from the increased number of farm animals.

In terms of the methodology developed in this study, it is concluded that a disaggregatemodelling of GHG emissions is feasible. Such an approach is more desirable than theaggregate approaches, since it is capable of providing the decision makers with not only aglimpse of the regional distribution, but also of how different agricultural practices couldreduce emission levels. The accuracy of the results, of course, is subject to the availability ofappropriate information for estimating emissions coefficients.

7.3 Areas for Future Research

Although this study has been successful in developing a “blue-print” of a methodology forestimating GHG emissions from agricultural production in Canada, a number of areasremain where refinements in the methodology would yield better results. The followingareas are recommended for further work related to the focus of this study:

• Grafting of Scientific Knowledge on Policy Modelling: In order to assure policy analysis is consistent with the latest development in scientific fields, there is a continual need to update the basis/justification for calculation of ECs. This would require a cooperative effort between the scientific community and the model developers and policy analysts.

• Provide Deficient Information for Emission Coefficients: In spite of the best effort to find secondary information, a number of deficiencies remain in the methodology reported in this study. Among those noteworthy are: farm level practices related to the use of animal excretions/wastes as manure; practices related to pasture animals; a more detailed examination of emissions from chemicals; collection of input levels for various crops, particularly those grown in Eastern Canada; and, a more detailed examination of standard practices of tillage systems.

• Maintain Consistency between CRAM Coefficients and Emission Coefficients: At the time of writing, CRAM coefficients and those for this study were developed independently. In order to achieve full consistency and compatibility between the two sub-models, basic data for the estimation of their coefficients should be the same. Correlating these data should be attempted as and when the CRAM coefficients are updated.

• Expand the Scope of Estimation of Emission of Greenhouse Gases: The scope of estimation in this study was limited to major crop and livestock enterprises on farms. A comprehensive account of various types of GHG emissions associated with agricultural activities is shown in Figure 7.1. Besides including crop and livestock enterprises excluded from the present analysis, several other activities, such as production and procurement of farm inputs, marketing of farm output,

Summary and Future Research Areas


other farm operations not directly linked to crop or livestock production, and processing of farm products, are worthy of further examination. Therefore, the scope of such an investigation can be extended in the following manner:

• Add other farm level production activities to the present study. These will include: horticultural and other cash crops, and other livestock enterprises not included.

• Add the farm input sectors. Production and marketing of farm inputs use various types of energy. These uses result in emissions of GHGs. In order to develop a comprehensive estimate of emissions from agricultural operations, both direct and embodied energy uses should be included.

• Add the energy inputs required for the marketing of crops and livestock products from the farm gate.

• Include other farm operations which were excluded from the above analysis, including use of energy inputs in operations included under overhead activities, use of farm shelterbelts, and use of farm products for home use.

• Include emissions from agricultural processing industries.

• Include emissions from end-users of agricultural products (human consumption, for example).

• Conduct policy analysis for reducing emissions of GHGs through changes in agricultural practices: A major challenge facing many countries, including Canada, is to devise ways and means to reduce GHG emissions, and thereby reduce the threat of global warming, without unduly retarding the pace of economic growth in the agriculture sector in the short-run. Work on identifying such avenues has already begun. For example, Dumanski et al. (1996) suggested that land use changes, application of improved soil conservation and management technologies can sequester atmospheric CO2 and thus reduce the prospect of global change. Hedger (1996) suggested a number of options for the agriculture sector, including a review of programs and policies to ensure cross compliance with environmental objectives. However, in addition to identifying potential avenues, there exists a need for measuring the effect of selected options on emission levels. Since Canadian agriculture is a very heterogenous industry extending over various parts of the country, a regional disaggregation is preferable. Here the methodology developed in this study, along with improvements outlined above, can be very helpful.

• Use a Multi-criteria Analysis of Policy Options: In addition to estimating the impact of policy options on emission levels, environmental policy analysis requires knowledge of trade-offs and compromises that need to be made by decision makers. A multi-criteria evaluation of the selected option would lead to the selection of better programs and policies.

Chapter 7


Figure 7.1 Sources of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector

This study marks the beginning of a policy analysis of greenhouse gas emissions fromagriculture. More research and refinements in the methodology are needed to succeed inmeeting the challenge posed by the global climate change both in the context of Canada andthe world.

PROCUREMENT OF FARM INPUTS

MAJORLIVESTOCK

PRODUCTIONCROP & FORAGEPRODUCTION

EMISSIONS OFGREENHOUSE GASESFROM THE CANADIAN

AGRICULTURE &AGRI-FOOD SECTOR

AGRICULTURALPROCESSING

EXPORTS

EMISSIONS INREST OF THE

WORLD

OTHER FARMOPERATIONS

MARKETING &TRANSPORTATION

OF CROPS

MARKETING &TRANSPORTATION

OF LIVESTOCK

OTHER CROPS

OTHER LIVESTOCKPRODUCTS

HUMAN CONSUMPTION

PRODUCTION OFFARM INPUTS


ReferencesAnderson, D. W., 1995. “Decomposition of Organic Matter and Carbon Emissions from

Soils”, pp. 165-175, in R. Lal, J. Kimble, E. Levine, and B. A. Stewart (eds.) Soils and GlobalChange. London: Lewis Publishers.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1997. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture.Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Angers, D. A., 1997. “Effects of Management on Carbon Storage in Eastern CanadianAgricultural Soils”, Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture.Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Beare, M. H., P. F. Hendrix, and D. C. Coleman. 1994. Water-stable aggregates and organicmatter fractions in conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. A.. J. 58:777-786.

Boehm, M. M. and D. W. Anderson. 1997. A Landscape-scale study of soil quality in threeprairie farming systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:1147-1159.

Bolin, B., B. R. Doos, J. Jaeger, and R. A. Warrick (eds.), 1986. The Greenhouse Effect, ClimaticChange and Ecosystem. Scope 29. New York: John Wiley.

Brown, H., G. Dias, C. Wagner-Riddle, and G. W. Thurtell, 1997. “Nitrous Oxide, NitricOxide and Ammonia Fluxes Following a Fall Application of Swine Manure”, Abstract.Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Burke, L., and D. Lashof, 1989. “Greenhouse gas emissions related to agricultural and landuse practices”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Agronomy Society ofAmerica, Anaheim, California.

Campbell, C. A. and R. P. Zentner. 1993. Soil organic matter as influenced by crop rotationsand fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1034-1040.

Campbell, C. A., G. P. Lafond, F. Selles, G. Wen, and D. Hahn, 1997 [Campbell et al. 1997a].“Straw Removal and Fertilization of Grain Yields and Soil Organic Matter in aFallow-Wheat- Wheat Rotation”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

References


Campbell, C. A., G. P. Lafond, F. Selles, B. G. McConkey, D. Hahn, and G. Wen, 1997[Campbell et al. 1997b]. “Effect of Fertilizer, Legumes and Cropping Frequency on SoilOrganic Matter in a Long-term Rotation - Changes After 6 Years of Zero Tillage”.Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Carter, M. R., D. A. Gregorich, and M. A. Bolinder, 1997. “Influence of Tillage on OrganicMatter in Eastern Canadian Soils”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Cook, W. C., J. J. Combs, and G. M. Ward, 1980. “Cultural Energy in U. S. Beef Production”,in D. Pimentel. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. Boca Raton, Florida: CRCPress.

Coxworth, E., M. H. Entz, S. Henry, K. C. Bamford, A. Schoofs, and P. D. Ominski, 1995.Study of the Effects of Cropping and Tillage Systems on the Carbon Dioxide Released byManufactured Inputs to Western Agriculture: Identification of Methods to Reduce CarbonDioxide Emissions. Final Report. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Curtin, D., F. Selles, C. A. Campbell, and V. O. Biederbeck, 1994. Canadian Prairie Agricultureas a Source and Sink of the Greenhouse Gases, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide. ResearchBranch, Agriculture Canada. Swift Current, SK.

Curtin, D., F. Selles, C. A. Campbell, H. Wang, and V. O. Biederbeck, 1997. “Carbon DioxideEmission from Decomposing Wheat Straw”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse GasResearch in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Crutzen, P. J., I. Aselmann, and W. Seiler, 1988. “Methane Production by Domestic Animals,Wild Ruminants, Other Herbivorous Fauna, and Humans”, Tellus. 38B:271-84.

Daynard, Terry, and P. Strankman, 1994. “Canadian agriculture and net greenhouse gasemissions”. Report of the Working Group on Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases.Unpublished Report. September.160 pp.

Desjardins, Ray, 1997. “Presentation at the Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture”. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Desjardins, R., (Undated). “Net methane emissions from Canadian agroecosystem, especiallytheir livestock and their wastes”. Mimeo, ECORC, Research Branch Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, Ottawa. 3 p.

Desjardins, R.L. and S.P. Mathur. 1997. “Agroecosystem greenhouse gas balance indicator:Methane component”. Report No. 21. Technical Report: Net Methane Emissions fromAgroecosystems in Canada for the Years 1986 and 1991. Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Dong, Y., H. D. Bae, T. A. McAllister, G. W. Mathison and K. J. Cheng, 1997. “The Effect ofSupplementary Fibrolytic Enzymes, Bromoethanesulfonate and Monensin onDigestibility of Grass Hay and Methane Production in the Rusitec”. Abstract. Workshopon Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada, March 12-14.

References


Dumanski, J., R. L. Desjardins, C. Tarnocai, C. Monreal, E. G. Gregorich, C. A. Campbell, andV. Kirkwood, 1996. “Possibilities for Future Carbon Sequestration in CanadianAgriculture in Relation to Land Use Changes”. Global Change.

Duxbury, J. M., L. A. Harper, and A. R. Mosier, 1993. Contributions of Agroecosystems toglobal climate change, in Agricultural Ecosystem Effects on Trace Gases and Global ClimateChange. ASA Special Publication Number 55, Madison, WI, pp.1-18.

Eichner, M. J., 1990. “Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Fertilized Soils: Summary of AvailableData”. Journal of Environmental Quality. 19: 272-280.

Ellert, B. H., H. H. Janzen and S. M. McGinn, 1994. CO2 fluxes from prairie soils undercontrasting management regimes. Paper presented at the First Global Change andTerrestrial Ecosystems Science Conference, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA..

Faeth, Paul, 1995. Growing Green: Enhancing the Economic and Environmental Performance of U.S. Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. 81 pp.

Gleig, Bruce D. and K. Bruce MacDonald, 1995. “Sources or sinks of nitrous oxide”. OntarioLand Resource Unit, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

Greene, O., and J. E. Salt, 1993. “Agricultural Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: Monitoringand Verification”, in H. M. Kaiser and T. E. Drennen (eds.). Agricultural Dimensions ofGlobal Climate Change. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Hedger, M. M., 1996. Agriculture and Forestry: Identification of Options for Net GHG Reduction.Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the InternationalEnergy Agency.

Horner, G. L., J. Corman, R. E. Howitt, C. A. Carter, and R. J. MacGregor, 1992. The CanadianRegional Agriculture Model: Structure, Operation and Development. Technical Report 1/92.Ottawa: Agriculture Canada, Policy Branch.

Houghton, J. T., G. J. Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums (eds.),1990. Climate Change: The IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Scientific Assessment. Report prepared forIPCC Working Group I. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. 339 pp.

Houghton, J. T., L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell(eds.), 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. (Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, R. B., 1992. “On estimating agriculture’s net contribution to atmospheric carbon”.Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 64:121-137.

Janzen, H. H. 1987. Soil organic matter characteristics after long-term cropping to variousspring wheat rotations. Cdn. J. Soil Sci. 67:845-856.

Jaques, A. P., 1992. Canada Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimates for 1990. Report EPS 5/AP/4.Ottawa, Ontario.

Jones, H. G., and E. Van Bochove, 1997. “Snow Cover, Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases: AParticular Perspective on Gaseous Exchange between Soils and Atmosphere in Canada

References


during Winter and Springmelt”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada., March 12-14.

Kachanoski, R. G. and D. A. J. Barry. 1997. Nitrogen & Carbon Transformations inConventionally-Handled Livestock Manures: Production and Losses in Six Systems. Arkell,ON: Environmental Soil Science Services.

Khanna, Neha, and A. Prakash, 1993. “The Framework Convention on Climate Change:Some Underlying Economic Issues”, pp. 251-266, in A. N. Achanta (ed.), The ClimateChange Agenda: An Indian Perspective. New Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute.

Kinsman, R., F. D. Sauer, H. A. Jackson, and M. S. Wolynetz, 1995. “Methane and CarbonDioxide Emissions from Dairy Cows in Full Lactation Monitored over a Six MonthPeriod”. Centre for Food and Animal Research, Research Branch, Ottawa: Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada.

Kort, J., and R. Turnock, 1997. “Carbon Fixation by Prairie Shelterbelts”. Abstract. Workshopon Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada., March 12-14.

Kreileman, G. J. J., and A. F. Bouwman, 1994. “Computing Land Use Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases”, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 76: 231-258.

Lapierre, C., and R. R. Simard, 1997. “Nitrous Oxide Fluxes from a Newly CultivatedPasture: Effects of Tillage and Lime”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture. Sainte-Foy, March 12-14, 1997. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Lashof, D., and D. Tirpak, 1989. “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate Change”. Adraft report to Congress. Washington, D.C.; US EPA.

Lauren, J. G., G. S. Pettygrove and J. M. Duxbury, 1994. “Methane emissions associated witha green manure amendment to flooded rice in California”. Biogeochemistry 24: 53-65.

Lessard, R., P. Rochette, E. Topp, E. Pattey, R. L. Desjardins, and G. Beaumont, 1994.“Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from poorly drained adjacent cultivated and forestsites”. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 74: 139-146.

Li, Changsheng, Vijay Narayanan and Robert C. Harriss, (Undated) Nitrous oxide emissionsin 1990 from agricultural lands in the United States. Submitted to Global BiogeochemicalCycles.

Liu, J., 1995. “Preliminary estimate of the greenhouse gas balance for agroecosystems inCanada in 1991". Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, ON.

McAllister, T. A., (1997). “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Livestock”, Presentation atthe Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

McCaughey, W. P., K. Wittenberg, and D. Corrigan, 1997. “Methane Production by Cattle onPasture”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

References


McGinn, and O. O. Akinremi, 1997. “Estimates of Field Scale CO2 Exchange on the Prairies”,Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Manaloor, Varghese and Tulay Yildirim, 1996. The impacts of the removal of farm fuel tax rebateson CO2 emissions and farm income in Central Canadian agriculture. Canadian AgriculturalEnergy End-Use Data and Analysis Center. University of Saskatchewan. Report No. 1/96.

Marland, G., and A. F. Turhollow, 1990. CO2 Emissions from Production and Combustion ofFuel Ethanol from Corn. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-11180.

Mathison, G. W., T. A. McAllister, K. J. Cheng, Y. Dong, J. Gailbraith, and O. Dmytruk, 1997.“CH4 Emissions from Farm animals”, Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Mathur, Sukhu P., (Undated). “An estimate of net methane emissions from the Canadianagroecosystem in 1986 and 1991 with main focus on animals and their wastes”.Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Mehra, M. and M. Damodaran, 1993. “Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases in India(1989-90)”, pp. 9-31, in A. N. Achanta (ed.), The Climate Change Agenda: An IndianPerspective. New Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute.

Mintzer, I. M. And J. A. Leonard (eds.), 1994. Negotiating Climate Change: The Inside Story of theRio Convention. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Monteverde, C.A., R.L. Desjardins, and E. Pattey. 1997. “Estimates of Nitrous OxideEmissions from Agroecoystems in Canada for 1986 and 1991 using the Revised 1996IPCCC/OECD Methodology. Agroecosystem greenhouse gas balance indicator: Nitrousoxide component”. Report No. 20. Technical report Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Research Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.

Oltenacu, P. A., and M. S. Allen, 1980. “Resource-Cultural Energy Requirements of theDairy Production System”, in D. Pimentel. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture.Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Ostrander, C. E., 1980. “Energy Use in Agriculture Poultry”, in D. Pimentel. Handbook ofEnergy Utilization in Agriculture. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Ouyang, D., M. Fan, and A. F. McKenzie, 1997. “Nitrite Accumulation and Denitrificationduring Urea Hydrolysis with Added Triple Superphosphate”. Abstract. Workshop onGreenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,March 12-14.

Parton, W. J., J. M. O. Sherlock, D. S. Ojima, T. G. Gilmanor, R. J. Scholes, D. S. Schimel, T.Kirchner, J. C. Minaut, T. Seastedt, E. Garcia Moya, A. Kamnalrut, and J. I. Kinyamario,1993. “Observations and modelling of humus and soil organic matter dynamics for thegrassland biome worldwide”. Global Biogeochemical Cycle. 7:785-809.

References


Pattey, E., M. Edwards, P. Rochette, and R. L. Desjardins, 1997. [Pattey et al. 1997a]“Composting Dairy or Beef Manure Reduces the Greenhouse Gas Emissions during theSummer Storage”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture.Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Pattey, E., W. N. Smith, R. L. Desjardins, and R. L. Rochette, 1997. [Pattey et al. 1997b]“Measurement and Modelling of N2O Emissions” Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse GasResearch in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Prather, M., R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanhueza, and X. Zhou, 1995. “Other TraceGases and Atmospheric Chemistry”. pp. 77-126, in J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, J.Bruce, H Lee, B. A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris, and K. Maskell. Climate Change 1994:Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios.Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Prevost, D., and E. Van Bochove, 1997. “Mechanisms Involved in N2O Emissions during ColdSeasons in Quebec”, Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture.Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Pimentel, D., 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. Boca Raton, Florida: CRCPress.

Reid, J. T., P. A. Oltenacu, M. S. Allen, and O. D. White, 1980. “Cultural Energy, Land, andLabour Requirements of Swine Production Systems in the U. S.”, in D. Pimentel.Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Reilly, J., and R. Bucklin, 1989. Climate Change and World Agriculture. World AgriculturalSituation and Outlook Report. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS, WAS-55.

Reilly, J, W. Baethen, F. E. Chege, S. C. van de Geijn, L. Erda, A. Iglasias, G. Kenny, D.Patterson, J. Rogasik, R. Rotter, C. Rosenzweig, W. Sombroek, J. Westbrook, D. Bachelet,M. Brklacich, D. Dammgen, M. Howden, R. J. V. Joyce, P. D. Lingren, D.Schimmelpfennig, U. Singh, O. Sironenko, and E. Wheaton. 1996. “Agriculture in aChanging Climate: Impacts and Adaptation”, pp. 427-467, in R. T. Watson, M. C.Zinyowera, and R. H. Moss (eds.), Climate Change 1995 – Impacts, Adaptations andMitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rochette, P., and R. L. Desjardins, 1997. “Soil-Surface CO2 Emissions in Agricultural Soils inEastern Canada”, Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture.Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Rochette, P., M. Fortin and R. L. Desjardins. 1997. “Soil Surface CO2 Emissions under No-Tilland Mouldboard Tillage Systems in Eastern Canada”, Abstract. Workshop on GreenhouseGas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Rochette, P., R. Lessard, E. O. Gregorich, E. Pattey, and R. L. Desjardins, 1997. [Rochette et al.1997a] “Effects of 3 Years of Manure Application on Soluble Organic C, Microbial C, andCO2 Emissions in Soils Under Maize”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research inAgriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

References


Rochette, P., R. Lessard, E. O. Gregorich, E. Pattey, and R. L. Desjardins, 1997. [Rochette et al.1997b] “N2O Emissions in Manured Soils under Maize”. Abstract. Workshop onGreenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,March 12-14.

Rutherford, A., and M. Gimby, 1988. “Farm ENERDEMO Project: Task 1: BackgroundReport”. SRC Technical Report No. 208, Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.31pp.

Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, 1995. Agricultural Statistics 1994. Regina, SK.

Schimel, I. G. Enting, M. Heimann, T. M. L. Wigley, D. Raynaud, D. Alves, and U.Siegenthaler, 1995. “CO2 and the Carbon Cycle”. Pp. 39-71, in J. T. Houghton, L. G. MeiraFilho, J. Bruce, H Lee, B. A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris, and K. Maskell. ClimateChange 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92Emission Scenarios. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, W. N., P. Rochette, and A. Jaques (1995). “Net Emissions of CO2 from AgriculturalSoils in Canada for the Year 1990". Research Report Submitted to Environment Canada.April

Smith, W. N., P. Rochette, C. Monreal, R. L. Desjardins, E. Pattey, and A. Jaques, 1995.Agroecosystem Greenhouse Gas Balance Indicator: Carbon Dioxide Component.Agri-Environmental Indicator Project, Progress Report. Ottawa: Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada. December.

Statistics Canada, 1983. Farm Energy Use 1981. Ottawa, ON.

Statistics Canada, 1993. Census of Agriculture, 1991. Ottawa, ON.

Statistics Canada, 1996a. Extraction System of Agricultural Statistics. Volume 3. Ottawa.

Statistics Canada, 1996b. Farm Inputs Management Survey, 1995. Ottawa.

Statistics Canada, 1997. “Electrical Power Statistics”. Ottawa.

Steed, John Jr. and Andrew G. Hashimoto, 1994. “Methane emissions from typical manuremanagement systems”. Bioresource Technology 50: 123-130.

Stern, P. C., O. R. Young, and D. Druckman (eds.), 1992. “Summary”, pp. 1-16, in GlobalEnvironment Change. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

Swaminathan, M. S., 1991. “Agriculture and Food Systems”, pp. 265-278, in J. Jaeger and H.L. Ferguson. Climate Change: Science, Impacts and Policy. Cambridge, Mass.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Topp, E. and E. Pattey., 1997. “Soil as Sources and Sinks for Atmospheric Methane”. CanadianJournal of Soil Science. 77:167-78.

Van Bochove, E., D. Prevost, F. Pelletier, G. Levesque, and N. Bertrand, 1997. “Effects ofFreezing and Thawing on N2O Production in Soil Under Contrasted AgriculturalManagement”. Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

References


Wagner-Riddle, C., 1997. “Greenhouse Gas Fluxes at Field Scale Using Micro MeterologicalMethods”, Abstract. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14.

Watson, R. T., H. Rhode, H. Oeschger, and U. Siegenthaler, 1990. “Greenhouse Gases andAerosols”, in Climate Change: the IPCC Scientific Assessment. In J. T. Houghton, G. J.Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums (eds.) Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. pp.1-40.

Watson, R. T., L. Meira Fuilho, E. Sanhueza., and A. Janetos, 1992. “Sources and Sinks”, in J.T. Houghton, B. A. Callander, and S. K. Varney (eds.), Climate Change 1992. TheSupplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, pp. 25-46. Cambridge:University Press.

Webb, J., C. Wagner-Riddle, and G. W. Thurtell, 1997. “Effect of Fertilizer Type on NitrousOxide and Nitric Oxide Emissions from Turfgrass”. Abstract. Workshop on GreenhouseGas Research in Agriculture. Sainte-Foy, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, March 12-14,1997.

WCED -- World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.New York: Oxford University Press.

Wuebbles, D., and J. Edmonds, (1988). A primer on greenhouse gases. Prepared for the USDOE/NBB-0083 Dist. Category UC-11.

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 A-1

Appendix A: Specification of Regions and Production Activities in C.E.E.M.A.

Table A.1: Regional Disaggregation for CEEMA

1 Where CRAM did not have any sub-regions, the province as a whole was modelled.

Name of the Region AcronymNumber of

Sub-Regions in C.E.E.M.A.1

No. of regions in the Crop GHGE Sub-

model

No. of regions in the Livestock GHGE

Sub-model

British Columbia BC 0 1 1

Alberta AL 7 7 1

Saskatchewan SA 9 9 1

Manitoba MA 6 6 1

Ontario ON 0 1 1

Quebec QU 0 1 1

New Brunswick NB 0 1 1

Prince Edward Island PE 0 1 1

Nova Scotia NS 0 1 1

Newfoundland NF 0 1 1

Total No. of Regions 29 10

Appendix

A-2 Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

Table A.2: Specification of Crop Production Activities in C.E.E.M.A.

Crop Production Activity Number and Acronym Crop Production Activity Description

1. BAR Barley

2. BARFD All feed barley

3. BARFDI All feed barley - intensive tillage

4. BARFDM All feed barley - moderate tillage

5. BARFDN All feed barley - no tillage

6. BARFDSB Feed barley on stubble

7. BARFDSBI Feed barley on stubble - intensive tillage

8. BARFDSBM Feed barley on stubble - moderate tillage

9. BARFDSBN Feed barley on stubble - no tillage

10. BARFDSF Feed barley on stubble - summerfallow

11. BARMT All malting barley

12. BARMTI All malting barley - intensive tillage

13. BARMTM All malting barley - moderate tillage

14. BARMTN All malting barley - no tillage

15. BARMTSB Malting barley on stubble

16. BARMTSBI Malting barley on stubble - intensive tillage

17. BARMTSBM Malting barley on stubble - moderate tillage

18. BARMTSBN Malting barley on stubble - no tillage

19. BARMTSF Malting barley on summerfallow

20. CAN Canola

21. CANOLA All canola

22. CANOLAI All canola - intensive tillage

23. CANOLAM All canola - moderate tillage

24. CANOLAN All canola - no tillage

25. CANSB Canola on stubble

26. CANSBI Canola on stubble - intensive tillage

27. CANSBM Canola on stubble - moderate tillage

28. CANSBN Canola on stubble - no tillage

29. CANSF Canola on summerfallow

30. CANSFI Canola on summerfallow - intensive tillage

31. CANSFM Canola on summerfallow - moderate tillage


32. CANSFN Canola on summerfallow - no tillage

33. CORNG Corn grain

34. CORNS Corn silage

35. DURUM All Durum

36. DURUMN All durum - no tillage

37. DURUMSB Durum on stubble

38. DURUMSBI Durum on stubble - intensive tillage

39. DURUMSBM Durum on stubble - moderate tillage

40. DURUMSBN Durum on stubble - no tillage

41. DURUMSF Durum on summerfallow

42. DURUMSFI Durum on summerfallow - intensive tillage

43. DURUMSFM Durum on summerfallow - moderate tillage

44. DURUMSFN Durum on summerfallow - no tillage

45. FLAX All flax

46. FLAXI All flax - intensive tillage

47. FLAXM All flax - moderate tillage

48. FLAXN All flax - no tillage

49. FLAXSB Flax on stubble

50. FLAXSBI Flax on stubble - intensive tillage

51. FLAXSBM Flax on stubble - moderate tillage

52. FLAXSBN Flax on stubble - no tillage

53. FLAXSF Flax on summerfallow

54. FLDP Field peas

55. FLDPEAS All field peas

56. FLDPEASI All field peas - intensive tillage

57. FLDPEASM All field peas - moderate tillage

58. FLDPEASN All field peas - no tillage

59. FLDPSB Field peas on stubble

60. FLDPSBI Field peas on stubble - intensive tillage

61.FLDPSBM Field peas on stubble - moderate tillage

62. FLDPSBN Field peas on stubble - no tillage



Appendix


63. HAY Tame hay

64. LENT Lentils

65. LENTILS All lentils

66. LENTILSI All lentils - intensive tillage

67. LENTILSM All lentils - moderate tillage

68. LENTILSN All lentils - no tillage

69. LENTSB Lentils on stubble

70. LENTSBI Lentils on stubble - intensive tillage

71. LENTSBM Lentils on stubble - moderate tillage

72. LENTSBN Lentils on stubble - no tillage

73. LENTSF Lentils on summerfallow

74. LENTSFI Lentils on summerfallow - intensive tillage

75. OATS All oats

76. OATSI All oats - intensive tillage

77.OATSM All oats - moderate tillage

78. OATSN All oats - no tillage

79. OATSSB Oats on stubble

80. OATSSBI Oats on stubble - intensive tillage

81. OATSSBM Oats on stubble - moderate tillage

82. OATSSBN Oats on stubble - no tillage

83. OATSSF Oats on fallow

84. OTHER All other crops

85.OTHERC Other Crops

86. OTHSB Other crops on stubble

87. OTHSF Other crops on summerfallow

88. PAST Tame pasture

89. POTAT Potatoes

90. SOY Soybeans

91. SOYBEANS All soybeans

92. SUMFAL Summerfallow

93. SUMFALI Summerfallow - intensive tillage




94. SUMFALM Summerfallow - moderate tillage

95. SUMFALN Summerfallow - no tillage

96. UILPAST Unimproved land pasture

97. WHEAT All wheat

98. WHEATI All wheat - intensive tillage

99. WHEATM All wheat - moderate tillage

100. WHEATN All wheat - no tillage

101. WHTQ Wheat

102. WHTHQSB Wheat on stubble

103. WHTHQSBI Wheat on stubble - intensive tillage

104. WHTHQSBM Wheat on stubble - moderate tillage

105. WHTHQSBN Wheat on stubble - no tillage

106. WHTHQSF Wheat on summerfallow

107. WHTHQSFI Wheat on summerfallow - intensive tillage

108. WHTHQSFM Wheat on summerfallow - moderate tillage

109. WHTHQSFN Wheat on summerfallow - no tillage



Appendix


Table A.3: Specification of Livestock Production Activities In CEEMA

Activity No. and Acronym Activity Description

1. COWS Number of beef cows

2. COWCLF1 Cow-calf diet 1



5. BREPLACE Beef cattle replacements

6. FEEDER Feeder calves

7.FEDCLF1 Feeder calves Diet 1

8. FEDCLF2 Feeder calves Diet 2



11. FEDYEAR Feeder yearlings

12. FEDYER1 Feeder yearlings diet 1




16. STOCKER Stockers

17. PASTYEAR Pasture yearlings

18. FEDLYEAR Feedlot long yearlings

19. BULLS Beef bulls

20. IDAIRY Dairy animals

21. DCOWS Dairy cows

22. DARYHEIF Dairy heifers

23. DHEIFCV Heifer calves

24. TURKEYS Turkeys

25. LAYERS Egg layer birds

26. BROILERS Broilers

27. SOWT1 Sows time 1

28. SOWT2 Sows time 2

29. GROWERT1 Grower pigs time 1

30. GROWERT2 Grower pigs time 2


Table A.4: List of Acronyms Used in the Greenhouse Gas Emission Sub-Model

Activity No. Description Acronym

1 Photosynthesis PHOSYNTHS

2 Soil Organic Matter SOLORGMTR

3Fossil Fuels (Including crop management activi-ties)

FOSLFUELS

4 Biomass Burning BIOMSBURN

5 Crop Residues CRPRESIDU

6 Use of Fertilizers FERTLIZER

7 Use of Manures MANURES

8 Nitrogen Fixing Crops NTROGNFIX

9 Chemicals HERBICIDS

10 Farm Animals LIVESTOCK

11Livestock Excretions / Wastes

LVSTKWSTE

12 Livestock Management LVSTKMNGT

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 B-1

Appendix B: Comparison of Soil Carbon Loss by Provinces

As noted in Chapter 4, in this study, loss of soil carbon was estimated by using informationfor various crops and tillage systems. One of the cross-checks for the results was acomparison with other studies. The study by Smith, Rochette and Jaques (1995) was selectedfor this comparison. Results of this comparison are shown in Table B.1.

Table B.1: Estimated Change in Carbon in Agricultural Soils, by Province

Region/Province

Carbon Loss from Agriculture Soils in kg ha-1 yr-1

This StudySmith, Rochette and Jaques'

(1995) Study

Atlantic -1.20 -4.26

Newfoundland -0.10

Nova Scotia 1.32

Prince Edward Island 2.31

New Brunswick -2.08

Quebec 34.94 34.5

Ontario 3.06 4.12

Manitoba 79.95 66.10

Saskatchewan 32.02 22.50

Alberta 74.36 74.50

British Columbia 25.93 -16.10

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 C-1

Appendix C: Results of Regression Analysis

As noted in Chapter 4, an attempt was made to find a conversion factor to convert variousCRAM cost input data into physical quantities.

C.1 Results for Fuel Cost

The dependent variable for this analysis was quantity of fuel per acre (QFUEL), as reported byRutherford and Gimby (1988). The independent variables included: fuel cost (COSTFUEL), andtwo binary variables, one each for dark brown (BYDB) and brown soil (BYBR) zones. Thus,the black soil zone was used as the base. The results are summarized as follows (withstandard error of estimate in parentheses):

The probability of the F-value suggesting that the regression effect does exist was 40.6%.Thus, it was concluded that the quantities and cost from the two sources are not consistentwith each other, and therefore, this analysis should not be used in developing a conversionfactor for fuel costs in CRAM into physical quantities.

C.2 Results for the Herbicide Costs

This analysis was exactly the same as for fuel costs, except that the dependent variable wasthe cost of chemicals per acre (QHERB). The only change in the independent variables was thatcost of herbicides (COSTHERB) was used. The following results were obtained (with standarderror of estimate in parentheses):

Q FUEL = 47.37 - 1.498 COSTFUEL - 7.569 BYDB - 8.726 BYBR (C.1)(-16.78) (-1.50) (-1.525) (-1.557)

R2 = 0.208 n = 16 F = 1.05

Appendix C

C-2 Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

Results obtained do not support the hypothesis of a relationship between quantity ofherbicides uses and the herbicide cost estimates in CRAM. Even the differences in the levelof herbicide quantity by soil type was not found to be statistically different from zero.

C.3 Results for Fertilizer Costs

This analysis was exactly the same as for fuel costs, except that the dependent variable wasthe fertilizer cost per acre (QFERT), which was obtained from Rutherford and Gimby (1988).The only change in the independent variables list was that cost of fertilizer (COSTFERT) wasused. The following results were obtained (with standard error of estimate in parentheses):

The hypothesis related to relationship between fertilizer quantities and their cost (as reportedin CRAM) was accepted at a probability of 1%. However, in order to keep consistency inmethodology, and because results for fuel and herbicides costs were poor, using CRAM costfor estimating respective quantities of fertilizer was not used.

Q HERB = 1.037 - 0.005 COSTHERB - 0.193 BYDB + 0.273 BYBR (C.2) (-2.375) (-0.350) (-0.661) (-0.816)

R2 = 0.168 n = 16 F = 0.808

Q FERT = 17.87 + 3.302 COSTFERT - 7.181 BYDB + 4.624 BYBR (C.3) (0.812) (5.498) (-0.361) (0.199)

R2 = 0.741 n = 16 F = 11.42

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 D-1

Appendix D: Details on Selected Crop Inputs by Provinces

The emissions of greenhouse gases from various crops in different regions are affected by theassumptions made with respect to the level of farm input used in the regions. Three inputsthat are noteworthy in this respects are: fertilizer, fuel, and herbicides. The assumptionsmade with respect to their levels are shown in Table D.1 for fertilizer, in Table D.2 for fuel,and in Table D.3 for herbicides.

Appendix D

D-2 Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

Table D.1: Levels of Fertilizer Used in the Production, by Crop and Regions

Crop Rotation

Saskatchewan lbs acre-1

Manitoba lbs acre-1

Ontariokg ha-1Brown Soil

ZoneDark Brown

Soil ZoneBlack Soil

Zone

BarleyStubble 45 50 60 70 251

Fallow 20 25 30 70 251

CanolaStubble 45 50 60 70 230

Fallow 20 25 35 80 230

Corn 457 512

DurumStubble 45 50 50 50 -

Fallow 20 25 25 25 -

FlaxseedStubble 45 50 50 70 -

Fallow 20 25 25 70 -

Field Peas 15 15 20 - 2

Hay 20 20 20 20 18

LentilsStubble 10 15 20 - -

Fallow 4 5 7 - -

OatsStubble 45 45 60 60 -

Fallow 20 20 30 60 -

Pastures 90 100 120 140 502

Potatoes - - - - 230

Soybeans - - - - 2

Summerfallow 0 0 0 0 -

WheatStubble 45 50 60 70 154

Fallow 20 25 30 - -S

Details on Selected Crop Inputs by Provinces

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 D-3

Table D.2: Fuel Use (in litres per acre) for Crops, by Regions

Crop Rotation

Saskatchewan

Manitoba OntarioBrown Soil

Zone

Dark Brown Soil

Zone

Black Soil Zone

BarleyStubble 20 20 20 30 28

Fallow 17 17 17 30 -

CanolaStubble 21 21 21 30 28

Fallow 18 18 18 30 -

Corn - - - 49 49

DurumStubble 20 20 20 17 -

Fallow 17 17 17 17 -

FlaxseedStubble 22 22 22 30 -

Fallow 19 19 19 30 -

Field Peas 22 22 22 36 32

Hay 20 20 20 20 18

LentilsStubble 22 22 22 32 -

Fallow 19 19 19 32 -

OatsStubble 20 20 20 30 -

Fallow 17 17 17 30 -

Pastures 40 40 40 60 56

Potatoes - - - - 28

Soybeans - - - - 27

Summerfallow 10 10 10 10 -

WheatStubble 20 20 20 30 28

Fallow 17 17 17 30 -

Appendix D

D-4 Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

Table D.3: Herbicide Cost per Acre, by Crop and Regions (All costs are in dollar per acre)

Crop Rotation

Saskatchewan

Manitoba OntarioBrown Soil

ZoneDark Brown

Soil ZoneBlack Soil

Zone

BarleyStubble 8.46 11.41 11.41 20.00 30.50

Fallow 8.18 11.41 11.41 20.00 -

Canola Stubble 15.71 17.06 15.71 29.00 41.00

Fallow 15.71 15.71 15.71 29.00 -

Corn - - - 29.44 29.44

Durum Stubble 8.46 11.98 11.98 11.98 -

Fallow 8.46 11.98 11.98 11.98 -

Flaxseed Stubble 17.97 17.97 17.97 22.50 -

Fallow 11.97 11.97 11.97 22.50 -

Field Peas 22.50 22.50 26.65 - 35.10

Hay 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 13.50

LentilsStubble 39.11 39.11 39.11 31.50 -

Fallow 39.11 39.11 39.11 31.50 -

OatsStubble 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 -

Fallow 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 -

Pastures 16.90 22.80 22.80 40.00 63.00

Potatoes - - - - 41.00

Soybeans - - - - 32.50

Summerfallow 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 -

WheatStubble 8.46 11.98 11.98 20.00 24.00

Fallow 8.46 11.98 11.98 20.00 -

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1 E-1

Appendix E: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases by Provinces and Activities

Table E.1: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, British Columbia, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994

-Quantity less than 0.005 kt.

Activity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2-Eqv.

CROP PRODUCTION

Biomass Burning 0 0 - 1.27

Crop Residues 0 0 0.70 216.57

Fertilizer 0 0 0.07 20.52

Use of Manure 0 0 0.42 126.86

Fossil Fuel 161.10 0 0.01 165.44

Chemicals 1.14 0 0 1.14

Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 0 0.25 76.60

Soil Organic Matter 172.9 0 0 172.92

Crop Total 335.5 0 1.45 784.32


Raising Livestock 0 23.84 0 500.7

Livestock Management 37.34 0 0 37.34

Animal Excr. / Wastes 0 25.9 0.26 481.41

Livestock Total 37.34 49.74 0.26 1,162.12

Grand total 372.47 49.74 1.71 1,946.44

Appendix E

E-2 Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: Report 1

Table E.2: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Alberta, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994


CROP PRODUCTION


Crop Residues 0 0 7.86 2,436.20

Fertilizer 0 0 1.16 359.72

Fossil Fuel 2,010.56 0 0.18 2,065.42

Chemicals 18.56 0 0 18.56


Soil Organic Matter 5,202.81 0 0 5 202.81

Crop Total 7,231.93 0.00 10.98 10,635.26


Raising Livestock 0 95.61 0 2,007.84


Animal Excr./ Wastes 0 157.70 1.21 3,686.54

Livestock Total 330.95 253.33 1.21 6,025.33

Grand total 7,562.88 253.33 12.19 16,660.58

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases by Provinces


Table E.3: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Saskatchewan, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994


CROP PRODUCTION


Crop Residues 0 0 9.93 3,077.28

Fertilizer 0 0 1.80 556.74

Fossil Fuel 2,708.35 0 0.24 2,782.27

Chemicals 22.72 0 0 22.72



Crop Total 5,738.92 0 13.77 10,007.30




Animal Excr./Wastes 0 71.75 0.62 1,698.83

Livestock Total 1,020.43 161.20 1.49 3,195.93

Grand total 5,881.60 123.98 14.39 12,945.75

Appendix E


Table E.4: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Manitoba, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994


CROP PRODUCTION



Fertilizer 0 0 0.92 283.68

Fossil Fuel 1,212.45 0 0.11 1,245.39

Chemicals 17.88 0 0 17.88



Crop Total 3,298.63 0 5.09 4,875.61





Livestock Total 147.42 176.06 0.58 4,025.52

Grand total 3,446.05 176.06 5.67 8,901.13



Table E.5: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Ontario, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994


CROP PRODUCTION



Fertilizer 0 0 2.03 627.75

Fossil Fuel 679.21 0 0.06 697.68

Chemicals 8.56 0 0 8.56



Crop Total 722.38 0 5.05 2,287.38





Livestock Total 345.34 364.56 1.36 8,423.94

Grand total 1,067.72 364.56 6.41 10,711.32

Table E.6: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Quebec, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994


CROP PRODUCTION



Fertilizer 0 0 1.03 318.06

Fossil Fuel 311.05 0 0.03 319.51

Chemicals 3.88 0 0 3.88



Crop Total 486.07 0 2.85 1,371.02





Livestock Total 342.58 374.00 1.35 8,614.55

Grand total 828.65 374.00 4.20 9 985.57



Table E.7: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, New Brunswick, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994

- Quantity less than 0.005 kt.


CROP PRODUCTION




Fossil Fuel 24.85 0 - 25.53

Chemicals 0.34 0 0 0.34

Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 0 0 3.78

Soil Organic Matter (49.80) 0 0 -47.75

Crop Total -22.6 0 0.22 46.01




Animal Waste 0 7.71 0.10 178.42

Livestock Total 15.44 12.40 0.10 292.99

Grand total -7.13 12.40 0.27 339.01

Appendix E


Table E.8: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Prince Edward Island, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994



CROP PRODUCTION


Crop Residue 0 0 0.05 15.28


Fossil Fuel 29.46 0 - 30.25

Chemicals 0.42 0 0 0.42



Crop Total 81.28 0 0.15 128.52




Animal Waste 0 9.71 0.05 220.08

Livestock Total 18.47 13.54 0.05 318.96

Grand total 99.74 13.54 0.20 447.48



Table E.9: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Nova Scotia, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994



CROP PRODUCTION




Fossil Fuel 20.08 0 - 20.63

Chemicals 0.25 0 0 0.25


Soil Organic Matter -27.6 0 0 -27.59

Crop Total -7.26 0 0.23 64.58




Animal Excr./Wastes 0 12.48 0.07 284.04

Livestock Total 24.64 18.16 0.07 427.83

Grand total 17.38 18.16 0.30 492.41

Appendix E


Table E.10: Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Newfoundland, kilo tonnes per year, by GHG Activities, 1994



CROP PRODUCTION


Crop Residues 0 0 - 0.71


Fossil Fuel 2.29 0 - 2.36

Chemicals 0.03 0 0 0.03

Nitrogen Fixing Crops 0 0 - 0.31

Soil Organic Matter -2.95 0 0 -2.95

Crop Total -0.63 0 0.06 16.58




Animal Excr./Wastes 0 1.62 0.01 36.91

Livestock Total 2.19 2.38 0.01 55.05

Grand total 1.56 2.38 0.07 71.63

Documents

Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture · PDF fileCanadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture: ... Chapter 7:Summary and Future Research Areas ... Canadian