Discrepancies and Uncertainties in Bottom-up Gridded Inventories of Livestock Methane Emissions for the Contiguous United States

Alexander Nikolov Hristov, Michael Harper, Robert Meinen, Rick Lane Day, Juliana Lopes, Troy Ott, Aranya Venkatesh, Cynthia A. Randles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this analysis we used a spatially explicit, simplified bottom-up approach, based on animal inventories, feed dry matter intake, and feed intake-based emission factors to estimate county-level enteric methane emissions for cattle and manure methane emissions for cattle, swine, and poultry for the contiguous United States. Overall, this analysis yielded total livestock methane emissions (8916 Gg/yr; lower and upper 95% confidence bounds of ±19.3%) for 2012 (last census of agriculture) that are comparable to the current USEPA estimates for 2012 and to estimates from the global gridded Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) inventory. However, the spatial distribution of emissions developed in this analysis differed significantly from that of EDGAR and a recent gridded inventory based on USEPA. Combined enteric and manure methane emissions from livestock in Texas and California (highest contributors to the national total) in this study were 36% lesser and 100% greater, respectively, than estimates by EDGAR. The spatial distribution of emissions in gridded inventories (e.g., EDGAR) likely strongly impacts the conclusions of top-down approaches that use them, especially in the source attribution of resulting (posterior) emissions, and hence conclusions from such studies should be interpreted with caution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)13668-13677
Number of pages10
JournalEnvironmental Science and Technology
Volume51
Issue number23
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 5 2017

Fingerprint

Methane
Agriculture
livestock
methane
Manures
Spatial distribution
Poultry
Animals
cattle
manure
Uncertainty
spatial distribution
top-down approach
bottom-up approach
emission inventory
poultry
dry matter
census
agriculture
animal

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Chemistry(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry

Cite this

Hristov, Alexander Nikolov ; Harper, Michael ; Meinen, Robert ; Day, Rick Lane ; Lopes, Juliana ; Ott, Troy ; Venkatesh, Aranya ; Randles, Cynthia A. / Discrepancies and Uncertainties in Bottom-up Gridded Inventories of Livestock Methane Emissions for the Contiguous United States. In: Environmental Science and Technology. 2017 ; Vol. 51, No. 23. pp. 13668-13677.
@article{1ec6e936fd9149eca492451a07d49068,
title = "Discrepancies and Uncertainties in Bottom-up Gridded Inventories of Livestock Methane Emissions for the Contiguous United States",
abstract = "In this analysis we used a spatially explicit, simplified bottom-up approach, based on animal inventories, feed dry matter intake, and feed intake-based emission factors to estimate county-level enteric methane emissions for cattle and manure methane emissions for cattle, swine, and poultry for the contiguous United States. Overall, this analysis yielded total livestock methane emissions (8916 Gg/yr; lower and upper 95{\%} confidence bounds of ±19.3{\%}) for 2012 (last census of agriculture) that are comparable to the current USEPA estimates for 2012 and to estimates from the global gridded Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) inventory. However, the spatial distribution of emissions developed in this analysis differed significantly from that of EDGAR and a recent gridded inventory based on USEPA. Combined enteric and manure methane emissions from livestock in Texas and California (highest contributors to the national total) in this study were 36{\%} lesser and 100{\%} greater, respectively, than estimates by EDGAR. The spatial distribution of emissions in gridded inventories (e.g., EDGAR) likely strongly impacts the conclusions of top-down approaches that use them, especially in the source attribution of resulting (posterior) emissions, and hence conclusions from such studies should be interpreted with caution.",
author = "Hristov, {Alexander Nikolov} and Michael Harper and Robert Meinen and Day, {Rick Lane} and Juliana Lopes and Troy Ott and Aranya Venkatesh and Randles, {Cynthia A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1021/acs.est.7b03332",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "13668--13677",
journal = "Environmental Science & Technology",
issn = "0013-936X",
publisher = "American Chemical Society",
number = "23",

}

Discrepancies and Uncertainties in Bottom-up Gridded Inventories of Livestock Methane Emissions for the Contiguous United States. / Hristov, Alexander Nikolov; Harper, Michael; Meinen, Robert; Day, Rick Lane; Lopes, Juliana; Ott, Troy; Venkatesh, Aranya; Randles, Cynthia A.

In: Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 51, No. 23, 05.12.2017, p. 13668-13677.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discrepancies and Uncertainties in Bottom-up Gridded Inventories of Livestock Methane Emissions for the Contiguous United States

AU - Hristov, Alexander Nikolov

AU - Harper, Michael

AU - Meinen, Robert

AU - Day, Rick Lane

AU - Lopes, Juliana

AU - Ott, Troy

AU - Venkatesh, Aranya

AU - Randles, Cynthia A.

PY - 2017/12/5

Y1 - 2017/12/5

N2 - In this analysis we used a spatially explicit, simplified bottom-up approach, based on animal inventories, feed dry matter intake, and feed intake-based emission factors to estimate county-level enteric methane emissions for cattle and manure methane emissions for cattle, swine, and poultry for the contiguous United States. Overall, this analysis yielded total livestock methane emissions (8916 Gg/yr; lower and upper 95% confidence bounds of ±19.3%) for 2012 (last census of agriculture) that are comparable to the current USEPA estimates for 2012 and to estimates from the global gridded Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) inventory. However, the spatial distribution of emissions developed in this analysis differed significantly from that of EDGAR and a recent gridded inventory based on USEPA. Combined enteric and manure methane emissions from livestock in Texas and California (highest contributors to the national total) in this study were 36% lesser and 100% greater, respectively, than estimates by EDGAR. The spatial distribution of emissions in gridded inventories (e.g., EDGAR) likely strongly impacts the conclusions of top-down approaches that use them, especially in the source attribution of resulting (posterior) emissions, and hence conclusions from such studies should be interpreted with caution.

AB - In this analysis we used a spatially explicit, simplified bottom-up approach, based on animal inventories, feed dry matter intake, and feed intake-based emission factors to estimate county-level enteric methane emissions for cattle and manure methane emissions for cattle, swine, and poultry for the contiguous United States. Overall, this analysis yielded total livestock methane emissions (8916 Gg/yr; lower and upper 95% confidence bounds of ±19.3%) for 2012 (last census of agriculture) that are comparable to the current USEPA estimates for 2012 and to estimates from the global gridded Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) inventory. However, the spatial distribution of emissions developed in this analysis differed significantly from that of EDGAR and a recent gridded inventory based on USEPA. Combined enteric and manure methane emissions from livestock in Texas and California (highest contributors to the national total) in this study were 36% lesser and 100% greater, respectively, than estimates by EDGAR. The spatial distribution of emissions in gridded inventories (e.g., EDGAR) likely strongly impacts the conclusions of top-down approaches that use them, especially in the source attribution of resulting (posterior) emissions, and hence conclusions from such studies should be interpreted with caution.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038211330&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038211330&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1021/acs.est.7b03332

DO - 10.1021/acs.est.7b03332

M3 - Article

C2 - 29094590

AN - SCOPUS:85038211330

VL - 51

SP - 13668

EP - 13677

JO - Environmental Science & Technology

JF - Environmental Science & Technology

SN - 0013-936X

IS - 23

ER -