Measuring nitrous oxide emissions from conventional and controlled release fertilisers in south-east Queensland pineapple production

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 298 times higher than carbon dioxide. Soils are a natural source of N2O, contributing 65% of global emissions. This paper is the first in Australia to measure and compare N2O emissions from pre-plant controlled release (CR) and conventional granular (CV) fertilisers in pineapple production using static PVC chambers to capture N2O emissions. Farm 1 cumulative emissions from the CR fertiliser were 3.22 kg ha-1 compared to 6.09 kg ha-1 produced by the CV. At farm 2 the CV blend emitted 2.36 kg ha-1 in comparison to the CR blend of 2.92 kg ha-1. Daily N2O flux rates showed a relationship of direct response to rainfall and soil moisture availability. High emissions were observed for wheel tracks where increased N2O emissions may be linked to soil compaction and waterlogging that creates anaerobic conditions after rain events. Emission measurements over three months highlighted the inconsistencies found in other studies relative to reducing emissions through controlled release nitrogen. More investigations are required to verify the benefits associated with controlled release fertiliser use in pineapples, placement and seasonal timing to address N2O emissions in pineapples.

Comparison of odour emission rates measured from various sources using two sampling devices

Two commonly used sampling devices (a wind tunnel and the US EPA dynamic emission chamber), were used to collect paired samples of odorous air from a number of agricultural odour sources. The odour samples were assessed using triangular, forced-choice dynamic olfactometry. The odour concentration data was combined with the flushing rate data to calculate odour emission rates for both devices on all sources. Odour concentrations were consistently higher in samples collected with a flux chamber (ratio ranging from 10:7 to 5:1, relative to wind tunnel samples), whereas odour emission rates were consistently larger when derived from wind tunnels (ratio ranging from 60:1 to 240:1, relative to flux chamber values). A complex relationship existed between emission rate estimates derived from each device, apparently influenced by the nature of the emitting surface. These results have great significance for users of odour dispersion models, for which an odour emission rate is a key input parameter.