climate change – Page 12 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

Why Study Health of Pigs In Relation to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions?

logos from University of Arkansas, Purdue University and Virginia Tech Our working hypothesis is that immune activation, from clinical and subclinical disease, reduces growth performance and concomitantly increases nutrient excretion and subsequent GHG emissions from manure management.

Findings from this project will provide validated information for incorporation into the animal physiology models.

Project Objectives

Vaccination/PRRSV Trials

Evaluate impact of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) exposure and vaccination on animal performance, manure output and composition, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stored manure.

Antibiotics and Antibiotic Alternatives

Evaluate the effects of health status on GHG emissions and carbon and water footprints

Salmonella

Evaluate effects of health status (Salmonella) on animal performance, manure output and composition, and GHG emissions from stored manure.

Research Summary: What Have We Done? What Have We Learned?

manure reactor experimental setup to test greenhouse gas emissions from pigs in different treatment groups

Manure reactors installed at Virginia Tech for the pilot study. The manifold on the wall distributes a constant stream of air to each bioreactor, and forces gas through the exhaust lines into the gas analyzers

gas analyzer to study air emissions from pigs with different treatments in a health study at virginia tech

Thermo Scientific analyzers for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonium (NH4), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). A programmable manifold switch will sample gas from each reactor sequentially throughout the day.

Vaccination/PRRSV

Experimental Design:

Pigs were randomly assigned to a 2 x 2 factorial design investigating the interaction of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) vaccination (with or without) and exposure to the PRRSV. One week after weaning, pigs were treated intramuscularly with 2.0 mL of a commercial PRRSV vaccine (Ingelvac PRRS MLV) or sterile saline and housed 4/pen (2 barrows and 2 gilts). Pigs were inoculated 3 weeks after vaccination with sterile medium or PRRSV (MN184). This vaccination protocol has provided high protection against experimental PRRSV infection. (Thacker et al., 2000). Blood samples were collected from pigs upon arrival to the biosafety laboratory to corroborate PRRSV-naïve status. Pigs were given antibiotic-free diets that meet or exceed all nutrient recommendations (NRC, 1998). Growth performance, manure output and composition, and GHG emissions were determined from manure collected from each pen. The study was carried-out for 4 weeks after PRRSV inoculation and used a total of 3 experimental units (i.e., pens) per treatment (i.e., 48 pigs in total). The mitigation strategy tested was the effect of vaccination on pig growth and GHG emissions.

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) infection caused significant reductions in feed intake which led to reductions in rates of gain and body weight. The infection also caused a reduction in diet digestibility leading to greater manure nutrient output per unit of feed intake and increased greenhouse gas (GHG) production from the stored manure. The impact on GHG production is particularly striking when the data are expressed as litters of gas per kilogram of body weight gain. The increased gas production combined with reduced rates of gain results in more than a tripling of gas production per unit of gain for all of the gases. Vaccination against PRRSV appeared to offer little benefit in terms of animal performance, manure nutrient output, or gas production from manure. Results of the gas production data are presented in Table 1.

table 1. gas emitted from stored manure from pigs infected with PRRSV and immunized against PRSSV infection. Values represent the least square mean (LSM).

Antibiotics and Antibiotic Alternatives

Experimental Design: Seven hundred twenty-four, mixed sex pigs were placed in 11 rooms at the SERB to determine the effects of rearing pigs without antibiotics on growth performance. Pigs were blocked by (body weight) BW and gender and allotted to room and pen with 10/11 mixed-sex pigs/pen. Control pigs consumed diets (Table 2) containing antibiotics and were treated with injectable antibiotics when deemed necessary. Antibiotic-free animals consumed diets with alternatives to antibiotics and received no injectable antibiotics. If sick animals did not respond to antibiotic alternatives, they were removed from the experiment.

Table 2. Antibiotic and antibiotic alternative rotation

Pigs were weighed at the start and end of each dietary phase, and mortality and morbidity were recorded daily. Data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedure in SAS (statistical software). During the nursery phase, control pigs grew faster (P<0.02; 0.449 vs 0.426 kg/d), and consumed more feed (P<0.05; 0.694 vs. 0.660 kg/d) than antibiotic free animals, resulting in similar (gain to feed ratio) G:F.

Similar average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI) and G:F were observed throughout the grower phases, and therefore the increased BW of control-fed pigs was maintained and tended (P=0.06) to be heavier at the start of the finisher phases (86.0 vs. 84.5 kg). However, antibiotic-free animals grew 3% faster (P<0.01) and had 6% better G:F (P<0.001) in the finisher phases.

As a result, there was no overall effect (P>0.10) of treatment on ADG, but there was a trend (P = 0.08) for increased ADFI (2.11 vs. 2.07 kg) and reduced (P<0.05) G:F (0.518 vs. 0.527) in control pigs compared to antibiotic-free. Thirty antibiotic-free animals (8.3%) were removed from the study compared to 11 control (3.0%). In conclusion, antibiotic-free management can yield a similar growth performance to conventional systems, but the limited disease treatment options may limit the number of pigs marketed under this management system.

Salmonella Trial

Experimental Design:

The objective of the study was to determine the impacts of a dirty environment leading to increased pathogen load and salmonella infection on animal performance, manure output and composition, and GHG production from the stored manure. 24 3-week old pigs were transported from the VT swine facility to the Biosafety Laboratory on campus and randomly allotted to one of the following health statuses: 1) High (clean room); 2) Medium (replicated clean on-farm environment); 3) Low (replicated “dirty” farm environment); or 4) Low + Salmonella challenge. Pigs were housed in individual metabolism stalls and fed the same antibiotic free diet as for the VT PRRSV trial. All pigs were assessed for fecal salmonella shedding which is indicative of an active infection upon arrival and found to be negative, and the feed was checked for salmonella contamination and found to be negative. After 10 days of adjustment (31 d of age), pigs allotted to the infected group were orally inoculated with 1×10^{^9} CFU of Salmonella enterica serotype enterica serovar Typhimurium strain DT104 (ATTC; BAA-185, Manassas, Virginia), and pigs were monitored for growth rate and fecal output and composition for an additional 24 d. Manure was collected each day and the loaded into the manure storage containers. Gas production from the storage containers was assessed continuously throughout the day every other day for the duration of the experiment plus an additional 11 days after the animal trial ended.

Pig inoculated with salmonella exhibited elevated rectal temperatures for 4 d post-innoculation, and shed salmonella in feces for the full 19 days that fecal shedding was monitored. Maintaining pigs in a dirty environment (heavy fecal contamination of the pens) and salmonella infection resulted in equal reductions in the rate of gain and numerical reductions feed efficiency as compared to control animals housed in a clean environment. Emissions of methane from stored manure per unit of weight gain was increased for both the dirty group and the salmonella group by more than 3 fold; and emissions of CO₂ and N₂O were increased by almost 50% for the dirty group and by 2 fold for the salmonella group.

The effect of Salmonella infection on the gut microbiome are currently being determined. Correlations between greenhouse gas production and key microbial population members will be determined.

The impact of PRRSV and salmonella infections on feed intake was modeled as a time dependent process relative to initial infection and incorporated into the NRC growth model. Although PRRSV vaccination is not completely effective, it did provide partial protection which modified the time course of the infection. The PRRSV vaccination effect was also modeled as a time dependent process which was additively applied to the disease equation. The model predicted intake and growth depressions for both pathogens and the effect of vaccination with minimal mean and slope bias indicating the model represented the data well. Surprisingly the salmonella equation also did well in describing the negative effects of an e-coli infection suggesting that it could be used to predict the effects of other digestive pathogens. The reductions in feed intake explained all of the changes in animal performance, and thus no additional equations were required to simulate potential decreases in diet digestibility or increases in animal maintenance requirements.

The modified model was incorporated into the grower submodel of the overall barn model to allow simulations of PRRSV and salmonella infections and PRRSV vaccination.

The Swine Environmental Research Building (SERB)

The Swine Environmental Research Building (SERB) is set up at a scale that can validate the results of pilot scale studies done elsewhere. It houses 720 pigs in 12 rooms with 6 pens per room and 10 pigs per pen. Manure is quantitatively collected and stored in a deep pit under each side of the room (3 pens of 10 pigs each). The two manure pits in each room are divided by a wall under the central walkway. The building is equipped with a centralized laboratory capable of monitoring GHG emissions from each independently ventilated room. Pigs will be supplied by Purdue or obtained from a commercial source at weaning, blocked by weight and sex and randomly assigned to treatments.

Dr. Radcliffe discussed his efforts at SERB during a webinar on Life Cycle Assessment Modeling in the Pork Industry.

Additional Projects Related to Improving the Environmental Footprint of Pork Production in the U.S.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Scott Radcliffe
jradclif@purdue.edu
Phone: (765) 496-7718

Dr. Mark Hanigan
mhanigan@vt.edu
Phone: (540) 231-0967

Dr. Charles Maxwell
University of Arkansas (retired)

This information is part of the program “Integrated Resource Management Tool to Mitigate the Carbon Footprint of Swine Produced In the U.S.,” and is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68002-30208 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Project website: https://lpelc.org/integrated-resource-management-tool-to-mitigate-the-carbon-footprint-of-swine-produced-in-the-united-states/.

March 5, 2019July 8, 2020

Integrated Process-Based Swine Operation Model with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) Economic Analysis

green stylized pig logo Dr. Greg Thoma, Dr. Richard Ulrich and Dr. Jennie Popp – University of Arkansas, Dr. William Salas and Dr. Chengsheng Li – DNDC Applications, Research and Training

Why Develop Models for Pork Production and Environmental Footprint?

Change in complex systems can occur either systemically, for example by government policy or regulation, or by adoption of new practices by individuals followed by wider adoption where the new practice is effective. This is costly and early adopters incur high risk of failure. This risk can be reduced through good decision support systems to aid in the selection of optimal practices – in effect, with a good model of the system, adoption of management techniques or technology can be tested by simulation before physical implementation.

This is the fundamental utility of models: they provide an inexpensive low risk alternative to experimental trial and error. The swine production model being developed for this project is based on the National Pork Board (NPB) Pig Production Environmental Footprint Calculator written at the University of Arkansas and first released in May 2011.

The National Academy of Sciences reported that EPA methodology should be improved by replacing emission factors with “process-based” models.” The tradeoff is that process-based models are more complex. Our team worked with the National Pork Board to create a process based emission model for swine production to serve as the foundation for a decision support system. This combined emission and cost model, the Pig Production Environmental Footprint Calculator (V2), was released in June 2013, and V3 will be released in Fall, 2015.

This model estimates GHG emissions, water use, land occupation and day-to-day costs from multiple farm operations to identify major contributions and provide a test bed for evaluating potential reduction strategies. The model requires readily available input information such as the type of barn, animal throughput, ration used, the time in the barn, weather for the area, type of manure management system as well as energy and feed prices. The model output includes a summary GHG emissions, water consumption, land occupation and costs by source, of as well as feed and energy usage for the simulation.

Project Objectives

Integrate process-models of swine production with coupled life cycle assessment (LCA) and economic models to create a decision support tool to identify economical swine production system options which minimize GHG emission and increase sustainability of production systems.

Improve existing process algorithms to capture effects of barn climate control, feed phases, water distribution, solar insolation, and manure application technology on GHG emissions.
Expand and improve the user interface, making it more intuitive and user-friendly.
Expand the feed ingredient list and improve estimations of important feed characteristics needed for the model.
Develop economic algorithms and compile relevant cost databases to capture the costs of day-to-day activities that entail water use and generate GHGs on farm.

Research Summary: What Have We Done? What Have We Learned?

Scale of the farm and manure systems

The model was converted from barn-level to a farm-level tool by integrating the barns and manure systems together through the model input procedures. In this way the emissions from the various on-farm operations can be compared on the same basis and put into perspective with regard to emission sources. There can be up to ten barns, each with its own associated manure system (subfloor, deep pit and, added in year 4, dry bedding) and 10 separate downstream manure handling systems (lagoon, outside storage and, recently added, a digester). Each barn can have its manure stream routed to any downstream manure system enabling streams to be combined for processing before going to the fields. An algal turn scrubber option can be added as an adjunct to any downstream system.

All of the manure handling systems, both those associated with a barn and those downstream of the barns, were written at the University of Arkansas and all but the digester are process-based. A digester option was added with options for burning the produced methane as barn heat or for producing electricity. Emissions are calculated for the transport of manure to the fields but not for emissions after application.

Growth, performance and amino acid inclusion in rations

The National Research Council (NRC) growth and performance model was integrated into the full farm level model in order to link ration characteristics and growth performance. We have closed the mass balance over the farm for carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, water and manure solids. Addition of the NRC model also brought in the effects of ractopamine and immunocastration management options.

Testing of the revised growth equations with respect to the effects of individual amino acids (AA) was completed and a manuscript has been partially drafted. A revised equation predicting the effects of heat stress on feed intake was derived and incorporated into the model resulting in much better predictions of these effects than provided by the native NRC equations. Equations describing the impact of heat and cold stress on energy maintenance costs were also constructed, but have yet to be incorporated into the model. These latter 2 efforts were carried out primarily by a postdoctoral student employed on the National Animal Nutrition Program (NRSP-9) with the resulting equations made available to the project. Two manuscripts describing this work have been drafted and will be submitted in Fall, 2015. Finally, a method of deriving model settings to match observed rates of daily gain and feed conversion efficiency was devised and recently passed onto the barn model team for incorporation into the barn model. This will allow the model to be easily calibrated to observed gain and feed efficiency as input by the user.

Weather information

We updated the model weather files from the MERRA database for each of the 3102 counties in the U.S. These files have, in addition to temperature and humidity, other useful information such as precipitation, solar insolation, subsurface temperatures at various depths, and snow cover. The additional MERRA information facilitated addition of a solar panel option and will be used to estimate rainwater contribution to outside manure handling facilities and of solar insolation on inside barn temperatures.

What Is the DNDC Model?

The DNDC (DeNitrification and DeComposition) model was developed for quantifying N2O emissions from agricultural soils in the late 1980s (US EPA, 1995). By including fundamental bio-geochemical processes of carbon and nitrogen transformations, DNDC was extended to model soil C sequestration and other trace gases (e.g., methane, nitric oxide, ammonia etc.) in the early 1990s.

DNDC consists of two components. The first component entails three sub-models and converts primary drivers (i.e., climate, soil, vegetation and anthropogenic activity) to soil environmental factors (i.e., temperature, moisture, pH, Eh and substrate concentration gradient). The second component consists of nitrification, denitrification and fermentation sub-models; and simulates production/consumption of N2O, NO, N2, NH3 and CH4 driven by the modeled soil environmental conditions [see graphic below]. With the bio-geochemical reactions embedded in the model framework, DNDC can predict the turnover of soil organic matter and the consequent trace gas emissions and nitrate leaching losses.

Feed ingredients

With input from industry and academic experts, our feed ingredient database was revised to better capture the expected range of ingredients typically available to producers in the US. Carbon, water and land footprint data as well as nutritional characteristics for the NRC growth equations were compiled for each feed ingredient. Economic models, that estimate the cost of feed, manure handling, utilities (water, electricity, gas, propane and diesel), dead animal disposal and immunocastration were integrated into the model. Capital costs are not considered. We are conducting cost benefit analyses on combinations of operations, manure management and dietary feeding systems aimed at reducing GHG emissions. These will help identify incentives to minimize mitigation strategy cost. Routines have been developed that will allow the user to download a set of updated prices for utilities and major feed ingredients.

DeNitrification and DeComposition (DNDC) Model (Soil)

The DeNitrification and DeComposition (DNDC) model requires numerous weather and site inputs, many of which are output from the environmental calculator, and others which require site-specific geographical characteristics (e.g., soil type). We analyzed the agricultural area of each continental-US county using agricultural classes from the 2013 NASS Cropland Data Layer. For each county, we assigned the mean latitude/longitude of all agricultural pixels as the agriculture-weighted centroid from which representative weather data will be extracted.

County soils data are derived from the NRCS General Soils Map (STATSGO). We derived the spatial intersection of STATSGO soil polygons with county boundaries. We summarized top soil data for each soil polygon from 0 to 10cm depth for clay fraction (a proxy for soil texture), bulk density, organic matter fraction (to estimate soil organic carbon, SOC), and pH. Modeled results will be based on either the comprehensive set of soil polygon attributes or a representative distribution of soil attributes for each county (depending on timing and available computing power).

Summary

The model will enable the user to find hot spots in their emissions profile, evaluate the effects of operational changes, and estimate the emissions from facilities during the design stage. The further addition of an operational economic model will provide the ability to perform cost/benefit analyses of practices that can change impact GHG emissions (see video).

Work will continue on this project through Spring, 2016.

Figure 1. Diagram of the DeNitrification and DeComposition (DNDC) model

diagram

Why Does This Matter?

The environmental footprint model, with improved algorithms for manure management, economics, and animal performance provide high resolution and flexible decision support for the swine industry. The model enables users to identify hot spots in their emissions and water/land use profiles, evaluate the effects of operational changes, and estimate the emissions from facilities during the design stage. The further addition of an operational economic model enables cost/benefit analyses.

These enhancements support evaluations of dietary energy, protein, and amino acid content for much of the life cycle and immunocastration and the use of ractopamine during the growth cycle. They also allow assessment of the performance, economic, and environmental impact of transient health events during the growth cycle with respect to whole farm operation.

For More Information

Related Research Projects
[archived webinar] Life Cycle Assessment Modeling for the Pork Industry – More… (July, 2012)
[archived webinar] Producer Association Efforts to Address Carbon Footprint (Pork and Poultry) – More… (June, 2012)

Contact Information

Dr. Greg Thoma
gthoma@uark.edu
Phone: (479) 575-7374

Dr. Richard Ulrich
(retired)

Dr. Jennie Popp
jhpopp@uark.edu
Phone: (479) 575-2279

Dr. William Salas
wsalas@dndc-art.com
Phone: (603) 292-5747

Dr. Chengsheng Li
cli@dndc-art.com
Phone: (603) 862-1771

Acknowledgements

March 5, 2019July 8, 2020

Evaluating the Environmental Footprint of Pork Production

green stylized pig logo The use and impacts on land and soils, air, water, and greenhouse gases all make up the environmental footprint of pork production. This section highlights many different aspects of pork production and how those impact emissions of greenhouse gases and other aspects of environmental impact.

Estimating Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Carbon Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment – The Basics
Which GHGs Are Emitted by Pig Farms?	Carbon Footprint of the Pork Industry	What Is the Role of Models?
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Basics	Diet (Reduced Nitrogen)	What Is Gasification? Different Types of Gasifiers?
Animal Health	Growth Enhancers	Algae Nutrient Removal
Solid-Liquid Separation	Anaerobic Digestion
Beyond Greenhouse Gases
Environmental Footprint	Land Footprint	Economics (Life Cycle Costing or LCC)
Water Footprint (University fact sheet)	Water Footprint (Pork Checkoff)	Air Quality

Tools for Farmers

Pork Production Environmental Footprint Calculator – a tool that allows users to input data from a farm and look at the environmental and economic implications of difference choices.

Materials for Educators

Ag in the Classroom activity on exploring interactions between agricultural decisions and greenhouse gas emissions using swine production

Fact sheets: What is a water footprint? | What is a land footprint? | What is a carbon footprint?

Videos/Archived Webinars

Thermal Conversion of Animal Manure to Biofuel – Go to archive… (February, 2014)
Life Cycle Assessment Modeling for the Pork Industry – Go to archive…. (July, 2012)
Producer Association Efforts to Address Carbon Footprint (Pork and Poultry) – Go to archive… (June, 2012)

Research Summaries

a five-year project examining different aspects of the environmental footprint of pork production was recently completed. This project looked at feed rations, animal health, and manure management to provide data for integration into a comprehensive

Integrated Process-Based Swine Operation Model with LCA and LCC Economic Analysis
Impact of Health Status and Viral Exposure on GHG Emissions
Effects of Amino Acid Supplementation with Reduced Dietary Crude Protein
Manure Management
- Algal Nutrient Removal
- Solids Separation
- Auger Reactor Gasification

Acknowledgements

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Curriculum Materials

Greenhouse gases and their contributions to climate change are some of the most studied topics in animal agriculture right now. What greenhouse gases are emitted by agriculture? How much is emitted in comparison to other industries?

Farmers, Ranchers, and Ag Professionals

Check out the self-study module “Greenhouse Gases and Agriculture“. When completed, you can receive a certificate or submit your completion for continuing education credits.

Teachers, Extension

The following materials were developed for teachers and educators to use in their classrooms and programs. The target age range is high school, jr. college and beginning farmer groups.

Instruction Guide (Lesson Plan): Includes links to additional information, connections to national agriculture education standards (AFNR Career Content Cluster Standards), application to Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) projects, activity and science fair ideas, sample quiz/review questions, and enrichment activities. PDF format (0.5 MB; best if you want to use it as-is) | RTF format (60 MB; best if you want to modify the file)
Presentation – 33 slides, Powerpoint 97-2003 format. Annotated. Preview in Slideshare | Download (14 MB)

Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture

View more presentations from LPELC

Acknowledgements

Author: Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska

Reviewers: Crystal Powers, University of Nebraska; David Schmidt, University of Minnesota; Liz Whitefield, Washington State University

Building Environmental Leaders in Animal Agriculture (BELAA) is a collaborative effort of the National Young Farmers Educational Association, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Montana State University. It was funded by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under award #2009-49400-05871. This project would not be possible without the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center and the National eXtension Initiative.

March 5, 2019March 3, 2022

Western Region Animal Agriculture and a Changing Climate

Western Region Animal Agriculture and a Changing Climate Extension Project

Our overall goal is for Extension—working with partner organizations—to effectively inform and influence livestock and poultry producers and consumers of animal products in all regions of the U.S. to foster production practices that are environmentally sound, climatically compatible, and economically viable.

Western Region Website-AACC

Farm Management Decision Aid Tools

Webcast Presentations

Fact Sheets

Regional Information

Online Certification Course

Brochures/Conference Visuals

Western Region Website-AACC

Farm Management Decision Aid Tools

Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) and Dairy Gas Emissions Model (DairyGEM) – training presentation by Al Rotz.

Education received through either of these comprehensive model evaluations will lead to the development of more sustainable dairy and beef production systems.

The IFSM (Integrated Farm System Model) is a tool for evaluating environmental and economic effects of different farm management scenarios. The user enters information on cropping practices, facilities, equipment, the herd and other farm parameters. Sample farms of various sizes and types are provided with the model software to provide a starting point. Information generated by the model includes crop yields, feed production and use, animal production, manure handled, production costs and net return to management. The model’s environmental outputs include average annual soil balances of N, P, K and C, erosion of sediment, P runoff, nitrate leaching, emissions of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and greenhouse gases, and the carbon footprint of the feed, animal weight or milk produced.

The Dairy Gas Emission Model (DairyGEM) is an educational tool that predicts ammonia and hydrogen sulfide volatilization, GHG emissions, and the carbon footprint of the milk produced. DairyGEM is used to study the interacting effects of management changes on major emission sources from feed production to the return of manure back to the land.

To download software and for more information about IFSM, please visit: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=8519

To download software and for more information about DairyGEM, please visit: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=21345

About the Presenter:

Dr. Al Rotz is an agricultural engineer at the USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit in University Park, PA. His work focuses on the development and use of models to evaluate the performance, environmental impact and economics of alternative technologies and management strategies applied to integrated farming systems for dairy or beef production.

IFSM and DairyGEM Tool Training Presentation

(If one of the video windows is blank, please refresh the page.)

If you are interested in specific segments of the entire video tool training above for either IFSM or DairyGEM, please refer to the separate video segments below.

SEGMENT 1:

Introduction to both the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) and Dairy Gas Emissions Model (DairyGEM)

SEGMENT 2:

IFSM tool training (using dairy as an example)

**IMPORTANT Note: this segment also supports the use of DairyGEM

SEGMENT 3:

IFSM beef example and dairy example

SEGMENT 4:

DairyGEM Tool Training

***Note: for further instruction related to DairyGEM use, please refer to Segment 2

DeNitrification-DeComposition (DNDC) Model

DNDC (i.e., DeNitrification-DeComposition) is a computer simulation model of carbon and nitrogen biogeochemistry in agro-ecosystems. The model can be used for predicting crop growth, soil temperature and moisture regimes, soil carbon dynamics, nitrogen leaching, and emissions of trace gases including nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO), dinitrogen (N2), ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In order to download the DNDC model files you will need to register and provide a valid email, as well as your affiliation and intended use. After registration and confirming your email you will be able to download the files from the DNDC Model Download page.

On the Download page, you will find 3 simulation models of interest.

The DNDC model – A computer simulation model for predicting crop yield, soil carbon sequestration, nitrogen leaching, and trace gas emissions in agro-ecosystems.

The Manure -DNDC Model- Ac computer simulation for predicting GHG and NH3 emissions from manure systems.

US Cropland GHG Calculator- A decision support system for quantifying impacts of management alternatives on GHG emissions from Agro-ecosystems in the U.S.

Manure and Nutrient Reduction Estimator Tool (MANURE Tool)

The MANURE Tool provides a system to quantify methane and and other GHG emission reductions and the environmental benefits of renewable energy produced by digesters at dairy and swine operations. The tool is based upon a full and accurate assessment of baseline conditions at the animal feed operation, which is a key element of the emission reduction calculation. This tool can be used to assess the quantity of emission reductions associated with implementation of specific technologies and/or practices. More information about the tool can be found on the Manure and Nutrient Reduction Estimator site.

COMET-FARM

The COMET-FARM tool is a whole farm and ranch carbon and GHG accounting and reporting system. It is intended to help users account for the carbon flux and GHG emissions related to their farm and ranch management activities, and help them explore the impacts to emissions of alternative management scenarios. The tool guides the user through describing the farm/ranch’s management practices including alternative future management scenarios. Once complete, a report is generated comparing the carbon changes and GHG emissions between current management practices and future scenarios. More information about COMET FARM can be found on the COMET-FARM site.

Farm Smart

Farm Smart is designed to give producers the ability to access and mitigate their environmental profile, track and measure their progress, plan for future improvements and report outcomes of practice changes to customers, community members, regulators and other stakeholders. The system features 3 tools: the Farm Smart Environmental Calculator, the Farm Smart Farm Energy Efficiency tool, and the Farm Smart Decision Support tool. Go to the Farm Smart site to download these tools and for more information.

Webcast Presentations

Fact Sheets

Regional Information

United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Information:

Northwest

Northern Great Plains

Southern Great Plains

Southwest

Alaska

Islands

(Hint: These links may take a few minutes to load. If you get a black screen and there is a note on the bottom task bar that says “done”, scroll down a little.)

Newsletters

Fill out the form below to sign up for the Western Region E-Newsletter

Loading…

Archived Past E-Newsletters

July 29, 2014 E-newsletter

July 11, 2014 E-newsletter

June 27, 2014 E-newsletter

June 13, 2014 E-newsletter

January 17, 2014 E-newsletter

November 22, 2013 E-newsletter

November 8, 2013 E-newsletter

October 11, 2013 E-newsletter

September 20, 2013 E-newsletter

September 13, 2013 E-newlsetter

August 30, 2013 E-newsletter

August 16, 2013 E-newsletter

July 19, 2013 E-newsletter

June 1, 2013 E-newsletter

May 10, 2013 E-newsletter

April 24, 2013 E-newsletter

Animal Ag Climate Change Newsletter Vol. 1, March 2012 (this may take a minute or so to load)

Online Certification Course

This online course is free and was developed to answer questions that the livestock and animal agriculture industry is facing related to climate. Nationwide, producers and stakeholders are asking questions about climate change: Is it happening? Are unusual weather patterns and events becoming more frequent? Should we be planning and managing for the future? Where can we get un-biased information that serves the livestock and ag community?

This online course will provide valuable information from which to feel confident in answering these frequent questions. Also, the online platform eliminates the extra travel expense for professional development.

Students that take this course will learn about the areas of climate and weather trends, impacts, adaptation, mitigation, policy, climate science and effective communication. Upon completion, they can receive CEUs from multiple professional societies.

Or please contact Liz Whitefield at e.whitefield@wsu.edu if you have any questions.

Brochures/Conference Visuals

Brochure: Animal Agriculture and Climate Change (this may take a minute or so to load)

March 5, 2019July 6, 2020

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock & Poultry

Agriculture is both a source and sink for greenhouse gases (GHG). A source is a net contribution to the atmosphere, while a sink is a net withdrawal of greenhouse gases. In the United States, agriculture is a relatively small contributor, with approximately 8% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, as seen below. Most agricultural emissions originate from soil management, enteric fermentation (the ruminant digestion process that produces methane), energy use, and manure management. The primary greenhouse gases related to agriculture are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Within animal production, the largest emissions are from beef followed by dairy, and largely dominated by the methane produced in during cattle digestion.

U.S. GHG Inventory

U.S. greenhouse gas inventory with electricity distributed to economic sectors (EPA, 2013)

Ag Sources of GHGs

U.S. agricultural greenhouse gas sources (Adapted from Archibeque, S. et al., 2012)

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock in 2008 (USDA, 2011)

Soil Management

Excess nitrogen in agriculture systems can be converted to nitrous oxide through the nitrification-denitrification process. Nitrous oxide is a very potent greenhouse gas, with 310 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide can be produced in soils following fertilizer application (both synthetic and organic).

As crops grow, photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it in the plants and soil life. Soil and plant respiration adds carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere when microbes or plants breakdown molecules to produce energy. Respiration is an essential part of growth and maintenance for most life on earth. This repeats with each growth, harvest, and decay cycle, therefore, feedstuffs and foods are generally considered to be carbon “neutral.”

Some carbon dioxide is stored in soils for long periods of time. The processes that result in carbon accumulation are called carbon sinks or carbon sequestration. Crop production and grazing management practices influence the soil’s ability to be a net source or sink for greenhouse gases. Managing soils in ways that increase organic matter levels can increase the accumulation (sink) of soil carbon for many years.

Animals

The next largest portion of livestock greenhouse gas emissions is from methane produced during enteric fermentation in ruminants – a natural part of ruminant digestion where microbes in the first of four stomachs, the rumen, break down feed and produce methane as a by-product. The methane is released primarily through belching.

As with plants, animals respire carbon dioxide, but also store some in their bodies, so they too are considered a neutral source of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Manure Management

A similar microbial process to enteric fermentation leads to methane production from stored manure. Anytime the manure sits for more than a couple days in an anaerobic (without oxygen) environment, methane will likely be produced. Methane can be generated in the animal housing, manure storage, and during manure application. Additionally, small amounts of methane is produced from manure deposited on grazing lands.

Nitrous oxide is also produced from manure storage surfaces, during land application, and from manure in bedded packs & lots.

Other sources

There are many smaller sources of greenhouse gases on farms. Combustion engines exaust carbon dioxide from fossil fuel (previously stored carbon) powered vehicles and equipment. Manufacturing of farm inputs, including fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, plastics, and building materials, also results in emissions.

To learn more about how farm emissions are determined and see species specific examples, see the Carbon Footprint resources.

To learn about how to reduce on-farm emissions through mitigation technology and management options, see the Reducing Emissions resources.

Additional Resources

Additional Animal Agriculture and Climate Change Resources

Author: Crystal A. Powers, UNL
Reviewers:

March 5, 2019March 28, 2019

Overview of Climate Change Science

Dr. Art DeGaetano, Cornell University

Also available to download: Climate Change Fact Sheet (PDF, 359 KB)

Earth’s climate system

The Earth’s climate system is composed of a number of interacting components. The main driver is the sun whose energy is by far the main source of heat for Earth. The sun does not heat the Earth’s atmosphere directly but rather its energy passes through the atmosphere and heats the surface of Earth. The surface then heats the atmosphere from below. If the Earth did not lose heat to space, it would continue to heat up as energy is supplied from the sun. To maintain a fairly constant temperature the Earth must lose as much heat to space as it gains. Clouds, along with naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, prevent some of this heat from escaping and thus warm the Earth. Without these components in the atmosphere the temperature of the globe would be about 60°F colder than it is today. Besides blocking the loss of heat from Earth to outer space, clouds can also reflecting sunlight back to space. This reflected energy is unavailable to heat the Earth.

All of the components of the climate system interact. For example, during ice ages, the growth of ice sheets is triggered by a reduction in the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun. As the ice sheets grow, forest and soil covered surfaces, which normally absorb (and therefore are warmed by) solar energy, are replaced by ice. Ice reflects most of the sun’s energy making it unavailable to warm the surface. Therefore the growth of the ice sheets contributes to further cooling of the planet. This is known as a positive feedback, since the cooling due to the reduction in solar energy is enhanced by the ice sheet. The same positive feedback results from global warming, as the extent of the ice sheets diminishes, more soil and potentially forest is exposed. These surfaces absorb more heat than the ice covered areas and hence the warming is enhanced.

Natural forces that effect the climate system

Ice ages are just one example of how the Earth’s climate varies through time. Other variations can be caused by:

Natural fluctuations in the sun’s intensity. The amount of energy emitted by the sun is not constant. Changes in its intensity are typically small (a few tenths of a percent), but can influence temperatures on Earth if they occur over an extended period of time.

Volcanic eruptions. Violent volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 inject sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. This compound is highly reflective to sunlight. Thus its presence in the upper atmosphere prevents a portion of the sun’s energy from reaching the Earth. Once in the upper atmosphere, these compounds can exist for several years following the eruption.

Shorter-term cycles like El Nino. The oceans and atmosphere work together to influence climate. Natural oscillations in ocean currents, the location of the warmest or coldest ocean temperatures, etc. can influence atmospheric circulation patterns. El Nino is an example. In this case the pool of warm water that usually resides in the western tropical Pacific Ocean migrates east. This changes the atmospheric circulation pattern in the tropics which influences global weather patterns.

Human factors affecting the climate system

Increase in greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are both natural components of the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases, along with methane, nitrous oxide and ozone are termed greenhouse gases (GHGs) because of their ability of absorb some of the energy that the Earth emits to space and reradiate it back to the surface. Prior to industrialization, the Earth’s atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide (280 CO2 molecules for every 1,000,000 molecules in the atmosphere). This carbon dioxide was maintained in the atmosphere via volcanic and biological activity.

This graph shows long-term trends in carbon dioxide, the primary anthropogenic (humanmade) greenhouse gas (other greenhouse gases include methane and nitrous oxide). In all but the most recent part of the record the data were obtained from analyzing air samples trapped in
ice cores. Direct measurements have been made since the mid 1950s and fit nicely with the ice core record. Carbon dioxide concentration was very constant prior to 1860. After 1900 the concentrations all increase exponentially.

What causes these increases?

Fossil fuel burning releases about 6 billion tons of carbon each year into the atmosphere.
Methane from agriculture, livestock, landfills and industry has increased by 133%.
Nitrous oxide from agriculture and industry has increased by 15%.
Changes in land use and land cover release 1 billion tons of carbon annually plus other gases.

Land use changes include deforestation and urbanization. Deforestation influences the climate in two ways. 1) Trees are sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxide. They remove CO2 from the air and store it as vegetative matter. Fewer trees mean less CO2 is pulled from the atmosphere. If the trees are subsequently burned, the CO2 is added back to the atmosphere. 2) Removal of the trees changes the character of the land surface; this changes the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the surface, evaporation, etc. Urbanization is similar to deforestation. Urban areas tend to absorb and hold more heat than vegetated surfaces. Thus cities are typically warmer than rural environments.

Recent Climate Change

When the concentration of greenhouse gases is increased (and everything else in the climate system, like the amount of clouds, is held constant) less of the Earth’s energy escapes to space. As a result the temperature of the Earth must rise.

Temperature. Over the last 100 years, instrumental records indicate that the average temperature of the Earth has risen by nearly 1°F (0.5°C). The increases are most pronounced in polar regions of the Northern Hemisphere. In Alaska, temperatures have risen about 2.8°F (1.5°C) over the last century. Across the globe, the increase in temperature tends to be largest in winter, but still significant during the other seasons. Night time temperatures have risen faster than values observed during the day. U.S. temperatures have risen by 0.9°F over the past100 years. Within the past 25 years, U.S. temperatures increased 1.6°F.

Precipitation. Although average precipitation across the globe has not changed dramatically, a change in the character of precipitation has been observed in many parts of the world. The observed trends suggest a shift from more frequent moderate rainfall events to more infrequent heavy rainfall events. Since the period of time between rainfall events increases, drought may become more prevalent. But since the rain events that do occur can be quite heavy, the increased risk of flooding is also a concern. Clearly this change in the character of precipitation has implications for water resource and irrigation decisions.

Predictions

CO2 Levels. In order to project future climate conditions, scientists must predict what the world will look like politically, economically and environmentally in 100 years. Given the uncertainty in such predictions, scientists have developed a range of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. These range from a fossil-fuel intense society that undergoes rapid economic growth and experiences a modest increase in population. In this case atmospheric CO2levels increase to four times their pre-industrial values by 2100. A business-as-usual scenario…continuing the present trend in greenhouse gas emissions … leads to a similar increase in CO2 levels by 2100 (A2 in the figure below).

More environmentally-friendly scenarios, with reductions in fossil fuel usage, also lead to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This results from the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere (about 100 years). Thus today’s CO2 emissions are not removed from the atmosphere until 2106. Even the most environmentally friendly emission scenarios lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the next 100 years, to about double preindustrial levels (B1 in previous figure).

Temperature. Many climate models exist. They all rely on the same physics, but differ in the ways in which variables like clouds are parameterized. The “art” of climate modeling is how processes that can not be well represented by the physics of the models are accounted for. All models experience the same increase in greenhouse gas concentration. They all show a warming by 2100. The only difference is the magnitude of the warming. Here model warming estimates range from 1.5 to 5.0°C by 2100.

Significance. At first glance a degree or two or even five degrees of “global warming” does not seem like a big deal. However when averaged over the globe, this change is quite substantial. From the height of an ice age to the intervening interglacial period (like today) the globe’s temperature changes by about six degrees. The more modest climate model projections are that by 2100, increase global temperature will be about a third of that associated with the ice age cycle. Keep in mind that for ice ages, this six-degree change occurs over 100,000 years. We
expect to see a 2-3 degree change over 100 years!

Precipitation. The figure below shows how precipitation changes will vary geographically by 2100. Some locations (primarily in subtropics) show decreases in precipitation (orange and gold areas in the figure below). Large areas of the middle latitudes and tropics see increases in
precipitation.

Summary

Over the last century the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased markedly. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have not been this high for hundreds of thousands of years. In isolation this change must result in a warming of the Earth’s temperature. Over this same time period climate observations indicate that the global temperature has increased by about 1°F. Although changes in average precipitation have been small (on the order of 1-2%), rain gauge records show that the character of precipitation events has changed. Heavy rainfall events have become more frequent over the last half century.

It is unlikely that the emission of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere will slow in the near future. In fact, most projections indicate increased carbon dioxide emissions into the middle to late part of the 21st century. This continued increase will likely lead to additional increases in temperature, with most models projecting rises of between 1.5 and 5°C. Although the exact magnitude of changes in precipitation are uncertain, there is reason to believe that precipitation events will become more variable, leading to increases in both the frequency of floods and droughts.

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

NRCS Online Air Quality, Energy and Climate Change Courses

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has begun developing online courses in three curriculum tracks: air quality, energy, and climate change. Air Quality, Climate Change, and Energy is the lead-in to the three tracks.

The courses are designed for all Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) employees, but particularly for State Air Quality and Energy Contacts, conservation planners, partnership employees, and conservation technical assistance providers to assist them in integrating air quality, energy and climate change into conservation planning and programs. Although these courses were developed specifically for NRCS employees, the information contained in them may also be useful to NRCS partners and others associated with conservation in agriculture.

*A USDA eAuthentication account is needed to access the courses.*

Introductory Course

Air Quality, Climate Change, and Energy | Course description | Go to the course

Air Quality Curriculum Track

Why Should We Care About Air Quality? | Course description | Go to the course
Air Quality Resource Concerns | Course description | Go to the course
Air Quality and Animal Agriculture | Course description | Go to the course
Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration | Course description | Go to the course

Energy Curriculum Track

Why Do We Care About Energy | Course description | Go to the course
Energy Basics | Course description | Go to the course

Climate Change Curriculum Track

Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration | Course description | Go to the course
Why Do We Care About Climate Change | Course description | Go to the course

Environmental Credit Trading

Introduction to Environmental Credit Trading | Course description | Go to the course

Other courses are either in development or are being planned to supplement the learning modules for each of these curriculum tracks

Air Quality, Climate Change, and Energy

Turkey production. Photo courtesy USDA NRCS.

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

Define air quality, climate change, and energy as they relate to the NRCS mission and explain how they are interrelated
Explain the importance of these issues for land managers and NRCS itself
Recognize how soil, water, air, plants, animals and human activity all affect, and are affected by, energy and climate change
Identify examples of how air quality, climate change, and energy concepts apply to agricultural conservation
List and locate additional resources that can be used to expand knowledge of these topics

Course Link. Air quality is already a functional part of the NRCS conservation portfolio (the first ‘A’ in SWAPA+H). Climate change and energy are now becoming significant considerations in conservation planning. This course will provide a broad overview of these three topics, and how they are related to each other and SWAPA+H components. Students will learn how agricultural activities can contribute to air emissions, sequester carbon, manage greenhouse gas emissions, and better conserve energy. The course also will provide examples of addressing these issues via NRCS planning and programs. 90 minutes Go to Air Quality, Climate Change, and Energy….

Why Should We Care About Air Quality?

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

State why air is an important natural resource
Explain why it is important to take a holistic approach to conservation planning
List the major reasons why NRCS addresses air quality and atmospheric change
Identify several agricultural activities that can release air emissions
Describe various reasons for land managers to address air quality and atmospheric change
Identify the role of NRCS employees in addressing air quality and atmospheric change

Course link. As the first “A” in SWAPA+H, air is an important natural resource that is vital to life. Although our agency has addressed issues related to air quality and atmospheric change since its formation, these issues have not been a traditional focus area for the NRCS in most locations. As our partners and the public have begun placing a larger emphasis on air quality and atmospheric change issues, NRCS has needed to develop the technical expertise for integrating conservation of the air resource into our assistance portfolio.

This course will provide a broad overview of air quality and atmospheric change and begin to equip NRCS conservationists and our partners with the knowledge and confidence to address air-related resource concerns. 30 minutes. Go to Why Should We Care About Air Quality?…

Manure management system for a swine farm. Photo courtesy USDA NRCS.

Air Quality Resource Concerns

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

Identify the four primary air quality resource concerns and the emissions that contribute to these concerns
Identify the effects of particulate matter, ozone precursors, and odors on air quality
Discuss greenhouse gases as an atmospheric change issue
Derive potential solutions to reduce agricultural emissions of particulate matter, ozone precursors, odors, and greenhouse gases
List and locate additional resources that can be used to expand knowledge of these topics

Course link. The NRCS utilizes the concept of “resource concerns” in conservation planning. There are four broad categories of air-related resource concerns: particulate matter, ozone precursors, odors, and greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration. This course provides an overview of each of these four air quality resource concerns and how they can most effectively be addressed in the NRCS planning framework. Principal air emissions from agricultural operations are discussed, and how each of these is related to one or more of the air resource concerns. Finally, a variety of mitigation strategies are presented for managing emissions and improving these four air quality concerns. 50 minutes Go to Air Quality Resource Concerns…

Air Quality and Animal Agriculture

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

Identify the primary reasons that animal production operations are currently the main focus when discussing air quality issues in agriculture
Identify the primary air emissions from animal production operations and describe how these emissions are generated, emitted, and transported
Identify NRCS options for mitigating air emissions from animal production operations

When discussing air quality issues in agriculture, animal production operations are typically the primary focus for mitigation and regulation. This course will introduce the air emissions associated with animal operations and provide information on how NRCS can help producers mitigate these emissions. 60 minutes Go to Air Quality and Animal Agriculture…

Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

Explain the greenhouse effect
Discuss the characteristics of sunlight and earth’s radiation balance
Determine how changes in greenhouse gas emissions can influence global climate change
Identify methodologies in which agricultural and natural resource systems can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and effects
Given a scenario, explain the importance of a holistic approach to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Course Link Climate change and carbon offset trading have gained great interest in many parts of the agricultural community over the past few years. But why should we as NRCS conservationists be interested in these issues? Conservation systems that we design and help implement can often have a positive influence on the emission or storage of gases which, when in the atmosphere, can affect climate change. This course shows the importance of greenhouse gases to life on earth, the potential negative consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, agricultural sources of greenhouse gases, and potential methods in which agriculture can reduce its net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 60 minutes Go to Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration…

Why Do We Care About Energy?

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

Describe why energy costs and energy security are so important to land managers.
Describe environmental impacts of fossil fuel exploration, production and use.
Describe energy opportunities available to land managers and NRCS

Course Link While energy has not traditionally been addressed in the NRCS planning process, it is receiving unprecedented attention in the national and international news. This short course provides insight into why energy issues are important to agriculture and the nation. It gives participants the opportunity to explore how our energy choices can impact NRCS and the natural resources we work to conserve. 30 minutes Go to Why Do We Care About Energy?…

Tractor loading chicken litter into spreader truck. Photo courtesy USDA NRCS.

Energy Basics

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:

Describe basic terminology and energy concepts.
Identify non-renewable and renewable sources of energy and describe their origins, benefits and uses
Explain life cycle analysis and it relevance to comprehensive energy planning
Describe agriculture’s role in utilizing renewable energy alternatives

Course Link Understanding energy basics is fundamental to effective energy conservation planning. This course establishes a technical foundation to prepare NRCS planners to incorporate energy considerations into conservation plans. It provides general background on the fundamental principles behind energy issues in agricultural settings. 90 minutes Go to Energy Basics…

Why Do We Care about Climate Change?

At the completion of this course, students will be able to:

Understand climate change and its key drivers
Explain the impacts of climate change on agriculture and natural resources
Differentiate mitigation from adaptation
Discuss NRCS’ role in helping land managers and owners in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change

Course link. Climate plays a key role in conservation planning, natural resource management and agricultural production. Changes in climate can have significant impacts on managing and protecting agricultural and natural resources. NRCS is educating its employees and partners about climate change, and communicating climate change impacts to NRCS customers. Understanding climate change and its impacts will help NRCS assist private landowners, producers, and land managers cope and adapt to changing climate.

This course discusses climate change and related concepts, the impacts of climate change on agriculture and natural resources, and NRCS’ role in helping private land owners and land managers address climate change mitigation and adaptation through conservation planning. 30 minutes. Go to “Why Care About Climate Change?”

Technical Contact: Carolyn Olson at Carolyn.olson@wdc.usda.gov

Introduction to Environmental Credit Trading

Course link: This course provides an introductory discussion of environmental credits, environmental credit trading, and market-based approaches providing environmental and economic benefits.

At the completion of this course, students will be able to:

Understand environmental credit trading
Identify markets for environmental credits
Explore the benefits and costs of participating in markets
Understand how different environmental practices can produce various environmental credits
Outline various ways agricultural producers can benefit from environmental credit trading
Explain how producers can participate in environmental credit trading

Course length: 90 minutes. Go to “Introduction to Environmental Credit Trading”

Technical Contact: Carolyn Olson at carolyn.olson@wdc.usda.gov

Page Manager

Greg Zwicke, P.E.
Air Quality Engineer
Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team
USDA-NRCS, WNTSC
2150 Centre Ave.
Building A, Suite 231
Ft. Collins CO 80526

greg.zwicke@ftc.usda.gov
Ph. 970.295.5621

March 5, 2019March 10, 2022

Market Based Conservation

Market-based conservation is an evolving concept that can mean different things to different people. Market-oriented approaches to conservation can include:

Using economic approaches, such as auctions and trading of credits, niche marketing, and a variety of payment for ecosystem services strategies
Encouraging competitions, such as bidding for grants or offers to pay for a greater share of the cost
Providing data to inform the conservation investment decisions of others
Focusing on monetary and non-monetary incentives
Fostering knowledge-based conservation

Webcast Presentation

The LPE Learning Center hosted a webcast on Market Based Conservation: Implications for Manure Management in May, 2008.

Market Based Conservation as a Policy

At the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in 2005, Agriculture Secretary Johanns announced a new U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy on Market-Based Environmental Stewardship. The goal of this policy is to broaden the use of markets for environmental and ecosystem services through voluntary market mechanisms. These mechanisms may include environmental credit trading, insurance, mitigation banking, competitive offer-based auctioning, eco-labeling—and more. The intent of this new policy is to make a deliberate, determined effort to help bring producers and consumers together and to develop innovative tools to quantify environmental impacts. In December of 2008, the USDA announced the creation of the Office of Environmental Markets to catalyze the development of markets for ecosystem services.

Until the last few years, in the U.S., most of the incentives for conservation have been provided by government through sharing the cost of conservation practices on private lands because these practices also have public environmental benefits. Trading is a market approach that is gaining acceptance through the cap and trade system. The Environmental Protection Agency policy on water quality trading is an example of the market approach. With trading, regulated industries have the flexibility to find the least cost avenue to comply with emissions, or at times, to trade with others to improve environmental quality. That is, when regulated industries must reduce emissions it may be cheaper to pay other firms or farms to reduce emissions than to do it themselves. Trading has the potential to accelerate air and water quality improvement and reduce compliance costs. The key to market-based incentives is that they are voluntary, verifiable, and transparent.

Examples of Market Based Conservation or Trading Programs

The New York City Watershed Agricultural Program is a great example of market based trading with a complementary municipal and agricultural partnership. Local farmers and agribusiness worked with the city to protect drinking water quality on nearly 500,000 acres of farmland in the watershed that supplies New York with drinking water. This saved the city millions of dollars in the development of advanced treatment systems and helped the rural community maintain its character.

One of the best manure based examples that is currently available is the Environmental Credit Corporation Lagoon Cover Program. Through this program, they will design, finance, and install lagoon covers to capture methane and other emissions at no cost to the farmer. They use the results to sell the carbon credits and can provide additional income to producers in some cases. Companies that buy and sell credits like ECC are called aggregators of credits. While national carbon legislation in the US has still not passed, there are still voluntary opportunities that exist for those in the agricultural sector as outlined in this webcast on opportunities for pork producers.

A final example is Vermont’s Cow Power program. Central Vermont Public Service, a utility, created a surcharge/premium people can pay to purchase green power generated by anaerobic digesters on dairy farms. This premium goes back to the farmer, generating a marketplace incentive and reward for farmers who are generating renewable, green energy from manure.

Research Summaries on Market Based Conservation

An economic analysis of nutrient trading in the Chesapeake Bay Region: A study looks into nutrient credit trading as a means to improve the quality of water in the Chesapeake Bay.

Water Quality Trading in the United States provides a great overview of water quality trading programs implemented in the U.S. The primary source of information for this overview is a detailed database, collected and compiled by a team of researchers at Dartmouth College.

Paying For Environmental Performance: Using Reverse Auctions To Allocate Funding For Conservation Since demand for funding in conservation programs usually exceeds the available funds, allocating funding in a way that achieves the greatest environmental outcomes is essential. Reverse auctions are one way to efficiently allocate funding. This paper examines two reverse auctions conducted in Pennsylvania, designed to fund best management practices that reduced phosphorus pollution. It explains how reverse auctions can be used to maximize environmentally desirable outcomes, and outlines lessons learned from the Conestoga Reverse Auction Project within Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River Watershed.

The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project: Field Testing a Pay-for-Environmental-Services Program This paper examines a project in Florida that will field test a program that pays cattle ranchers to provide environmental services that will benefit the lake. The program came about after a 2004 study conducted by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with several cattle ranchers concluded that a program to promote changes in water management practices on 850,000 acres of improved and unimproved pasture could moderate water flows to the lake, reduce phosphorus loads, and add to wetlands habitat. The study concluded that the agencies could buy these environmental services from cattle ranchers at a lower cost than producing the services by building new public works projects.

Doug Parker at the University of Maryland has written a report on Creating Markets for Manure: Basin-wide Management in the Chesapeake Bay Region. This report summarizes various methods for creating manure based markets. Other reports and programs from Georgia and Arkansas have focused on improving markets for poultry litter.

Author: Mark Risse, University of Georgia
Reviewers: John Lawrence, Iowa State University and Suzy Friedman, Environmental Defense Fund

January 20, 2017April 19, 2021

Planning for Climate Resiliency

Resiliency to weather risk is, on one hand, a topic that farmers and ranchers are already familiar with, but now climate change is adding new uncertainties that make it difficult to know the best practices for the future. Scenario planning, discussed in this webinar, is a method of risk assessment. This presentation was originally broadcast on January 20, 2017. More… Continue reading “Planning for Climate Resiliency”