greenhouse gases – Page 3 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Livestock Methane Emissions Estimated and Mapped at a County-level Scale for the Contiguous United States

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

This analysis of methane emissions used a “bottom-up” approach based on animal inventories, feed dry matter intake, and emission factors to estimate county-level enteric (cattle) and manure (cattle, swine, and poultry) methane emissions for the contiguous United States.

What did we do?

Methane emissions from enteric and manure sources were estimated on a county-level and placed on a map for the lower 48 states of the US. Enteric emissions were estimated as the product of animal population, feed dry matter intake (DMI), and emissions per unit of DMI. Manure emission estimates were calculated using published US EPA protocols and factors. National Agricultural Statistic Services (NASS) data was utilized to provide animal populations. Cattle values were estimated for every county in the 48 contiguous states of the United States. Swine and poultry estimates were conducted on a county basis for states with the highest populations of each species and on a state-level for less populated states. Estimates were placed on county-level maps to help visual identification of methane emission ‘hot spots’. Estimates from this project were compared with those published by the EPA, and to the European Environmental Agency’s Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR).

What have we learned?

Overall, the bottom-up approach used in this analysis yielded total livestock methane emissions (8,888 Gg/yr) that are comparable to current USEPA estimates (9,117 Gg/yr) and to estimates from the global gridded EDGAR inventory (8,657 Gg/yr), used previously in a number of top-down studies. However, the spatial distribution of emissions developed in this analysis differed significantly from that of EDGAR.

Methane emissions from manure sources vary widely and research on this subject is needed. US EPA maximum methane generation potential estimation values are based on research published from 1976 to 1984, and may not accurately reflect modern rations and management standards. While some current research provides methane emission data, a literature review was unable to provide emission generation estimators that could replace EPA values across species, animal categories within species, and variations in manure handling practices.

Future Plans

This work provides tabular data as well as a visual distribution map of methane emission estimates from enteric (cattle) and manure (cattle, swine, poultry) sources. Future improvement of products from this project is possible with improved manure methane emission data and refinements of factors used within the calculations of the project.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Robert Meinen, Senior Extension Associate, Penn State University Department of Animal Science

Corresponding author email

rjm134@psu.edu

Other authors

Alexander Hristov (Principal Investigator), Professor of Dairy Nutrition, Penn State University Department of Animal Science Michael Harper, Graduate Assistant, Penn State University Department of Animal Science Richard Day, Associate Professor of Soil

Additional information

None.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by ExxonMobil Research and Engineering.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Assessment of Coordinated Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Improving the economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion projects for processing dairy manure.

What did we do?

We completed a study that evaluated the economics of dairy manure granulation as means to export phosphorus from P-sensitive watersheds. To achieve this goal we developed a techno-economic optimization model that considers all dairy farms within the watershed simultaneously to determine the minimum break-even price for the granulated manure.

A second study was developed to assess the economics of anaerobic digestion using a techno-economic optimization model. We incorporated different revenue sources (power sale, methane destruction credits, renewable energy certificates (RECs) and tipping fee (if co-substrate is available). The model evaluated the project feasibility over ranges of values for technical and economic parameters to quantify the project resilience to uncertainty in process conditions.

What have we learned?

The results from the first study indicated that multi-farm participation can significantly improve feasibility and overall economics of manure granulation. Herd sizes were found to be a critical parameter in deciding whether a farm can economically participate in coordinated management. For manure granulation projects, liquid-solid separation followed by transportation of separated solids was always more economical than transporting raw manure from satellite farm to central processing facility. In the second study, electricity sale price was found to be the key parameter that determines the feasibility of anaerobic digesters. The hub-spoke configuration, where a large central farm hosts the digester and smaller surrounding farms contribute to it was found to be the most favorable arrangement. The size of the hub farm was critical to the feasibility of the project. Similarly, transportation distance was a critical factor that constrained the extent of cooperative digesters.

Future Plans

The information generated from these studies is being written into peer-review publications and factsheets to share insights of collaborative manure management with a wider audience.We are currently expanding the model by adding the option for manure transportation via pipelines. Furthermore, we are also incorporating additional biogas utilization technologies,i.e., natural gas sale over pipelines and also the utilization of power/heat on-site in manure upgrading and processing.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Troy M. Runge, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email

trunge@wisc.edu

Other authors

Mahmoud A. Sharara, Rebecca Larson

Additional information

1. http://www.are.wisc.edu/

2. Sharara, Mahmoud, Apoorva Sampat, Laura W. Good, Amanda S. Smith, Pamela Porter, Victor M. Zavala, Rebecca Larson, and Troy Runge. “Spatially explicit methodology for coordinated manure management in shared watersheds.” Journal of Environmental Management 192 (2017): 48-56.

3. Sharara, Mahmoud, Qiang Yang, Thomas L. Cox, and Troy Runge. “Techno-economic assessment of dairy manure granulation.” In 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting, p. 1. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2016.

Acknowledgements

This work is based on research supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture for its financial support (USDANIFABRDI Grant No. 2012-10006-19423) and funding from Dane County, Wisconsin under Award Number 12486.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

A Quantitative Assessment of Beneficial Management Practices to Reduce Carbon and Reactive Nitrogen Footprints of Dairy Farms in the Great Lakes Region

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Assessing and improving the sustainability of dairy production is essential to secure future food production. Implementation of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) can reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints of dairy farms. BMPs can and have been developed for different farm components, including feed, manure management and field cultivation practices. It is practically and economically infeasible to empirically test all combinations of BMPs at a whole farm scale. We therefore use whole-farm process-based models to assess the impact of several Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) on carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints of dairy farms in the Great Lakes region. Specifically the aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) on carbon, reactive nitrogen and phosphorus footprints of dairy farms in the Great Lakes region.

What did we do?

1. Baseline farms

We developed two baseline model farms, a small 150 cow herd farm and a large 1500 cow herd farm, that are thought to be representative for current dairy farming practices in the Great Lakes region, particularly Wisconsin and New York State (Table 1). The two baseline dairy farms were developed based on individual team members’ expertise and a consultation with external experts (Dane County Conservationists, Madison, Wisconsin). For the 1500 cow farm, the baseline scenario was partly based on a previously-studied commercial dairy farm in NY state. Since this commercial dairy farm already employs some BMPs (e.g. anaerobic digestion as BMP in manure management), the farm was ‘downgraded’ to derive the baseline.

2. Beneficial Management Practices

Farm-specific BMPs were developed for three farm components, i.e. “Feed”, “Manure Management & Storage” and “Field management”. These BMPS were developed based on expert judgement and are expected or known to reduce whole-farm GWPs.

To ensure a meaningful integration of BMPs and a consistent comparison of whole-farm BMPs to the baseline and to each other, we used the following set of rules (per farm type): i) Total cultivated area was fixed (areas of individual crops can vary per scenario); ii) Herd size was fixed; iii) Milk production was allowed to float, however, only if the production increased (no decreases in milk production); iv) Purchases of crops and protein mixes were minimized as far as possible.

3. Process model simulation

The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM4.3) was used to simulate the two baseline farms (i.e. 1500 cow farm in NY and 150 cow farm in WI) and all the individual BMPs. IFSM was used as a baseline model. The other process-based models, that is DNDC, APEX and CNCPS, were used to check IFSM predictions.

4.Whole-farm mitigation strategy

The individual BMPs were analyzed in terms of potential reduction in carbon and reactive nitrogen footprint. The best performing individual BMPs were combined into a whole-farm mitigation strategy and this whole-farm mitigation strategy was subsequently modeled in IFSM.

What have we learned?

A comparison of model simulations of feed BMPs to the baseline shows that an integrated feed BMP (low forage, corn silage:alfalfa 3:1, ~2% NDF digestibility, reduced protein 14%, added fat, increased feed efficiency) can potentially reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints with ~20% and ~24%, respectively, while remaining cost effective (18% increase in net return in $/cow), for both farm sizes.

For the small farm, replacing the bedded-pack barn with a free stall barn for the heifers, substantially reduces the carbon and the reactive nitrogen footprint with 12% and 11%, respectively. The manure management BMP ‘sealed with flare’ provides the largest potential reduction in carbon footprint for both farms (11% – 20%), primarily through a mitigation of CH4 emissions from manure storage.

Field management BMPs only provide a minimal reduction in carbon footprint (~3%), however, the field BMP ‘no-till with injection’ substantially reduces the reactive N footprint (~16%) for both farm sizes. This reduction is primarily achieved by a reduction in ammonia volatilization.

Based on the results for the individual BMPs, two combined whole-farm mitigation strategies were developed per farm and simulated in IFSM (Figure 1). For both the large farm and the small farm, the integrated whole-farm BMPs show an overall potential to reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints with 33% to 37% and 15% to 42% respectively, simultaneously increasing milk production and the net return per cow with 10% to 12% and 20% to 42%, respectively.

This analysis suggests that BMPs can be applied to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reactive nitrogen losses without sacrificing productivity or profit to the farmer.

Future Plans

Future research plans include a further comparison and analysis of IFSM predictions with predictions from other process models, including CNCPS, APEX, and ManureDNDC. In addition, we will assess the impact of climate change on the reactive nitrogen and carbon footprint of the baseline farms and the developed whole-farm mitigation strategies.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Karin Veltman, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Corresponding author email

veltmank@umich.edu

Other authors

Alan Rotz, Joyce Cooper, Larry Chase, Richard Gaillard, Pete Ingraham, R. César Izaurralde, Curtis D. Jones, William Salas, Nick Stoddart, Greg Thoma, Peter Vadas, Olivier Jolliet

Additional information

Veltman et al. (2017) Comparison of process-based models to quantify nutrient flows and greenhouse gas emissions associated with milk production. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment, 237, 31–44

DairyCAP project, www.sustainabledairy.org, aims to reduce the life cycle environmental impact of dairy production systems in the US.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

March 5, 2019March 5, 2019

An Overview of a USDA Coordinated Agricultural Project on Dairy Production Climate Change Mitigation

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

The purpose of this presentation is to outline the components and products of a USDA coordinated agricultural project focusing on dairy production systems in the Great Lakes region.

What did we do?

We have conducted research that includes measurement, modeling, and life cycle assessment for dairy production systems to improve sustainability at the farm level. The largest component of this grant was an assessment of best management practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This project also included developing outreach materials and programs for extension and educational purposes.

What have we learned?

There are a number of strategies throughout the dairy production system that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is significant variability in climate, location, dairy system design among other aspects that require different management strategies in order to reduce the net impact of dairy systems to climate change.

Future Plans

The project will be completed in the near future which includes finalizing modeling and life cycle assessments as well as extension and education materials. Beyond the project lifetime, future plans are to expand access to the models developed for expansion and use by other researchers. In addition, there are ongoing initiatives to educate stakeholders with the information produced from the project.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Matt Ruark, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email

mdruark@wisc.edu

Additional information

sustainabledairy.org

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Monetizing Environmental Benefits Associated with Dairy Manure Management Systems that Include Anaerobic Digestion – Challenges, Opportunities, and Values

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

A large agricultural lender reported in August 2016 that the current 20-month milk price low is not part of the typical three-year milk price cycle (which is marked by a year where the milk price is below the cost of production, followed by a year of recovering prices, and ending with a year where prices are well above the cost of production) that has been taking place since the late 1990’s, but rather is a correction of the dairy industry. That same report stated, that at the conclusion of the correction, milk prices will be more in-line with those of the early 2000’s, when the cost of production, on average, was close to the milk price, albeit with some variation. Overall, it is predicted to be a deviation from the recent three-year cycle pattern. To survive, dairy farms of the future will be compelled to even more carefully evaluate capital investments, including advanced manure treatment technologies, to assess their returns, both tangible and non-tangible, as they address regulatory and society-based environmental concerns.

Estimating the value of greenhouse gas reductions will be important to farms anticipating efforts to regulate carbon emissions in the future or to take advantage of carbon credits. Recognizing the value of water quality can also inform manure management system decisions. An economic value may help when comparing alternatives that have off-setting impacts across air and water environments.

What did we do?

This effort attempted to look at the economic values of the environmental benefits that a manure management system can provide, focusing specifically on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions (both direct and indirect), air quality improvements, and water quality improvements. The resulting values can then be used as additional inputs in manure management system decisions on the farm. The U.S. EPA has put an economic value on the “Social Cost of Carbon”, which was incorporated into the process of putting a value on a manure treatment system. Careful nutrient recycling impacts GHG emissions and also yields societal benefits from water quality improvements downstream. Reductions of both phosphorous and nitrogen concentrations in water bodies can be valued for the impact on drinking water treatment, habitat changes, and recreational use.

What have we learned?

Through a rigorous process, we have been able to show the positive impact that anaerobic digestion systems (ADS) in New York State (NYS) can have on GHG reductions; the relevant work is presented in the accompanying paper. We learned that a focused outreach effort is needed to show multiple target audiences the possible GHG reduction values for NYS farms and to explain policy ideas that would help achieve reductions on-farm, therefore contributing to the State’s ambitious renewable energy and GHG reduction goals.

Future Plans

Future plans in this area include continued work in quantifying the environmental benefits of anaerobic digestion (AD) and in collaborating with our industry and State partners to find ways to monetize those benefits. Immediate plans include 1) a day-long program to expose and educate key NYS legislators and government officials on the benefits of farm-based ADS and the need to find ways to pay for these benefits, and 2) collecting data from additional farm-based ADS for use in further validating or changing the assumptions needed to develop reduction values.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Curt Gooch, Dairy Environmental Systems and Sustainability Engineer, Cornell University

Corresponding author email

cag26@cornell.edu

Other authors

Peter Wright, Cornell University

Additional information

http://www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu/

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Reducing Greenhouse and Ammonia Emissions from Manure Systems

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Dairy manure systems produce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions that contribute to climate change. There are many potential practices and management strategies that can reduce these emissions which can conserve nutrients and reduce environmental impacts. This work assesses different processing strategies, additives, and manure storage covers to reduce emissions from dairy manure systems.

What did we do?

We completed three laboratory/field trials to assess emissions from manure systems. The first trial was to assess the greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions during storage and land application of manure that was processed with solid separation and digestion in combination with solid separation. A second trial assessed emissions and manure characteristics from storage with various commercial additives. The third study assessed ammonia emissions from digested manure storages with various biomass covers including raw wood, steam treated wood, and biochar produced from wood and corn cobs.

What have we learned?

The results from the study indicate that separation and digestion result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, as expected, ammonia emissions following digestion are increased due to increased nitrogen mineralization. Results also indicate that separation alone had a similar impact to greenhouse gas emissions, but did not further reduce emissions following digestion. Commercially available products that are designed to be added to manure storages had little to no impact on emissions or manure characteristics for the conditions present in this study. Lastly, biochar was capable of reducing ammonia emissions significantly when applied as a cover. Although the biochar was capable of sorbing ammonical nitrogen, the results indicate that the physical barrier on the manure surface was the primary driver for the reduction in ammonia emissions.

Future Plans

Following the outcomes of this work, information is being added to a dairy manure life cycle assessment to determine larger system wide impacts from changes in management practices or the inclusion of a processing system. In addition, work is being conducted to look at potential benefits that may be gained over a number of impact factors when manure management systems are optimized with other waste management systems from the municipal sector.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email

rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Other authors

M.A. Holly, Agricutural Engineer at USDA ARS, J.M. Powell, Soil Scientist at USDA ARS, H. Aguirre-Villegas, Assistant Scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional information

Holly, M.A., R.A. Larson, M. Powell, M. Ruark, and H. Aguirre-Villegas. 2017. Evaluating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated manure through storage and land application. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 239:410-419. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616321953

Holly, M.A. and R.A. Larson. 2017. Effects of Manure Storage Additives on Manure Composition and Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions. Transactions of the ASABE, Accepted in Print.

Holly, M.A. and R.A. Larson. 2017. Evaluation of Biochar, Activated Biochar, and Steam Treated Wood as Dairy Manure Storage Covers for Ammonia Mitigation. In Review.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Continuous Response Measurement: A Tool to Assess the Effectiveness of Agricultural GHG Mitigation Messaging among Extension Educators

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the feasibility of using the Continuous Response Measurement (CRM) tool together with focus group discussion among CRM users to evaluate the effectiveness of Extension education videos that feature controversial subject matter. In this case, CRM was employed to measure live audience perception and response while viewing a video titled “Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases in Animal Agriculture” produced by the USDA NIFA sponsored Animal Agriculture in a Climate Change project.

What did we do?

The CRM technique (or dial testing) was employed to assess response from 32 Cooperative Extension agents and NRCS technical service providers at the October 2016 ‘Cattle & Climate Conversations Workshop’ held in Denver, Colorado. Participants represented multiple states in the U.S. Southwest with expertise and clientele involved in cattle production. Each participant used a small hand-held dial to continuously evaluate the mitigation video (shown in two 15-minute segments) and rate their agreement with the statement “This is effective at encouraging adoption of mitigation techniques.” Following the CRM activity, participants took part in a focus group discussion to provide qualitative feedback on the video. A sample of “critical moments” in the video were replayed and participants provided explanation and feedback into why these moments elicited strong positive or negative responses. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, with funding by USDA NIFA Competitive Grant 2011-67003-30206, contracted with the Texas Tech University College of Media and Communication to conduct the CRM activity, forum discussion, and to prepare the final report.

What have we learned?

In many ways, cooperative extension agents and NRCS technical service providers serve as information gatekeepers to ensure that local agriculture producers and clientele within their service area receive scientifically-valid, researched-based, objective information on a range of relevant issues. They are also keenly sensitive to how educational content (and particularly those that involve controversial topics) will be perceived by clientele. The CRM technique with focus group discussion is an effective tool for generating both quantitative and qualitative data that can be used to improve audience perception and increase receptivity.

The CRM activity elicited several interesting ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ responses as participants viewed the mitigation video. For example, participants indicated positive responses as the video featured actual agricultural producers, when economic benefits were mentioned along with mitigation strategies, and during footage of working field technology. Conversely, interview footage of academic experts “offering redundant or unnecessary information”, dense charts and illustration with no succinct benefits, and explicit references to “climate change” coincided with the most negative responses.

During focus group discussions, participants offered several constructive suggestions to improve the overall message and perception. Recommendations included shortening the video to shorter segments, eliminating repetitive information (particularly among academic experts), tailoring content to specific types of production (e.g., pasture-based cattle production, feedlot cattle production) and region, and featuring agricultural producers using a technology with a relevant success story including economic benefits.

Future Plans

While the CRM technique provides important and useful insight into audience perception of existing educational content, this tool offers great benefit to Extension educators during product development. Future projects should consider CRM and focus group testing as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of educational content for intended audiences, thereby improving the overall perception and usefulness of the final product. A Journal of Extension article with more information on this CRM activity is currently being drafted.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

David W. Smith, Extension Program Specialist, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

Corresponding author email

davidsmith@tamu.edu

Other authors

Saqib Mukhtar, University of Florida IFAS/Extension; Glenn Cummings, Texas Tech University; Coy Callison, Texas Tech University

Additional information

Full paper to be submitted to Journal of Extension April 2016.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this effort provided by USDA-NIFA Competitive Grant 2011-67003-30206. Special thanks to the Texas Tech University College of Media and Communication.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Transferring Knowledge of Dairy Sustainability Issues Through a Multi-layered Interactive “Virtual Farm” Website

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

The goal of the Sustainable Dairy “Virtual Farm” website is to disseminate research-based information to diverse audiences from one platform. This is done with layers of information starting with the most basic then drilling down to peer-reviewed publications, data from life-cycle assessment studies and models related to the topics. The Virtual Farm focuses on decision makers and stakeholders including consumers, producers, policymakers, scientists and students who are interested in milk production on modern dairy farms. The top entry level of the site navigates through agricultural topics of interest to the general public. Producers can navigate to a middle level to learn about practices and how they might help them continue to produce milk for consumers responsibly in a changing climate while maintaining profitability. Featured beneficial (best) management practices (BMPs) reflect options related to dairy sustainability, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and milk production. Researchers can navigate directly to deeper levels to publications, tools, models, and scientific data. The website is designed to encourage users to dig deeper and discover more detailed information as their interest develops related to sustainable dairies and the environment.

What did we do?

As part of a USDA Dairy Coordinated Agricultural Project addressing climate change issues in the Great Lakes region, this online platform was developed to house various products of the transdisciplinary project in an accessible learning site. The Virtual Farm provides information about issues surrounding milk production, sustainability, and farm-related greenhouse gases. The web interface features a user-friendly, visually-appealing interactive “virtual farm” that explains these issues starting at a less-technical level, while also leading to much deeper research into each area. The idea behind this was to engage a general audience, then encourage them to dig deeper into the website for more technical information via Extension offerings.

The main landing page shows two sizes of dairy farms: 150 and 1,500-cows. The primary concept was to replace an all-day tour of multiple real dairy farms by combining their features into one ‘virtual farm’. For example, the virtual farm can describe and demonstrate the impact of various manure processing technologies. Users can explore the layout image, hover over labeled features for a brief description, and click to learn more about five main categories: crops and soils, manure management, milk production, herd management, and feed management. Each category page contains a narrative overview with illustrations and links to more detailed information.

What have we learned?

The primary benefit is that participants can learn about different practices, at their level of interest, all in one place. The virtual farm incorporates a broad theme of sustainability targeted at farming operations in the northeastern Great Lakes region of the USA.

The project has included regional differences in dairy farming practices and some important reasons for this such as environmental concerns (focus on N and/or P management in different watersheds) and long-term climate projections. Dairy industry supporters find value in having a one-stop repository of information on overall sustainability topics rather than having to visit various organizations’ sites.

Future Plans

We plan to continue to develop the website by adding relevant information, keeping information up to date, developing the platform for related topic areas and adding curriculums for school students.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Daniel Hofstetter, Extension-Research Assistant, Penn State University (PSU)

Corresponding author email

dwh5212@psu.edu

Other authors

Eileen Fabian-Wheeler, Professor, PSU; Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin (UW); Horacio Aguirre-Villegas, Assistant Scientist, UW; Carolyn Betz, Project Manager, UW; Matt Ruark, Associate Professor, UW

Additional information

Visit the following link for more information about the Sustainable Dairy CAP Project:

http://www.sustainabledairy.org

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Performance of Mitigation Measures in the Dairy Sector under Future Climate Change

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Climate change is an economic, environmental and social threat, and worthy of scientific study. Immediate action must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate negative impacts of future climate change. Proposed action can start at the farm level and has the potential of making a contribution to mitigation of climate change. Dairy farmers are able to significantly reduce their emissions by implementing better management practices, primarily through feed production, enteric fermentation, and manure management. We model the corresponding changes in emissions from proposed mitigation efforts to understand their impact on global climate change.

What did we do?

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for dairy systems have been identified and simulated using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). Simulations representative of a large New York farm (1500 cows) and a small Wisconsin farm (150 cows) estimated the emission of greenhouse gases for a whole farm system. Percent reductions were calculated by comparing a baseline scenario without any implemented mitigation, to scenarios that included the identified BMPs. Refer to Table 1 for emission and percent reduction estimates for the simulated BMPs. Table 1. Emissions and percent reductions from baseline for simulated mitigation strategies

Percent reduction estimates were then applied to a projected “business as usual” emission scenario. This scenario prescribes anthropogenic emissions through 2100 and excludes any climate action or policy after 2015. Taking 2020 as a reference year and 2050 as a target year, we applied the estimated percent reductions to the projected global agricultural emissions. Emission reductions were decreased linearly from 2020 to 2050, and held constant between 2050 and 2100 (Figure 1). This assumes that all farms globally can reduce emissions despite increases in production. To compare the performance of the mitigation measures under future climate change, we employed a fully coupled earth system model of intermediate complexity – the Integrated Global System Model (IGSM). The model includes an interactive carbon-cycle capable of addressing important feedbacks between the climate and terrestrial biosphere.

What have we learned?

Action taken globally in the agricultural sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the first half of the 21st century is likely to have an impact in mitigating global warming. Following a “business as usual” emission scenario without any climate policy or action beyond 2015, an increase in global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081-2100) relative to pre-industrial (1961-1990) levels is projected to be 2.8 C to 3.5 C (Figure 2). This exceeds the 2 C temperature target described as the maximum warming allowed to avoid dangerous and irreversible climate change. An associated net radiative

forcing for the “business as usual” scenario is projected to be 7.4 W/m^2 by 2100 (Figure 3). Adopting the identified BMPs in the dairy sector and decreasing global agricultural emissions by 2050 is projected to decrease global mean surface temperatures for 2100 by 0.2 C and net radiative forcing by 0.4 W/! m^2 on av erage. In summary, this modeled experiment demonstrates that ongoing efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the dairy and agricultural sector are effective at reducing the overall warming of climate change.

Figure 2. Projected global mean surface temperature and changes for mitigation scenarios

Future Plans

Future work will look further into the evolution of regional temperature and rainfall profiles for the mitigation scenarios. Then, ecological risk assessment methodologies will be applied to determine the probable impacts of climate change by each scenario on agricultural production.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Kristina Rolph – Graduate Student, The Pennsylvania State University.

Corresponding author email

kar5469@psu.edu

Other authors

Chris Forest – Associate Professor of Climate Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University.

Rob Nicholas – Research Associate, Earth & Environmental Systems Institute.

Additional information

The Sustainable Dairy Project, funded by the USDA, researches alternative management practices in the dairy industry. http://www.sustainabledairy.org
The Integrated Farm System Model simulates all major farm components to represent the many biological and physical processes on a farm. https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/up-pa/pswmru/docs/integrated-farm-system-model/
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is a fully coupled earth system model of intermediate complexity designed to analyze interactions between human activities and the Earth system. https://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/global-framework

Acknowledgements

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Innovative Business Models for On-farm Anaerobic Digestion in the U.S.

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

AgSTAR is a collaborative voluntary program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). AgSTAR promotes the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) systems to advance economically and environmentally sound livestock manure management. AgSTAR has strong ties to industry, government, non-profit and university stakeholders and assists those who enable, purchase or implement anaerobic digesters by identifying project benefits, risks, options and opportunities.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) continues to be a sustainable manure management opportunity with growing interest in innovative business models for project development. AD systems provide a number of benefits, including improved nutrient management, locally sourced renewable energy, and diversified revenue streams for farmers. As energy prices remain low across the country, and interest grows in managing food waste and organics outside of landfills, new business models have been implemented to make these on-farm AD projects viable. This presentation will provide a national overview of the livestock AD sector, explore new AD projects across the U.S., and highlight successful projects with innovative business models.

The presentation will cover several case studies of AD projects on topics including:

Third-party ownership and development of projects;
Food waste collection and boosting project profitability through tip fees and increased biogas production;
Eco-market products from dairy manure fibers; manure-based alternatives to peat moss for the horticulture industry; and
Biogas to vehicle fuel; opportunities and financial considerations.

With only 244 operating on-farm AD projects across the U.S., there exists a great opportunity for market share growth at the approximately 8,000 farms that could support a project. This, coupled with the desire for alternative management of organic waste streams, provides a unique opportunity for this sector to grow in the near future.

Pigs in a field Cows in a field