w2wclim13 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 21, 2019

GHG Mitigation Opportunities for Livestock Management in the U.S.

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Purpose

The purpose of this project is to review the current understanding of methodologies available for the mitigation of Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production are largely associated with naturally occurring biological processes in the animal and particularly within the symbiotic microorganisms associated with these animals and their excreted waste products. Enteric emissions are primarily a result of CH₄ producing microorganisms, called methanogens that exist in the gastrointestinal tract of most animals. However the quantity produced by these methanogens is dependent on the development of the gastrointestinal tract of the animal that they are associated with. For example, ruminants produce a much greater quantity of methane because of the presence and fermentative capacity of the rumen that monogastrics, such as swine, do not have. Although non-ruminant species can also produce methane via hindgut fermentation, the quantities of methane associated with hindgut fermentation are much less than that of foregut fermenters, such as ruminants. To clarify, in 2009, enteric fermentation contributed 71% of CH₄ from agriculture (6,655 Gg of 9,372 Gg CH₄), and ruminants were responsible for 96% (6,385 Gg), horses 2.5% (171 Gg) and swine 1.5% (99Gg) of the enteric emissions in the US(EPA, 2009). Additionally, livestock manure can emit CH₄ and N₂O during storage and with field application. Storage conditions (aeration, temperature, pH) as well as manure composition have a major influence on the gases emitted and rates of emission. Methane emissions from manure that is stored can be reduced by cooling, covering, separating solids from slurry, or by capturing the CH₄ emitted.

What did we do

We conducted a thorough review of the existing literature regarding GHG emissions from livestock in the U.S.

What have we learned

We have learned that there are myriad opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from livestock. Additionally, many of the practices that will reduce GHG emissions will also tend to concomitantly increase the efficiency of production of the livestock and their products. Unfortunately, there are limited amounts of data on the potential unintended side effects also associated with the push for improved efficiencies from livestock production. While some practices may target specific modes of GHG emissions, most are focused on improving the overall efficiency of production.

Future plans

We are currently working to expand our research capabilities to evaluate future mitigation techniques and continue to work with EPA and USDA on numerous public projects to enhance producer mitigation of GHG emissions.

Additional Information

A thorough review (Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities) of the issues discussed here and in agriculture in general is available at the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology website ( http://www.cast-science.org/publications/?carbon_sequestration_and_greenhouse_gas_fluxes_in_agriculture_challenges_and_opportunities&show=product&productID=27392 )

Authors

Shawn Archibeque, Colorado State University

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 22, 2019

Current and Future Economic Impact of Heat Stress in the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Heat Stress in Farm Animals?

Farm animals have well known zones of thermal comfort (ZTC). The range of ZTC is primarily dependent on the species, the physiological status of the animals, the relative humidity and velocity of ambient air, and the degree of solar radiation. Economic losses are incurred by the U.S. livestock industries because farm animals are raised in locations and/or seasons where temperature conditions venture outside the ZTC. The objective of this presentation is to provide current estimates of the economic losses sustained by major U.S. livestock industries from thermal stress and to outline future challenges as animal productivity is improved. Species (production) considered are: chicken (meat), chicken (eggs), turkey (meat), cattle (meat), cattle (milk), and pig (meat).

What Did We Do?

Financial losses are the summation of:

decreased performance (growth, lactation, egg production),
change in feed intake,
increased mortality, and
decreased reproduction.

USDA and industry data were used to estimate the population size of each species in each month of the year, for each of the 50 states. Weather data from the National Weather Service from 270 stations over a minimum of 70 years were used to estimate mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures and relative humidity, and their variances.

A model based on an abrupt threshold and linear decrease in performance and reproduction and a linear increase in mortality above and below the ZTC is used for each species. Solar radiation and air velocity are assumed negligible. Probabilities of exceeding minimum or maximum values of ZTC are calculated from means and variances of weather data in each of the 50 states. Four scenarios of losses are estimated.

Total potential losses are calculated as if no thermal stress abatement strategies were used by any of the animal industries. This estimate is biased upwards, as most animal production systems uses some form of active cooling, but it is used to set a ceiling to the magnitude of the actual losses. For each species, losses are also calculated under minimum cooling (fans), intermediate cooling (fans and sprinklers), and extensive cooling (evaporative cooling). For each state and for each species the optimal strategy is the one that among the four results in the minimum financial losses under Monte Carlo simulations (1000 year replicates).

What Did We Learn?

At current production levels, the optimum cooling system varies considerably across species and states. Nationally, heat stress results in total economic losses ranging between $1.9 and $2.7 billions per year. Although projected increases in ambient temperatures (+ 1.2 to 1.3 °F by 2050) will result in additional financial losses, the additional metabolic heat resulting from the projected increase in animal productivity will have far greater impact, between 2 and 4 times as much as global warming. Considering that all moderate to intensive animal cooling system currently in use require substantial amounts of water and are approaching their maximum cooling capacity, technical innovations that will be both water and energy efficient will be badly needed before 2050.

Authors

Normand R. St-Pierre, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH-43201

St pierre w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 22, 2019

Staying Ahead of the Curve: How Farmers and Industry Are Responding to the Issue of Climate Change

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Is This Topic Important?

Several farmers, ranchers, and industry groups are leading the way on the issue of climate change.

What Will Be Learned In This Presentation?

These panelists will share how their farm or industry is responding to climate change, what factors are driving their decision to make changes, and the impact of climate change on long-term planning. This moderated session will encourage audience questions and facilitate exchange of ideas on how the agriculture industry can meet this challenge.

Presenters

David Smith, Southwest Region Coordinator Animal Agriculture and Climate Change Project, Texas A&M University dwsmith@ag.tamu.edu and Liz Whitefield, Western Region Coordinator, Washington State University

Jamie Burr – Tyson Foods, Chair National Pork Board Environment Committee
Abe Collins – cattle grazier, Cimarron Farm, Regenerative Farmscaping consultant, Board Member Soil Carbon Coalition
Paul Helgeson – Sustainability Director with Gold’n Plump Chicken
Bryan Weech, Director Livestock & MTI Commodity Lead, World Wildlife Fund
Andy Werkoven – dairyman and anaerobic digester co-owner, Werkhoven Dairy Inc., 2012 winner of US Dairy Sustainability Award

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Animal Agriculture for a Changing Climate – Stakeholder Forum

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Is This Topic Important?

Climate change adaptation and mitigation is an emerging issue for animal agriculture research and extension. A national team of Extension professionals is developing a web-based educational course, website, and related materials to provide comprehensive education for Extension agents and educators about the latest research, management methods, and tools. The objectives of this project are: 1) to build a foundation of knowledge; 2) facilitate learning across U.S. regions, and; 3) provide a shorter time from research to extension to application. The project has a P.I. and an Extension professional in each of five regions across the United States as well as a national P.I. and project coordinator to facilitate having a coordinated national educational effort that is regionally relevant and accessible.

What Will Be Learned In This Presentation?

The goal of the forum will be to hear from stakeholders: farmers, industry, Extension, and others on how this project, and Extension generally, can best serve their needs related to climate change.

Presenters

Crystal Powers, Project Coordinator Animal Agriculture and Climate Change, University of Nebraska – Lincoln cpowers2@unl.edu

Each of these Extension Professionals is a Regional coordinator for the Animal Agriculture and Climate Change Project.

Pam Knox, Southeastern Region, University of Georgia
Jennifer Pronto, Northeastern Region, Cornell University
David Schmidt, Midwestern Region, University of Minnesota
David Smith, Southwestern Region, Texas A&M University
Elizabeth Whitefield, Western Region, Washington State University

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Adaptation Methods and Bioclimate Scenarios

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Adaptation of Livestock to Climate Change?

The complex of our study was aimed at exploring the effects of warm climate in farm animals, at constructing bioclimate scenarios and at developing adaptation options that may permit to alleviate the impact of hot climate on the livestock industry.

What Did We Do?

Most of our research work was relative to dairy cows. We realized several studies by different experimental approaches. First of all, we have been running numerous experiments under climate chamber conditions followed by a number of field studies. To reach more precise objectives, we also performed several in vitro studies on selected cell populations. In the last few years we have been also building and exploring multi-year datasets and measuring the impact of air temperature and relative humidity on performances and health in intensively managed dairy cows/pigs. Finally, we have been working on bioclimate, namely temperature humidity index (THI), characterization of selected geographic areas both retrospectively and in terms of scenario (Figure 1).

climate graph for lactera proceedings paper

JJA anomolies 2021-2030 vs CiNo

JJA anomolies 2031-2040 vs CliNo

Figure 1. Regional distribution of Mediterranean summer (JJA, June-July-August) temperature humidity index anomalies versus CliNo (Climate Normal, 1971-2000 period) for the four decades 2011-2020, 2021-2030, 2031-2040, and 2041-2050 (Segnalini et al., in press)

What Have We Learned?

We have learned that the ability of dairy cows to breed, grow, and lactate to their maximal genetic potential, and their capacity to survive and keep healthy is dramatically influenced by climate, meteorological events and biological environment and their interactions. Climate and meteorological features affect animals both indirectly and directly. Indirect effects include those exerted on quality and quantity of crops and pastures and on survival of pathogens and/or their vectors. The direct effects of air temperature on animals depend on their ability to maintain a normal body temperature under unfavourable thermal conditions. A series of studies carried out at Mediterranean level, one of the hot spot in the context of global warming, pointed out a constant increase for livestock of the risk to suffer from heat stress related conditions. Climate change is imposing a growing attention to adaptation measures, which may help farm animals to face with conditions of environmental warmth. These may include set up of meteorological warning systems, revision of health maintenance strategies, correction of feeding plans, shade, sprinkling, air movement, active cooling, genetic selection, and others.

Future Plans

To develop comprehensive frameworks to identify and target adaptation options that are appropriate for specific contexts.

Authors

Alessandro Nardone, Professor, Dipartimento per la Innovazione nei sistemi Biologici, Agroalimentari e Forestali (DIBAF), Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy nardone@unitus.it

Nicola Lacetera, Professor, Dipartimento di scienze e tecnologie per l’Agricoltura, le Foreste, la Natura e l’Energia (DAFNE), Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy

Additional Information

1. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. http://www.livestockscience.com/article/S1871-1413%2810%2900074-0/abstract

2. Temperature humidity index scenarios in the Mediterranean basin. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00484-012-0571-5

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge National (CNR, MIUR, MIPAF) and International (UE) funding bodies, and Umberto Bernabucci, Bruno Ronchi, Andrea Vitali, Maria Segnalini, Alessio Valentini, Patrizia Morera, Loredana Basiricò, M. Stella Ranieri and others in quality of co-authors of the numerous peer-reviewed papers we published in this field during the last 20 years.

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Cow-Calf Operation in Florida, USA

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources in a typical cow-calf operation in Florida and to calculate its total carbon footprint. The most important greenhouse gas source found was enteric fermentation, hence further investigation of this factor is being developed with field trials.

Why Study the Carbon Footprint of Cow-Calf Systems?

We estimated the carbon footprint of the cow-calf operation held in Buck Island Ranch, with data from 1998 to 2008. This production system has around 3000 cows and 250 bulls, has low fertilizer and lime inputs and feeding is pasture and hay based with some use of molasses and urea. Natural mating is used and calves are kept in the farm until 7 months old. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006) methodology was used along with emission factors from USDA (EPA, 2009) to estimate emissions at different levels of complexity (Tier 1 being the least complex and Tier 3 the most), according to data availability, and transformed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂eq). A field trial to measure ruminal methane emissions was held at the North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida, from June 26^th to September 18^th. The experiment treatments consisted of three stocking rates (1.2, 2.4 and 3.6 AU/ha, where one animal unit is 360) with four replicates each. The ruminal methane emissions were measured three times using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) tracer technique (Johnson et al., 1994). Experimental weight gain and average initial weight of each experimental unit were used to estimate emissions with the IPCC’s Tier 3 methodology.

Table 1. Sources of greenhouse gases in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂eq). Data retrieved from Buck Island Ranch from 1998 to 2008.

Figure 2. Animal with SF6 sample collection apparatus. Marianna, Florida, August 2012.

What Have We Learned?

Results of the carbon footprint calculation are shown in Table 1. We can observe that enteric fermentation is responsible for almost 60% of total emissions in this production system, varying with feed quality, age of animal (since calves under 7 months age are not considered to produce any methane), and number of animals in the farm. It was also found that this model is most sensitive to variations in weight gain. The second most important source of GHG is manure with more than 23 of emissions. The yearly variation in emissions is a result of the use of nitrogen fertilization and lime or burning of the pasture. On average 477,936 kg of live weight are produced every year in the ranch, resulting in an average of 24.6 kg CO₂eq/kg live weight that leaves the farm. Results from the field trials were compared with default values from IPCC’s Tier 1 methodology and USDA, and to IPCC’s Tier 3. We can see that on Period 2 the weight gain on the 2.4 AU/ha treatment was greater than on the 3.6 AU/ha (Figure 1). Since the model used is highly sensitive to weight gain, the prediction resulted in higher methane emissions from the 2.4 AU/ha treatment. The field measurements (Figure 2), however, showed more emissions in the 3.6 AU/ha treatment showing that other factors besides weight gain might play an important role on enteric fermentation methane emissions.

Future Plans

Our future plans include the use of field data to perform a prediction analysis with the model under study. Also, we plan to do in vitro gas production technique (IVGPT) to simulate ruminal fermentation and have a better understanding of emissions.

Authors

Marta Moura Kohmann, M.S. student, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida. mkohmann@ufl.edu

Clyde W. Fraisse, PhD., Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida.

Hilary Swain, PhD., Executive Director, Archbold Biological Station.

Martin Ruiz-Moreno, PhD, Post-doctoral, Animal Science Department, University of Florida

Lynn E. Sollenberger, PhD., Professor and Associate Chair, Agronomy Department, University of Florida

Nicolas DiLorenzo, PhD., Animal Science Department, University of Florida

Francine Messias Ciríaco, M.S. student, Animals Science Department, University of Florida

Darren D. Henry, M.S. student, Animals Science Department, University of Florida

Additional Information

The Carbon Footprint for Florida Beef Cattle Production Systems: A Case Study with Buck Island Ranch. Available in

<http://www.archbold-station.org/statiohttps://www.archbold-station.org/documents/agro/Kohmann,etal.-2011-FlaCattleman-carbonfootprint.pdfn/documents/publicationspdf/Kohmann,etal.-2011-FlaCattleman-carbonfootprint.pdf>

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Faculty and Staff at the North Florida Research and Education Center for the assistance during the field trial.

Mourakohman w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Effects of Climate Change on Pasture Production and Forage Quality

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Climate Change and Pastures?

Pastures cover more than 14 million hectares in the eastern half of the United States and support grazing animal and hay production while also contributing to the maintenance of overall environmental quality and ecosystem services. Climate change is likely to alter the function of these ecosystems. This manipulative field experiment evaluated the effect of warming and additional precipitation on forage production and quality.

What Did We Do?

We initiated a multi-factor climate change study, elevating air temperature (+3º C) and increasing growing season precipitation (+30% of long-term mean annual), in a central Kentucky pasture managed for hay production. Treatments began in May 2009 and have run continuously since. We measured the effects of warming and increased precipitation on pasture production, forage quality metrics, and for endophyte-infected tall fescue, ergot alkaloid concentrations.

Photo of the UK Forage Climate Change Experiment in Lexington, KY.

What Have We Learned?

Effects of warming and increased precipitation on total yearly pasture production varied depending on the year of study; however, climate treatments never reduced production below that of the ambient control. Effects on forage quality metrics were relatively subtle. For endophyte-infected tall fescue, warming increased both ergovaline and ergovalinine concentrations (+40% of that in control ambient plots) throughout the study. These results indicate that central Kentucky pastures may be relatively resilient to future climate change; however, warming induced increases in ergot alkaloid concentrations in endophyte-infected tall fescue suggests that animal issues associated with fescue toxicosis are likely to be exacerbated under future climatic conditions.

Aerial photo of the UK Forage Climate Change Experiment.

Future Plans

We will continue this study for one more growing season and then destructively harvest it (in Fall 2013).

Authors

Rebecca McCulley, Associate Professor, Dept of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, rebecca.mcculley@uky.edu

Jim Nelson – Research Scientist, Dept. of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky

A. Elizabeth Carlisle – Research Technician, Dept. of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky

Additional Information

http://www.ca.uky.edu/pss/index.php?p=997

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of DOE-NICCR grant DE-FC02-06ER64156, UK’s College of Agriculture Research Office, the USDA-ARS Forage Animal and Production Research Unit (specific cooperative agreement 58-6440-7-135), the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station (KY006045), and numerous undergraduates and graduate students who have helped collect the data presented herein.

McCulley w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 10, 2020

Climate Change Extension: Presenting the Science is Necessary But Insufficient

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Should We Consider How to Present Scientific Information?

To engage a wide spectrum of agricultural producers in the discussion of human-induced climate change and its mitigation.

What Did We Do?

Our initial Extension efforts on climate change in Kentucky were based on an information-deficit model, which assumes that citizens fail to accept climate change because they don’t understand the science. However, social science research indicates that this topic has cultural significance for many agricultural producers, suggesting that presentation of sound scientific information alone is likely to be unpersuasive. Based on social science research, we redesigned our outreach efforts to emphasize: (1) more selective presentation of geophysical data; (2) positive messages as frequently as possible; and (3) messages that speak to core identities of citizens with diverse worldviews.

What Have We Learned?

Starting discussions on this sensitive topic are more successful if we make it clear to producers how much we appreciate their role in producing our food and, yes, in helping to reduce climate change. For example, U.S. producers deserve to be congratulated for the dramatic improvements made in agricultural productivity over the decades, since this has resulted in substantial reductions in carbon emissions when expressed per unit of production (per bushel, per gallon of milk, etc). We also point out practices they already do that help to reduce climate change, including energy-conservation measures and capturing biogas.

Future Plans

We plan to continue providing and refining our outreach on climate change, based on feedback from audiences and research from the social sciences. While we recognize that our current efforts may not quickly result in increased action on climate-change mitigation, our approach is designed to build acceptance of climate change as a topic deserving of the engagement of a wide range of citizens. Our working assumption is that promoting discussion on this highly divisive topic requires sensitivity to, and respect for, the diversity of worldviews held by Americans

Authors

Paul Vincelli, Provost’s Distinguished Service Professor, University of Kentucky; pvincell@uky.edu

Rebecca McCulley, Associate Professor, University of Kentucky

Judith Humble, L.C.S.W., Lexington, KY

Additional Information

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/plantpathology/people/vincelli.htm

http://www2.ca.uky.edu/environment-files/ccflyervincelli.pdf

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id191/id191.pdf

McCulley and Vincelli w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019April 2, 2021

Impacts of Changing Climate in the Northeast on Manure Storage

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Manure storage design and operation are influenced by climate and weather. The Northeast United States has been identified as likely to experience more frequent and larger precipitation events in climate change models. The Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) predicts that particularly in New York and New England where the frequency of 2 inch rainfall events has increased since the 1950s and storms once considered a 1 in 100 year event have become more frequent. Such storms are now likely to occur almost twice as often. In consultation with Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) the NRCC has put together a website www.precip.net that includes estimates of extreme rainfall for various durations (from 5 minutes to 10 days) and recurrence intervals (1 year to 500 years). Although the public website remains static, providing design criteria, updated data is continually collected. It is anticipated that this will show a continual shift in extreme rainfall amounts. Monthly and yearly rainfall also impact manure storage design. The impacts of both changing extreme rainfall and monthly rainfall amounts on manure storage design are explored. Higher freeboard amounts to protect from overtopping and more total storage to provide flexibility in abnormally wet weather are recommended to be incorporated in manure storage facility designs.

Observed precipitation change showing an increase in the northeast, from http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap2-climate.pdf draft for public comment Chapter 2 Our Changing Climate

Why Are We Concerned About Climate Change Impacts on Manure Storage?

The need to increase the storage capacity of manure storages due to climate change is evaluated. Although the weather is variable, climate change appears to increase precipatation especially during the winter storage period. This increase in precipatation and the increased control of winter manure spreading puts farms with too little storage at greater risk. Although in general the 25 year 24 hour storm has not increased in NY, farms have experienced less storage than anticipated. The use of average precipitation amounts based on the full period of record doesn’t take into account above average precipitation during the storage period or recent increases in winter precipitation.

What Did We Do?

Increase in precipitation for the 8 month storage period at Ithaca NY from 1980 to 2011.

Average winter precipatiation was determined in 3 periods of record, prior to 1950, 1950 to 1980, and 1980 to 2012 at five locations in NYS. This showed that the more recent period had an increased precipitation. This matches climate model predictions for increased winter precipitation in the northeast. The amount of winter precipitation that would not be exceeded 90% of the time was determined. Present design proceedures use the average precipitation for each month of winter storage. This means that 50% of the time a storage may experience more precipitation than designed. Maps were prepared to show the precipitation amounts that would not be exceeded 90% of the time for both 6 months and 8 month storage periods.

Winter precipitation amounts for the 8 month storage period with a 90% chance of not being exceeded.

What Have We Learned?

There are many reasons for manure storages to fill faster than design including; increased animal numbers, increased manure production, increased bedding or wash water, additional drainage area, and failure to empty prior to the storage period. Wetter weather than average and wet weather in the spring puts farms with storage at risk. The winter precipitation amount is increasing.. NYS farms with storage are experiencing stress during some seasons that then cause them to try to reduce the stress by spreading manure at times that can potentially pollute. Prudent manure storagedesign whould take this into account. Using updated and conservative precipitation amounts would increase the designed storage. This would increase the cost of the storage structures but allow farms to follow their Nutrient management plans more closely.

Future Plans

NY NRCS will change the precipitation amount used in the design of manure storages.

Authors

Peter Wright PE, State Conservation Engineer Natural Resources Conservation Service , Syracuse NY, peter.wright@ny.usda.gov

Jessica L. Rennells, Climatologist, Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell University

Arthur T. DeGaetano, Director Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell University

Curt Gooch P.E. , Senior Extension Associate, PRO-Dairy, Cornell University

Additional Information

https://www.usda.gov/oce/energy-and-environment/climate

http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap2-climate.pdf

Wright w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Money from Something: Carbon Market Developments for Agriculture

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.

For more than a decade, the potential to earn revenue from climate-saving activities in agriculture has been touted throughout farm-related industries. This presentation will assume a basic knowledge of the concept of carbon markets as a kind of ecosystem service market. The focus will instead be put on current market opportunities and the importance of learning from past mistakes. Included in the discussion will be carbon offset opportunities for methane capture from manure digesters and composting and nitrous oxide reduction from controls on nitrogen fertilization. Participants will learn about voluntary and compliance market opportunities and the value of offsets versus transactions costs in today’s markets. Sources of market information will also be discussed.

Topics:

Ecosystem services markets: Carbon credits and more.
Types of offsets relevant to livestock and crop producers (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide).
Rules of the road: How to read the key parts of project protocols.
Once and future markets: Consider the differences between voluntary and compliance markets.
Show us the money: Have any producers really made money from carbon markets?

Purpose

During the past decade, the potential to earn revenue from greenhouse gas reductions in agriculture, especially from anaerobic digestion projects, generated some enthusiasm for this emerging ecosystem market. In 2005, dairies in Washington and Minnesota received the first carbon credit payments for their digesters through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a pilot cap-and-trade market established in 2003. With the failure of the 111^th Congress to complete passage of a national cap-and-trade law in the summer of 2010, the CCX closed shop. What has happened since that time? What is the potential today for livestock producers to benefit from carbon markets or carbon pricing? We look at current markets and summarize the opportunities.

What Did We Do?

The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program monitors technology, policy and market developments about anaerobic digestion as part of its land-grant mission to support industry and agriculture in Washington state. Because of the potential value of digesters to dairy producers, we follow developments in a wide range of existing and potential ecosystem markets, including renewable energy and fuels, carbon/GHGs, nutrients, and water. Preparation for this presentation included surveys of academic and popular literature, interviews with project developers and market insiders, and analysis of the participation in carbon trading by existing livestock digester projects in the U.S.

What Have We Learned?

The existing landscape of livestock anaerobic digestion projects illustrates three major types or models of carbon market finance: utility-based programs, voluntary carbon markets and compliance-based cap-and-trade markets.

Utility-Based Opportunities

Vermont is home to at least 15 operational dairy-based digesters. Only two digesters serve farms with more than 2,000 cows. Of the balance, about half are below and half above 1,000 cows. All of the Vermont digesters produce renewable electricity and participate in one or more utility-based incentive programs. One example is the Vermont’s Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development (SPEED) program, which establishes standard offer contracts between utilities and renewable energy project developers. The goal of the SPEED program is to support in-state production of renewable power from hydro, solar PV, wind, biomass, landfill gas and farm methane with an overall portfolio target of 20 percent by 2017.

A key mechanism of the program is the long-term (20-year) Standard Offer contract and default pricing for the different types of renewable power. Default prices were calculated to allow developers to recover their costs with a positive return on investment. The default prices established for the first two rounds of farm methane projects were $0.16/kWh and $0.14/kWh, respectively. This compares to an average retail price of $0.146/kWh for electricity in the state. The default prices do not account for the environmental attributes of the green power for farm methane projects.

Many of the Vermont digesters participate in the Cow Power Program, established by the former Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), now a part of Green Mountain Power, in 2004. The Cow Power Program offers customers the opportunity to purchase the environmental attributes (renewable energy and GHG reduction) from participating dairy digester projects at a rate of $0.04/kWh. This value was passed along to the suppliers of the dairy-based green power.

These two Vermont programs continue to operate in tandem and provide maximum benefit to Vermont’s diary digester projects. By one estimate, customers participating through the Cow Power program have provided to dairy digester operators more than $3.5 million in value for the environmental attributes created in the past eight years.

Other examples of this type of type of utility-based standard offer or incentive pricing for farm power can be found in North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Voluntary Carbon Offsets Opportunities

Voluntary carbon markets are built on decisions by utilities, corporations, and other businesses to offset their carbon footprint impacts through the purchase of third-party verified carbon credits. While the voluntary carbon market has suffered ups and downs, especially during the recent economic downturn, corporations continue to respond to pressures such as corporate stewardship policies or carbon disclosure programs that require accounting for environmental and greenhouse gas impacts.

The voluntary market is inhabited by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations that bring sellers and buyers together. The types and value of offsets are more varied, depending on the appetites and budgets of the buyers.

For example, the voluntary carbon market has been a preferred option for Washington-based Farm Power, which has agreements with The Carbon Trust (Portland, OR) and Native Energy (Burlington, VT) for carbon credits generated from the capture and destruction of methane from its farm digester projects in Washington state. Both The Carbon Trust and Native Energy use designated registries and protocols, such as the Carbon Action Registry (CAR) or Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), as the vehicle through which credits are registered, verified, and eventually retired on behalf of their customers.

The Climate Trust – Retires registered carbon offsets on behalf of at least five Oregon-based utilities that are required by state law to offset the GHG impacts that occur from installing new power plants in the state. The Trust also sources offsets for the Smart Energy program created by NW Natural as an opportunity for customers to support production of “carbon-neutral” natural gas through farm-based biodigesters.

Native Energy – Has a diverse base of individual and business customers. They source carbon offsets for a wide range of large, environmentally conscious businesses, such as eBay, Stonyfield Farm, Brita, and Effect Partners, who provided some funding up front for offsets from Farm Power’s Rainier Biogas project. Offset values vary widely depending on demand, supply, and the “value” of the project’s story. In a few cases, offset values may loosely track the prices for compliance-grade carbon offsets with a discount for funding provided in advance of project implementation.

Compliance Cap-and-Trade Offsets Opportunities

Finally, the compliance market opportunity refers to cap-and-trade programs established by state governments to reduce GHG pollution. These are formal regulatory systems. The government establishes caps on GHGs for targeted sources and issues permits or allowances that are distributed, sold, or auctioned to regulated entities for each ton of emissions they generate. Allowances are typically tradable instruments, so entities can easily manage their allowance needs and accounts. The goal of cap-and-trade systems is to use market-based mechanisms to achieve pollution reductions at the lowest possible cost and with the least disruption to the economy.

Systems might also allow covered entities to use offsets generated voluntarily by non-covered entities to meet some portion of their emission reduction target. Allowed offsets are generated using approved protocols, verified by approved third-party verifiers, and registered/sold through approved registries.

Two domestic cap-and-trade programs survived the past decade and are in operation today—the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which involves nine Northeastern states, and the California market, established by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Each of these systems operates under its own sets of rules.

The table below highlights features of these two market approaches.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)	AB 32 – California Market
Nine states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont	California only (may establish a market connection with Ontario, Canada)
Covers the electricity sector: 200 power plants	Covers power and industrial entities that generate more than 25,000 metric tons of CO₂e annually; will expand to include the transportation fuel sector in 2015
Allowances based on U.S. short tons of CO₂	Allowances based on metric tons of CO₂
Allowances are auctioned	Allowances are auctioned, with a minimum floor price of $10/MtCO₂e
Offsets are very limited – few types, very strict rules, only 3% of compliance allowed	Offsets are allowed in four categories: livestock methane, forestry, urban forestry, and ozone-depleting substances; entities may use offsets for up to 8% of their compliance obligation
Current auction prices: ~ $2.00	Current auction prices: ~$13.50; offset values are estimated to lag allowance prices by about 25%

Among farm digester project developers, interest in the California market is guarded. Agricultural methane capture and destruction is one of just four approved offset categories. The demand for these offsets could become strong, and the rules allow projects from any state to participate. On the other hand, the costs for monitoring equipment can be significant, $15,000 or more for start up, with similar sums every year for verification and registration. These monitoring and transaction costs will tend to favor projects with larger livestock numbers (1,500+ dairy animal units, or AUs). To date, 60 existing digester projects have listed with the Climate Action Registry—a first step to participation in the California market. Of these projects, 36 have registered more than 800,000 verified carbon credits.

Conclusions:

Values for carbon (i.e., GHG reductions) can be observed in the marketplace and measured in terms of market goodwill or as prices for environmental attributes or carbon credits from voluntary and compliance markets.

Developers of smaller farm digester projects (<1,500 AUs) may find their best value through utility-based incentive programs or through participation in voluntary carbon markets.

Developers of larger farm digester projects (>1,500 AUs) should explore the potential costs and benefits of registering to participate as an offset project in the California carbon market.

Future Plans

The WSU Energy Program will continue to monitor market developments related to this topic and encourage livestock producers to consider methane capture and anaerobic digestion as means to control odors, manage nutrients, and produce valuable biogas resources.