- Authors:
- McBride, W. D.
- MacDonald, J. M.
- Source: Economic Information Bulletin Number 43
- Year: 2009
- Summary: U.S. livestock production has shifted to much larger and more specialized farms, and the
various stages of input provision, farm production, and processing are now much more
tightly coordinated through formal contracts and shared ownership of assets. Important
fi nancial advantages have driven these structural changes, which in turn have boosted
productivity growth in the livestock sector. But structural changes can also generate
environmental and health risks for society, as industrialization concentrates animals and
animal wastes in localized areas. This report relies on farm-level data to detail the nature,
causes, and effects of structural changes in livestock production.
- Authors:
- Year: 2009
- Summary: Climate change is a worldwide environmental problem that will affect every citizen of the planet. Societies can respond to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the rate and the magnitude of effects caused by climate change. Agriculture is a major contributor to the problem of climate change, but also has the capacity to be a part of the solution. No-till practices are considered dual purpose in that it has potential as a climate change mitigation strategy as well as an adaptation strategy. Economists have proposed using a market system to aid in the mitigation of climate change because it creates financial incentives to innovate and conserve. Carbon markets have presented farmers with the opportunity to be paid for practices that decrease emissions and sequester carbon, such as no-till farming. No-till farming practices have been in use in the United States for decades by some farmers in order to reduce soil erosion. However, many farmers continue to use traditional tillage methods that release carbon into the atmosphere. In order to exploit the carbon sink capacity of agricultural soils and adapt to the effects of climate change, more farmers need to utilize carbon sequestering practices such as continuous no-till farming. Most research on the introduction of new practices focuses on the initial adoption decision, with little research focusing on the continued use of the practices. The present study focuses on the adoption of no-till practices and carbon credits, and considers continuous no-till farming as a gateway to the adoption of carbon credits. A survey of 228 farmers at the Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference in Ada, Ohio, provided data used in this study. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents practice continuous no-till on some or all of their land, which indicates eligibility for carbon credits. Yet only four survey respondents currently participate in carbon credit programs. Results indicate that the majority, 88 percent, of no-till farmers surveyed are aware of carbon credit programs, which signals that lack of awareness of the program is not the main reason for non-participation. Findings indicate that there is a substantial relationship between the use of no-till practices and satisfaction with them. Additionally, there is a relationship between the use of no-till practices and participation in other resource conservation programs. The study also finds that belief in anthropogenic climate change is strongly associated with liberal political beliefs, yet neither belief is associated with the use of continuous no-till practices. Additional findings suggest that older farmers tend to be more likely to adopt no-till practices and use of no-till practices is associated with smaller farm operations. The importance attributed to human practices as a cause for climate change, degree of familiarity with carbon-related topics, education, and dedication to farm activities were not found to be statistically related to the use of no-till practices.
- Authors:
- Baker, J.
- McCarl, B. A.
- Murray, B. C.
- Source: Mitigation Beyond the Cap: A Series of Briefs on Expanding Climate Mitigation Opportunities
- Year: 2009
- Summary: (Extract from the Paper) A report issued by Doane Advisory Services in May 2008 titled An Analysis of the Relationship between Energy Prices and Crop Production Costs has received recent attention as some interest groups have used it as evidence of how a U.S. federal cap-and-trade program - or any similar climate policy that creates a price on greenhouse gases (GHGs) - would negatively affect U.S. farmers. The study takes energy prices from EPA's economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner America Climate Security Act (S. 2191) and combines this with USDA data on input costs from the eight largest crops (by value) in the United States to gauge how the higher energy costs expected under GHG controls translate into higher farm operating costs. Higher farm operating costs are the study's lone measure of farmer well-being, and the authors thereby imply that the economic harm to farmers equals their increased operating costs. The Doane report usefully addresses an important set of issues. Yet there are a number of reasons why the results provide a misleading view of the impact on farmers of a carbon price:
* Recent projections of cap-and-trade policy in EPA's analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill show smaller energy sector impacts than the estimates used in the Doane report
* The study uses a simple crop budget rather than a full structural economic model to capture the complex market linkages and substitution among inputs that determine net returns to agricultural producers
* The study ignores the following factors that raise the returns to farmers:
--higher prices received by farmers reflecting the input higher costs
--biofuels as an income source
--offsets from agriculture as an income source
* Other recent independent studies of carbon price impacts on agriculture capture many of the missing features identified above and tell a different story.
Each of these reasons is further expanded upon in this article.
- Authors:
- Six, J.
- Howitt, R. E.
- Catalá-Luque, R.
- Albarracin, M. V.
- De Gryze, S.
- Source: California Agriculture
- Volume: 63
- Issue: 2
- Year: 2009
- Summary: Agricultural management has a significant impact on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by cropped fields. Alternative practices such as winter cover cropping and avoiding overfertilization can decrease the total amount of greenhouse gases that are produced. Policymakers are considering a structure in which parties (such as factories) who exceed their greenhouse-gas emissions cap can pay incentives to encourage farmers to adopt practices that curb greenhouse gases. Based on data from field studies and an ecosystem computer model, we assessed impacts on yields and the total potential for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions of certain alternative practices in California.
- Authors:
- De Gryze,Steven
- Catala,Rosa
- Howitt,Richard E.
- Six,Johan
- Source: PIER Final Project Report
- Year: 2009
- Summary: Research has suggested that carbon can be captured through changes in farming practices, thereby helping California reach its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals as put forward under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill 32, (Nunez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). This study assessed the potential and economic feasibility of soil carbon sequestration and reduction of trace gas emissions in California agricultural soils. To accomplish this, the researchers integrated databases that include geographic data on environmental factors and land use data with ecosystem simulation models and economic analyses. The resulting assessment tool analyzes land use and management impacts on carbon stocks and associated greenhouse gas fluxes between California agricultural soils and the atmosphere. The study found that adjusting farming practices could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 0.5 to 3 megagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per year. The variation in this number is mainly on the type of farming practice used. This potential increased in the following order: low nitrogen fertilizer input, reduced tillage, manure application, and winter cover cropping. Even higher potentials could be reached when these single management options are combined. However, the uncertainty around the carbon reduction potentials of a single field remains large. More research is needed to reduce this uncertainty.
- Authors:
- Menard, R. J.
- Clark, C. D.
- Jensen, K.
- West, T. O.
- Hellwinckel, C.
- English, B. C.
- de la Torre Ugarte, D.
- Year: 2009
- Summary: from background: "This first report focuses on a detailed agricultural sector analysis evaluating the impacts on agriculture as a result of providing carbon offsets and supplying energy feedstocks from agricultural based products and by-products from crops and livestock while incorporating projected wind and solar impacts from renewable energy farms. Subsequent reports will address impacts on the forest sector and will incorporate economic analysis of the nation's economy conducted at the state and national levels. from summary: "KEY FINDINGS Under a properly constructed cap and trade program:
* Net returns to agriculture are projected to be positive - including up to $13 billion annually in additional revenues for agriculture and forestry - and exceed baseline projections for eight of nine crops analyzed;
*Income from offsets and from market revenues is higher than any potential increase in input cost including energy and fertilizer;
* At projected carbon prices of up to $27 per MtCO2e, afforestation of cropland will not occur;
* Major shifts in commodity cropland use does not occur;
* Demand for bioenergy feedstocks will cause significant shifts to hay and dedicated energy crop acreage from pasture conversion;
* Crop and beef prices are not disrupted; and
* Biomass feedstock production creates significant direct and indirect reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG). This includes a direct reduction of an accumulated 460 million metric tons CO2 equivalent. If emissions are regulated by EPA without the benefit of multiple offsets:
* Net farm income is projected to fall below baseline projections;
* Agriculture is subjected to higher input costs with no opportunity to be compensated for the GHG reduction services the sector provides;
* Impacts to beef production are uncertain; and
* If afforestation and grassland sequestration are the only offsets allowed, and carbon prices are as high as $160 per MtCO2e, sixty million acres of cropland could be converted to forests and grasslands.
- Authors:
- Year: 2009
- Summary: Renewable fuels have been promoted as a climate solution as well as for their energy security and domestic economic benefits. Analysts often assume that, other than process emissions, biofuels emit no net CO2 because their biogenic carbon was recently absorbed from the atmosphere. This "renewability shortcut" has shaped both public perception and public policy to date. Cap-and-trade policies follow GHG inventory conventions that use the shortcut and so fail to properly account for biofuel emissions. They also miss portions of the upstream GHG emissions from fossil-based transportation fuels, although most such emissions are trade related. Lifecycle analysis (LCA), which attempts to account for all of the GHG impacts associated with fuel production, has been proposed as a means of regulating fuels for climate policy. LCA is used to qualify certain fuels for the U.S. federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) and also forms the basis of a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS). However, as LCA system boundaries have expanded to address market effects such as induced land-use change, its application in policy has become controversial. This paper examines these issues, quantifies GHG emissions missed by cap-and-trade policies as commonly proposed, and identifies ways to address biofuel emissions in the context of a carbon cap that covers major emitting sectors. Resource economics suggests that policy should be defined by annual basis accounting of carbon stocks and flows and other GHG fluxes rather than by LCA. This perspective suggests the use of a three-part approach: (1) correct specification of the transportation sector point of regulation with careful carbon accounting at the point of finished fuel distribution; (2) voluntary fuel and feedstock GHG accounting standards to track CO2 uptake and uncapped GHG emissions throughout the fuel supply chain; and (3) a land protection fund for purchasing international forest carbon offsets to mitigate leakage. While an RFS can remain in place to drive volumes of specified fuels into the market, this approach avoids the need for either LCA requirements in the RFS or the added regulatory layer of an LCFS. Integrated into a cap-and-trade framework, this market-based approach would provide biofuel and feedstock production with a carbon price incentive tied to the cap, creating a more complete carbon management framework for the transportation fuels sector.
- Authors:
- Gosnell, H.
- Charnley, S.
- Diaz, D. D.
- Source: General Technical Reprot PNW-GTR-801
- Year: 2009
- Summary: There are opportunities for forest owners and ranchers to participate in emerging carbon markets and contribute to climate change mitigation through carbon-oriented forest and range management activities. These activities often promote sustainable forestry and ranching and broader conservation goals while having the potential to provide a new income stream for landowners. We describe current carbon market opportunities for landowners, discuss common steps they must typically undergo to take advantage of these opportunities, and address related questions. We also provide a synthesis of the existing scientific literature on how different forest and range management practices are thought to contribute to carbon sequestration, including current debates on this topic. The science regarding forestry and carbon sequestration is more advanced and less controversial than that for range management, and more opportunities exist for forest owners to participate in carbon markets than for ranchers. We describe some of the challenges of including landowners in carbon markets, and issues that will likely need to be addressed to develop relevant policy.
- Authors:
- Huang, W.
- Beckman, J.
- Livingston, M. J.
- Ribaudo, M. O.
- MacDonald, J. M.
- Year: 2009
- Summary: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to evaluate the role of animal manure as a source of fertilizer, and its other uses. About 5 percent of all U.S. cropland is currently fertilized with livestock manure, and corn accounts for over half of the acreage to which manure is applied. Expanded environmental regulation through nutrient management plans will likely lead to wider use of manure on cropland, at higher production costs, but with only modest impacts on production costs, commodity demand, or farm structure. There is widespread interest in using manure as a feedstock for energy production. While current use is quite limited, expanded government support, either direct or indirectly, could lead to a substantial increase in manure use as a feedstock. However, current energy processes are unlikely to compete with fertilizer uses of manure, because they leave fertilizer nutrients as residues, in more marketable form, and because manure-to-energy projects will be most profitable in regions where raw manure is in excess supply, with the least value as fertilizer.
