But my recent field research on dairy farms suggests emissions from slurry, cattle dung mixed with water, could be four to five times greater than the official government estimates.

While most attention is focused on enteric emissions, largely the burps from the animals themselves, my new study with colleagues means that much more attention needs to be paid to how to reduce methane emissions from storing slurry.

Fortunately, new technologies can capture, process and use methane from slurry and turn it into a valuable resource – biomethane. Where there’s muck there’s money, the Victorians used to say, and this is no truer than in the reduction of livestock methane emissions to address the net zero challenge.

The UK government’s national inventory report on greenhouse gas emissions says that methane emissions from dairy cattle comprise 75 per cent enteric emissions and 25 per cent emissions from manure management – that’s the storage and spreading of livestock poo. These calculations are based on a methodology developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, involving a complex formula based on the number of animals, what they are fed, environmental conditions and so on.

Scientists seem comfortable with these existing enteric emissions calculations, but the formula for calculating emissions from manure management is now coming into question as field studies around the world find these emissions are often higher than assumed.

My colleagues and I monitored emissions from the slurry lagoons on two dairy farms in Cornwall for a year. The lagoons, which hold slurry in concrete-lined pits, were installed with airtight covers and the gas released from the slurry was collected and weighed.

On one farm, we found methane emissions were almost four times greater than that were reported by the UK government to the UN (145kg per cow per year, rather than 38kg).

On the second farm, methane emissions were more than five times greater (198kg per cow per year). If these figures are representative – and more research is needed to confirm this – then much more methane is coming from slurry storage than previously thought. The ratio of enteric to manure management could be closer to 50:50, and the total methane emissions from the dairy sector would be around 40% greater than the UK government officially reports.

There has been a lot of attention paid to addressing enteric emissions, but the slurry question has been treated as much less of a priority in comparison.

Approximately two-thirds of dairy cows across a total of 12,500 farms in the UK are on slurry systems.

Technological advances do offer solutions. The biogas industry is developing techniques to capture methane by covering slurry storage facilities. The methane gas is then cleaned and compressed and available as a fuel source.

Tractor manufacturers have developed tractors that run on methane, and businesses and local councils are exploring converting vehicle fleets to run on the gas. Methane captured from slurry storage can heat and power farm buildings.

Some of this technology is already up and running in Cornwall and beyond. Our estimates show that this energy saving could be worth tens of thousands of pounds to dairy farmers with an average-sized herd of milking cows. Biogas from slurry could be of huge value to the UK’s agriculture sector, too – potentially in the order of £400 to £500 million a year, according to our calculations.

So reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture can bring economic opportunities for farmers. The next challenge is to explore how these new supply chains for biomethane can be rapidly developed.

The post Study indicates methane emissions from dairy farms higher than previously thought appeared first on Grainews.

“With partners like Ajinomoto Co., we are expanding our toolkit of solutions that we are bringing to our dairy farmers that have a dual effect – on the one hand reducing on farm GHG emissions whilst on the other, supporting farmers to improve their margin, and as a result, boost their resilience,” said Danone’s chief procurement officer Jean-Yves Krummenacher.

Ajinomoto is a Japanese multi-national company selling products ranging from frozen foods to animal nutrition. Danone, a French multi-national, sells a range of dairy and non-dairy foods such as Danone and Oikos yogurts, and International Delight coffee creamer.

The partnership between Ajinomoto and Danone to cut greenhouse gas emissions also comes after six of the world’s largest dairy companies – including Danone – last year unveiled an alliance to cut methane emissions at the United Nations COP28 summit.

Danone and Ajinomoto said they would join up to use an Ajinomoto product called AjiPro®-L.

This is used for a cow’s digestive system and figures cited by the companies said it decreases nitrous oxide emissions from manure by approximately 25 per cent and – if combined with a methane reduction additive – can amplify the effect of the methane reduction additive by approximately 30 per cent.

—Reporting for Reuters by Sudip Kar-Gupta. Additional reporting, editing by Geralyn Wichers.

The post Food companies launch partnership to cut dairy industry’s CO2 emissions appeared first on Grainews.

Those gains were partially offset by increasing emissions from diesel fuel, nitrogen fertilizer and land-use changes.

In a report released this week, the National Farmers Union (NFU) quantified agricultural emissions from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador.

The research compiles many data sources, including national inventory reports (NIRs), and Environment and Climate Change Canada data.

Without accounting for carbon sequestration or desequestration, the report estimates that emissions from agriculture fell to 1.5 million tonnes in 2021 from 1.8 million tonnes in 1990–a 17 per cent reduction.

The largest source of emissions continues to be cattle. Enteric methane from beef and dairy cattle, along with manure management, accounted for 0.52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2021. This total has steadily decreased since 1990 as the cattle numbers declined. Efficiency gains have also decreased emissions, the report noted.

The NFU added that it’s difficult to draw a boundary line between emission that are and are not from livestock, as significant emissions come from production of feed grains.

Emissions from farm fuels decreased slightly to 0.21 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2021 from 0.29 million tonnes in 1990. This includes diesel and gasoline use, fuel oil, natural gas, propane, and emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electricity generation.

Between 1990 and 2021, the composition of fuel use changed significantly. Fuel oil accounted for about three-quarters of farm fuel emissions in 1990. In 2021, they made up under a third of emissions. Meanwhile, emissions from diesel fuel went from about a quarter of fuel emissions to about two-thirds.

Emissions from nitrogen fertilizer, including fertilizer production, also increased by almost 60 per cent in from 1990 to 2021.

The report also examined carbon sequestration since 1990. This included changes in woody biomass (e.g. removal of trees, shelterbelts), land conversion to cropland, crop residue carbon input, and others.

It concluded that each year since 1990, Atlantic agricultural soils have experienced a net loss of soil carbon. Desequestration seems to be increasing, the NFU noted, with the most significant factor being conversion of land–mainly forest–to cropland. Smaller areas of perennial crops are also behind the change.

Meanwhile, manure application has been the most steady source of carbon addition to soils, the report said. As livestock numbers waned, so did sequestration from manure.

The NFU acknowledged that work needs to be done to reduce uncertainty in emissions numbers. However, it said there is enough data to move forward of agriculture emissions reduction.

The post Atlantic ag emissions dropped slightly since 1990: report appeared first on Grainews.

What does this mean for western Canadian farmers? It does not mean a 30 per cent reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use! But it does mean a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Rob Gamble and Dan Heaney prepared an excellent report called, “The Economics of 4R BMP Implementation and Emissions Reductions from Fertilizer: An Industry Perspective on Financial Implications of the 30% Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction Target.” This report on the possible financial implications of reducing nitrous oxide emissions is well worth reviewing and can be found at as a PDF at fertilizercanada.ca.

First, what are greenhouse gases? The natural greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Some wonder if ammonia (NH3) is a greenhouse gas. It is not! Ammonia is a very reactive gas and is very short lived in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is not considered a greenhouse gas versus nitrous oxide, which can persist for a very long time in the atmosphere and is not reactive.

The greenhouse gas of concern from nitrogen fertilizer is nitrous oxide. One molecule of nitrous oxide has the global warming potential of 298 carbon dioxide molecules. One kilogram of nitrous oxide released from fertilizer has the equivalent warming effect of 298 kilograms of carbon dioxide. To put it into perspective, in their report, Gamble and Heaney noted this has the same effect as running 110 litres of diesel fuel through a farm tractor.

What is the big deal with greenhouse gases and what is the greenhouse effect they cause? To put it simply, the earth’s surface is warmed by the energy from the sun. In turn, the surface of the earth reflects some of this heat back into the atmosphere, which is then partially absorbed by greenhouse gases. This retains heat in the atmosphere, which keeps the earth warm. Without a reasonable level of greenhouse gases, our planet would be too cold for life to exist. Unfortunately, various human activities have been adding increased levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, resulting in a gradual increase in global warming.

Nitrous oxide losses from agricultural lands

What does the government of Canada plan to do? Its report, which can be found at the Government of Canada website, states emissions from synthetic fertilizers in Canada in 2020 accounted for 12.75 Mt CO2e (Mt CO2e is an abbreviation for megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and a megatonne is one million tonnes). With a 30 per cent reduction in emissions, this would set the emission target at 8.9 Mt CO2e per year by 2030. This would mean a reduction of 3.8 Mt CO2e compared with the 2020 baseline.

Actual losses of nitrous oxide are relatively low compared with the total use of nitrogen fertilizer. Figure 1 shows an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) map of estimated nitrous oxide emissions from the various agricultural regions of Canada. For the majority of agricultural lands in Western Canada, emissions are less than one kilogram per hectare of nitrous oxide (one kilogram per hectare is approximately equal to 0.9 pounds per acre), with some exceptions in Manitoba and northern British Columbia.

Nitrogen fertilizer and nitrous oxide emission research in Alberta

When I was still with Alberta Agriculture, we conducted a study between 2008 and 2012 to compare urea (46-0-0), ESN (Environmentally Smart Nitrogen) and a urea-ESN blend with wheat, barley and canola responses at nine different soil locations across Alberta. At three uniquely different locations — Barrhead, Lacombe and Lethbridge — nitrous oxide emissions were meticulously measured in a separate experiment for four years. This experiment compared the performance of urea and ESN, where each was banded in fall and side banded at seeding in spring, at rates of 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare.

Figure 2 (below) shows the cumulative nitrous oxide emissions from a Dark Gray soil near Barrhead. Nitrous oxide emissions in the control treatments that did not receive fertilizer were 0.5 kg/ha. At the highest nitrogen rate of 120 kg/ha for both urea and ESN, emissions were 0.9 kg/ha, while nitrous oxide emissions with fall applied ESN and urea at 120 kg/ha were 1.1 and 1.2 kg/ha, respectively. Actual emission losses due to nitrogen fertilizer for spring side banded urea and ESN were 0.4 kg/ha. Clearly, side banded nitrogen at seeding was better than fall banding to reduce emissions but there was no benefit to using ESN in spring versus urea.

Figure 3 (below) shows the cumulative nitrous oxide emissions from a Black soil near Lacombe. Nitrous oxide emissions in the control treatments were 0.8 kg/ha. At the highest nitrogen rate of 120 kg/ha for both urea and ESN, emissions were 1.1 kg/ha, while nitrous oxide emissions with fall applied ESN and urea at 120 kg/ha were 1.4 and 1.7 kg/ha, respectively. Actual emission losses due to nitrogen fertilizer for spring side banded urea and ESN were 0.3 kg/ha. At this site, there was no benefit using ESN to reduce nitrous oxide losses and spring side banded nitrogen was better than fall banding to reduce emissions.

Figure 4 (below) shows the cumulative nitrous oxide emissions from an irrigated Dark Brown soil near Lethbridge. Nitrous oxide emissions in the control treatments were 0.8 kg/ha. At the highest nitrogen rate of 120 kg/ha for ESN and urea, emissions were 1.0 and 1.3 kg/ha, respectively. Nitrous oxide emissions with fall applied ESN and urea at 120 kg/ha were 1.7 and 1.9 kg/ha, respectively. Actual emission losses due to nitrogen fertilizer for spring side banded ESN and urea were 0.2 and 0.4 kg/ha, respectively. At this site, there was a clear benefit using ESN to reduce nitrous oxide losses with both fall and spring applications. Spring side banded ESN had the lowest nitrous oxide emissions.

At all three sites, spring side banded nitrogen was best to minimize nitrous oxide emissions versus fall application. At two locations, there was no benefit to using ESN versus urea to reduce emissions, as soil conditions were not conducive for denitrification. However, at the irrigated site with better soil moisture conditions, emissions were lowest with the spring side banded ESN and second best with spring side banded urea.

Accurately measuring nitrous oxide emissions

Nitrous oxide losses due to fertilizer using best nitrogen management practices at Barrhead, Lacombe and Lethbridge were 0.4, 0.3 and 0.2 kg/ha, respectively. These are very low rates of loss. Can we accurately estimate a 30 per cent reduction in nitrous oxide loss by changing nitrogen fertilizer management? A number of scientists I have spoken with are increasingly troubled about our ability to accurately measure and verify emission reductions. Some scientists are worried about the uncertainty associated with the estimates of national nitrous oxide emissions. One of my former colleagues asked, “What is the point of setting targets when we cannot ever know if we have hit the target?” I agree completely and see this as both a huge concern and challenge.

On-farm nitrogen management in Western Canada in 2021

Most people in the agricultural industry likely agree that we must make every effort to reduce GHG emissions from our farming systems. I was very pleased to see that Fertilizer Canada surveyed 544 wheat growers in Western Canada in the fall of 2021 to determine nitrogen fertilizer management practices. Jeremy Boychyn, an agronomy research and extension specialist with the Alberta Wheat Commission, summarized some of the key points of the survey, which I found very interesting and promising:

• Eighty-four per cent of Prairie wheat growers in 2021 applied nitrogen fertilizer at seeding time and 93 per cent of Alberta farmers applied nitrogen fertilizer at seeding time.
• Forty-three per cent of wheat acres in Western Canada were mid-row banded and 31 per cent side banded at seeding. This means 74 per cent of Prairie wheat growers banded nitrogen at the time of seeding, which is an excellent 4R (right rate, right product, right placement and right time) practice.
• One per cent of wheat acres received spring broadcast nitrogen without incorporation.
• Of the total nitrogen volume applied, 6.3 per cent was ESN or Super-U.
• Sixty-one per cent of wheat growers met the basic level of 4R nutrient stewardship management.

The survey results can be found at the Alberta Wheat/Barley website.

Take-home message

Many Prairie farmers are using agronomically sound nitrogen fertilizer management practices. It is my opinion that if most western Canadian farmers used 4R best management practices, nitrogen fertilizer could be applied at rates for optimum crop production and likely meet the 2030 nitrous oxide emission reductions. In other words, there would be no need for western Canadian farmers to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use by 2030.

However, there are opportunities to improve our 4R nitrogen management. In the next Grainews issue, I will discuss the importance of fine tuning nitrogen application rates, using field-specific fertilizer blends, the use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers and the use of variable-rate fertilization.

The post Nitrogen fertilizer management to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, Part 1 appeared first on Grainews.

The government said protocols for four other sectors including agriculture and forest management are now being developed. It will also start developing protocols for carbon capture technology, which Canada’s high-polluting oil industry is betting on to slash its emissions, this summer.

For agriculture, the federal offset protocols now under development for future launch include “enhanced soil organic carbon” and “livestock feed management.”

As those and other protocols are completed, work on protocols including “livestock manure management” and “anaerobic digestion” will begin, the government said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has pledged to cut climate-warming emissions 40-45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Greenhouse gas emissions from waste, including landfills, make up seven per cent of Canada’s total carbon output.

The greenhouse gas offset credit system is intended to support a domestic carbon offset trading market, and the government said it will create new economic opportunities for companies and municipalities reducing emissions.

Participants can register projects and generate one tradeable offset credit for each tonne of emissions reduced or removed from the atmosphere, providing their projects follow the federal offset protocols that set out exactly which activities are eligible.

Credits can then be sold to others, such as heavy industrial emitters obliged to limit carbon pollution, or to companies wanting to voluntarily offset their emissions.

“Starting with landfills, we’re putting in place a market-based mechanism to incentivize businesses and municipalities to invest in the technologies and innovations that cut pollution,” Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said in a statement.

Once adopted, the livestock feed management protocol will credit methane reductions from livestock, the government said, while the enhanced soil organic carbon protocol would allow eligible farmers to generate offset credits by adopting “sustainable agricultural land management activities.”

The exact ag practices that can be followed to generate offset credits are to be determined during the protocol development process, the government said. Public comment periods will take place for future draft protocols, and “technical expert teams” have been set up to advise on “the latest science.”

Farmers “have made significant gains in reducing the GHG emissions intensity of the sector in recent years,” Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said Wednesday in a statement. “We look forward to the development of specific details on how the agriculture sector can benefit under the federal offset credit system.”

The government expects the price of credits to broadly track Canada’s price on carbon — which is currently set at $50 a tonne and is scheduled to ramp up to $170 a tonne by 2030.

However, environmental groups warned allowing polluters to purchase offset credits instead of cutting their own emissions risked undermining climate goals.

“Offsetting doesn’t stop carbon from entering the atmosphere and warming our world, it just keeps it off the books of big polluters responsible,” said Greenpeace Canada spokesman Shane Moffatt.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nia Williams. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post Canada launches offset credits to help tackle emissions appeared first on Grainews.

The Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) is the first time Canada has had a comprehensive plan, rather than just a collection of policies, setting out how it will meet its international commitment to cut carbon emissions 40-45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Environmental think tanks called it a “watershed moment” for Canadian climate policy, but warned Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government needed to follow through.

“A plan is just a plan without action. Expedited implementation will be key to success, and Canada now needs to shift into high gear,” said Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute.

Canada has missed every emissions reduction target it has ever set but Trudeau said fighting climate change was one of his government’s top priorities during last year’s election campaign, and a recent deal with the opposition New Democrats should ensure the passage of climate legislation for the next three years.

Key measures include a zero-emissions vehicle mandate that is more ambitious than anything proposed by Canada’s neighbour the United States, and a target for reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector alone 42 per cent below current levels by 2030.

For the ag sector, the ERP as released Tuesday calls for $470 million for the Agricultural Climate Solutions: On-Farm Climate Action Fund, to “top up funding for some current successful applicants, broaden support to additional key climate mitigation practices, extend the program past its current end date of 2023-24, and support adoption of practices” to cut fertilizer and methane emissions.

Another existing program, the Agricultural Clean Technology program, would see its funding tripled to $330 million, going toward “broadening and expanding” its scope.

The ERP also includes $150 million to fund a “resilient agricultural landscapes” program it said would back carbon sequestration, adaptation and “other environmental co-benefits.”

Another $100 million, meanwhile, is to fund “transformative science for a sustainable sector in an uncertain climate,” including “fundamental and applied” research, improved ag extension services to support new practices and technologies, and collecting to data to gauge the ag sector’s “environmental performance” over time.

‘Different expectations’

The ERP was introduced under the requirements of Canada’s Net-Zero Accountability Act, which the government adopted last summer in a bid to produce more binding climate policies.

The country is the world’s fourth largest oil producer and 10th largest carbon emitter. The oil and gas industry is its highest polluting industry, followed by transportation.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector have risen for the last two decades, meaning the 42 per cent cut from current levels will only amount to a 31 per cent cut from 2005 levels.

That lower target for the oil and gas sector means other parts of the economy will have to make deeper emissions cuts if Canada is to hit its overall 40-45 per cent reduction goal, said Simon Dyer, deputy executive director of the Pembina Institute.

“We believe the oil and gas sector has the ability to do more, and do its fair share,” Dyer said.

Trudeau said the emissions targets had to be realizable as well as ambitious and the electricity sector, for example, would be making much bigger cuts.

“Different sectors have different expectations… Canadians have had far too long of targets that have been set, but not achieved,” Trudeau told a news conference in Vancouver.

Tuesday’s plan also noted the government intends to release a separate plan this year to cut methane emissions “across the economy.” Methane, the government said, accounts for 13 per cent of Canada’s total 2019 greenhouse gas emissions, with over 90 per cent of methane emissions coming from the oil and gas, agriculture and waste management sectors combined.

Overall, the ERP sets an interim goal of cutting planet-warming carbon emissions 20 per cent below 2005 levels by 2026. While not an official target like the 2030 objective, the 2026 goal will be a major measure of whether Canada is on track.

The government is also introducing a mandate that 60 per cent of light-duty vehicles sold in 2030 must be zero-emissions, rising to 100 per cent by 2035.

Those targets put Canada “among the pack of leading jurisdictions” in terms of zero-emission vehicle mandates, said Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada.

In the U.S., the Biden administration so far has declined to set a firm deadline for phasing out sales of combustion vehicles. Instead, President Joe Biden has set a target for 50 per cent of new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nia Williams and Ismail Shakil. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post Canada lays out $9.1 billion roadmap to meet 2030 climate targets appeared first on Grainews.

China is by far the world’s top buyer of soybeans, bringing in around 100 million tonnes a year to turn into protein-rich feed for its huge livestock sector.

A portion of those beans could one day by replaced by synthetically made protein, however.

The Feed Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) says it has worked with Beijing Shoulang Biological Technology to speed up a gas fermentation process to create a single cell protein that could be fed to animals, according to a report on Sunday on a website run by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

The team has started operating a facility in northern Hebei province to turn steel-making tail gas into 5,000 tonnes of protein a year, according to state media People’s Daily.

The protein produced has been approved by the agriculture ministry for feeding to animals, the report said. No details were provided on the cost of production.

At least 10 other start-ups around the world are also using synthetic biology to create animal feed, using waste gases as a feedstock for bacteria or other protein-rich microorganmisms.

Among those are Britain’s Deep Branch that aims to turn carbon dioxide emitted by a power station into protein for fish and poultry.

United States-based Calysta has partnered with major agricultural trader Cargill on a 200,000-tonne single cell protein plant in Tennessee.

China’s efforts could be a solution to the “excessive external dependence of feed protein, one of the biggest shortcomings of China’s agriculture” said government-backed tabloid, the Global Times.

The post China to make protein for livestock from carbon monoxide appeared first on Grainews.

Federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson on Friday announced the offset market, to be known as the Federal Greenhouse Gas Offset System. A 60-day public consultation period on draft regulations runs from now until May 5.

Under the proposals released Friday, producers won’t be getting any credit for being zero-till, or having perennial forage coverage — particularly if those efforts were completed prior to 2017.

The federal government that year released its plan to put a national cost on carbon. In the eyes of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), any efforts to reduce emissions that took place after that date can be considered something that would not have taken place in the absence of a price on carbon, or are simply cases of “business as usual.”

In other words, projects started prior to the beginning of 2017 won’t be eligible for carbon credits under the federal program, because federal officials want to see additional efforts taken to reduce emissions.

Ottawa is looking at projects that can be quantifiable, unique and permanent to qualify for receiving credits.

Regulated facilities that exceed their emission limits will then be able to compensate for excess emissions by purchasing those federal offset credits being created by activities “not already incentivized by carbon pollution pricing.”

Essentially that means no double dipping for producers will be available. For example, the draft regulations suggest farmers won’t able be able to receive carbon credits from the new Clean Fuel Standard by providing ethanol, and then register that project as a new program to receive additional credits.

While the draft regulations being released will apply broadly to all of the projects in the offset system, it will be spring when work on drafting protocols for specific projects begins.

Producers can apply to register for credits once final regulations and protocols for the project type are developed. Realistically, the federal carbon market won’t likely be active in 2021.

Four protocols are being developed initially, and federal officials are hopeful that work can be completed on those by the fall.

Of the four protocols being created, only the one for “enhanced soil organic carbon” will appeal to producers. Protocol developed here will look at the “adoption of sustainable agricultural land management activities, to reduce emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in soils.”

Federal officials say protocols for developing a carbon market related to livestock feed management, avoiding grassland conversion and manure management will be undertaken in the future.

Provinces such as B.C., Alberta and Quebec with existing carbon markets in place will be able to continue using those protocols and markets; federal officials hope the national system will compliment provincial ones. Saskatchewan is currently in the midst of developing its own carbon market.

In another effort to avoid double-dipping and to ensure only new projects are rewarded, producers won’t be able to enlist the same project for carbon credits simultaneously in a provincial and federal market.

Many of the draft regulations were telegraphed by ECCC. At the end of February, a senior official briefed attendees at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture’s (CFA) annual general meeting on many of the basics. Discussion papers outlining some of the output-based system were published in 2019 and 2020.

Days after that event ended, the CFA and other producer groups formed the Agriculture Carbon Alliance (ACA), to “ensure that Canadian farmers’ sustainable practices are recognized through a policy environment that maintains their competitiveness, supports their livelihoods, and leverages their critical role as stewards of the land.”

It intends to lobby ECCC directly “to build consensus around environmental best management practices, and practical options for offsets, rebates and exemptions.”

Statistics Canada found that Canada’s low carbon economy was already generating over $66 billion and jobs for more than 317,000 Canadians in 2018.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post No credit expected for farmers’ past work in new carbon market appeared first on Grainews.

Most of the focus in curbing climate-warming gas emissions has focused on the most abundant, carbon dioxide, and one of the most potent, methane, with the fossil fuel industry under pressure to drastically curtail both.

But nitrous oxide (N20), also known as “laughing gas” or simply “nitrous,” has received less attention as a long-lasting warming agent.

“There’s much less policy attention on nitrous oxide, and not so many mitigation options, so the emissions just continue sailing on upwards,” study co-author Glen Peters, a climate scientist at the Oslo-based CICERO Center for International Climate Research, told Reuters “It makes meeting climate targets even more challenging.”

For the five-year study, published in the journal Nature, scientists at 48 institutions around the world measured and calculated both natural and human-caused N2O emissions from 1980 to 2016.

They found that N20 emissions from agriculture rose annually by 1.4 per cent on average over those 36 years. Agriculture accounts for more than half of human-caused N20 emissions.

While nitrogen fertilizers have been crucial to boosting crop productivity and improving food security worldwide, they also can cause environmental challenges. Nitrogen in agricultural runoff can feed algae blooms that create coastal dead zones. And in the stratosphere, N2O can break down to form other molecules that destroy the ozone layer protecting the planet from ultraviolet radiation.

As a climate pollutant, N2O can linger in the atmosphere for decades, and is far more efficient than CO2 in trapping heat.

More efficient use of fertilizers could help bring down emissions, the authors wrote. They also urged efforts to curb deforestation, which can increase the amount of N20 produced by soil bacteria.

— Matthew Green is a Reuters climate correspondent in London.

The post Fertilizer use fuelling climate-warming nitrous oxide emissions, study says appeared first on Grainews.

Burger King, owned by Toronto-based Restaurant Brands International, on Tuesday launched the “#CowsMenu” initiative, which it bills as “a scalable solution with the potential to reduce cows’ impact on climate change.”

“Select” U.S. Burger King restaurants in New York, Miami, Austin, Portland and Los Angeles on Tuesday were to begin a limited launch of what it calls the Reduced Methane Emissions Beef Whopper, a sandwich “made with beef sourced from cows that emit reduced methane.”

The chain, in its announcement Tuesday, cited estimates from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) pegging the livestock sector responsible for 14.5 per cent of all human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — and beef production as responsible for 41 per cent of that amount.

To that end, the chain said, it has “teamed up” with “top-level” scientists from the University of California at Davis and the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico to study different herbs, such as chamomile and lemongrass, to supplement “a new diet for cows that could help them digest better and release less methane.”

“As a result, we found that by adding 100 grams of dried lemongrass leaves to the cows’ daily feed, we were able to see a reduction of up to 33 per cent on average of methane emissions” during the final three to four months of the animal’s life on feed, Burger King said.

A summary of the Mexican researchers’ work, posted on Burger King’s website, cautioned that feeding lemongrass at levels higher than two per cent of daily dry matter intake was shown to negatively affect digestibility of dry matter and fibre fractions.

The summary also cautioned that more research is needed to gauge the effects of supplementing the tested herbs on “other variables” such as rumen microbe populations, rumen fermentation and volatile fatty acid production.

The summary also notes more research is needed to evaluate whether the reduction in methane emissions “is maintained over the long term.”

‘Open source’

Burger King emphasized the research behind the new ration is still under peer review; it hasn’t yet been posted in full on the chain’s website.

The company also said it will “continue to partner with higher education institutions and industry scientists to conduct additional research on this topic and will periodically report on our findings.”

The chain also said it plans to “open source” its #CowsMenu ration formula, making it “publicly available so that every fast food brand, meat supplier, and farmer can replicate, test and refine it.”

“Beef is one of the top commodities that we buy at Burger King. We also know that cattle are one of the top contributors to overall greenhouse gas emissions, so our job is to understand how we can continue to grow our business while still reducing the emissions from cattle over time,” Matt Banton, the chain’s head of innovation and sustainability, said on YouTube.

The campaign, however, has left the U.S. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association “disappointed.”

U.S. burger restaurants “can, and many of them do, play a vital role in helping improve beef’s sustainability and reducing its environmental footprint,” the NCBA said in a release.

“Unfortunately, Burger King has chosen a different path, relying on kitschy imagery that misrepresents basic bovine biology — cattle emissions come from burps, not farts — and on the potential impact of a single ruminant nutrition study that was so small and poorly conceived, it was dismissed by many leading (non-government organizations) and beef industry experts.”

The NCBA, in a statement Tuesday, cited data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attributing “just two per cent of greenhouse gas emissions to the American cattle industry.”

Cattle farmers and ranchers “remain committed to continuous improvement and producing beef more sustainably,” the association said, and thus “are disappointed that Burger King has decided to follow a path that is misaligned with those who are already making real-world efforts to reduce beef’s environmental footprint.”

Rather, the NCBA said, Burger King is “opting instead to score easy points with consumers by launching a misleading public relations campaign.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post U.S. beef ranchers sour on Burger King lemongrass ration appeared first on Grainews.