Docstoc

Bos Dairy

Document Sample
Bos Dairy Powered By Docstoc
					         Bos Dairy
                 Farm Project
            Tulare, California, USA




GHG Emission Reduction Quantification
              Report




                 Prepared by

      Lagacé & Legault International Inc.




                 Février, 2007
Table of content

ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTES .............................................................................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
       Introduction of the editing and quantification team .........................................................................................5
       Profile summary of the team members .............................................................................................................5
       Supervision .......................................................................................................................................................7
       Report limitations .............................................................................................................................................7
FARM AND CER (CERTIFIED EMISSION REDUCTION) INFORMATION SUMMARY......................... 8
       Table 1: Farm general information..................................................................................................................8
       Table 2: BOS Farm GHG offsets and CER(Certified Emission Reduction) SUMMARY .................................8
CHAPTER 1: FARM DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ 9
   1.1     BOS FARM HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 9
      Table 3: Bos Farm Evolution (manure system and herd).................................................................................9
   1.2     FARM MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................. 10
      Figure 1: Aerial view of Bos Farm.................................................................................................................10
      Figure 2: Bos Dairy Farm- View of the lagoons and the separator system ...................................................11
CHAPTER 2: US FARM SYSTEMS, EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROJECT SCENARIO .................... 12
   2.1      GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 12
      Pictures of the process equipment:.................................................................................................................13
      Figure 3: Bos Farm Technology: Two separators with two screens and a processing pit.............................13
      Figure 4: Bos Farm: Processing pit..............................................................................................................14
   2.2      US FARM SYSTEM - BASIC PROCESS DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 14
      Diagram 1: Basic process global view...........................................................................................................15
   2.3      US FARM SYSTEM PROCESS SEPARATOR DESCRIPTION .............................................................. 15
      Diagram 2: US Farm System Separator.........................................................................................................16
      Diagram 3: US Farm System Separator Coupled to a Conveyor...................................................................17
      Diagram 4: US Farm System - Flush Water Optimal Process .......................................................................19
CHAPTER 3: INDUSTRY TRENDS........................................................................................................ 21
      Figure 1: 2001 Milk Production – Top Ten States .........................................................................................21
   3.1       THE DAIRY INDUSTRY OF CALIFORNIA ........................................................................................ 21
      Figure 2: San Joaquin Valley Dairy Farms (Source: ref.8, p.6) ....................................................................22
      Figure 3: San Joaquin Valley Relief Map ......................................................................................................23
      3.1.1. Climate .................................................................................................................................................23
      3.1.2. Breeds...................................................................................................................................................24
   3.2       DAIRY PRODUCTION SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 25
      3.2.1. Freestall................................................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 4: MANURE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES......................................................................... 26
   4.1       FLUSHING SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 26
   4.2       LAGOONS ................................................................................................................................. 27
      4.2.1. Treatment technologies.........................................................................................................................27
      Physical treatment ..........................................................................................................................................27
      Chemical treatment ........................................................................................................................................28
      Biological treatment .......................................................................................................................................28
      4.2.2. Bedding.................................................................................................................................................29
      4.2.3. Compost................................................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 5: LAWS AND REGULATIONS ........................................................................................... 30
  5.1   OBJECTIVE OF GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS ........................................................................ 30
  5.2   THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 30
  5.3   AIR REGULATION ...................................................................................................................... 31
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                                            Page 2 of 50
      5.3.1. Dust regulation.....................................................................................................................................31
   5.4       WATER REGULATION ................................................................................................................. 31
      5.4.1. CAFO: Confined Animal Feeding Operations .....................................................................................31
      5.4.2. State Water Resources Control Board..................................................................................................32
   5.5       NEW AND FUTURE REGULATION ................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 6: SUPERVISION AND MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................... 33
   6.1       GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 33
   6.2       US FARM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 33
   6.3       COLLECTED DATA AND COLLECTION FREQUENCY ........................................................................ 33
      6.3.1. Data storage .........................................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 7: BASELINE SCENARIO VERSUS FARM SYSTEM PROJECT SCENARIO .................. 34
CHAPTER 8: GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS ............................................................................... 35
   8.1       SCOPE OF THE FARM SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 35
      8.1.1. General scope.......................................................................................................................................35
      Diagram 5: Farm Systems Scenario Global View..........................................................................................36
      8.1.2. Emission types: Quantified GHGs........................................................................................................37
   8.2       EMISSION SOURCES:................................................................................................................. 37
      8.2.1. Enteric emissions: ................................................................................................................................37
      8.2.2. Free stalls:............................................................................................................................................37
      8.2.3. Processing pit:......................................................................................................................................37
      8.2.4. Solid waste stack from separator: ........................................................................................................37
      8.2.5. Lagoon – Liquid waste .........................................................................................................................37
      8.2.6. Dredged lagoon– Solid waste:..............................................................................................................38
      8.2.7. Construction emissions: .......................................................................................................................38
      8.2.8. Maintenance Emissions (US Farm):.....................................................................................................38
      8.2.9. Maintenance – Fertilizer and manure transportation: .........................................................................38
      Table 4: GHG Emission Sources....................................................................................................................38
      Diagram 6: Farm Systems scenario – Major sources of GHG emissions ......................................................39
   8.3       GHG EMISSIONS ACCOUNTING .................................................................................................. 39
   8.4       SET-UP FORMULA TO CALCULATE THE EMISSIONS ....................................................................... 39
      8.4.1. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO: Methane emissions (CH4).....................................................................40
      8.4.2. FARM SYSTEM: Methane emission conversion factor (MCFus).........................................................41
      8.4.3. BASELINE SCENARIO SYSTEM: Methane emissions (CH4) .............................................................42
      8.4.4. BASELINE SCENARIO SYSTEM: Methane emission factor (CH4).....................................................42
      8.4.5. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO: Nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) .............................................................42
      8.4.6. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO: Nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) emission factor....................................43
      8.4.7. BASELINE SCENARIO SYSTEM Nitrous emissions (N2O).................................................................44
      8.4.8. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO – Carbon Dioxide CO2 ...........................................................................44
CHAPTER 9: TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS .................................................................................. 45
   9.1     GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 45
      Table 5: CH4 reductions and CO2 emissions per year and total for the project.............................................45
      Table 6: N2O emissions and total reductions per year and for the project ....................................................45
   9.2     RESEARCH PROTOCOL FOR DATA AND CALCULATION .................................................................. 46
   9.3     CALCULATIONS LIMITS AND UNCERTAINTY .................................................................................. 46
CHAPTER 10: PROJECTION ................................................................................................................ 48
   10.1   CREDIT ALLOCATION ................................................................................................................. 48
   10.2   GHG OFFSETS AND CERTIFIED EMISSION REDUCTION (CER) .................................................... 48
     Table 7: GHG offsets (CCX) and CER (OTC) per year .................................................................................49
   10.3   FUTURE OBJECTIVES AND CREDIT ALLOCATION ........................................................................... 49
     Table 8: Future CER (OTC) and GHG offsets (CCX) Objectives ..................................................................49
CHAPTER 11 : ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT......................................................................................... 50
   11.1         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 50
   11.2         EIA.......................................................................................................................................... 50



GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                                                                Page 3 of 50
Abbreviations and Notes

     BoH           Volatile solids conversion into methane
     Bov           Volatile solids conversion into methane
     CF1           Methane conversion factor for the bedding (dry management)
     CF2           Methane conversion factor for liquid storage
     CH4           Methane
     CO2           Carbon dioxide
     CER           Certified Emission Reduction (Voluntary Carbon Market) equivalent to GHG offsets
     CSA           Canadian Standard Association
     ECH4          Methane emissions coming from the liquid and solid phase for the
                   baseline scenario system
     DN20          Nitrous oxide emissions coming from the liquid and solid phase
                   for the Farm System (US Farm Systems)
     EBCH4         Methane emissions coming from the liquid and solid phase for the
                    baseline scenario
     DBN20         Direct nitrous oxide emissions coming from the liquid and solid phase for the Farm System (US
                   Farm Systems)
     CW            Cow average weight
     FD            Emission factor for one litre of diesel
     EPA           Environmental Protection Agency
     RT            Total emissions reduction
     GHG           Greenhouse gas
     HW            Heifer average weight
     IPCC          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
     MCFb          Methane emission factor for the baseline scenario system
     MCFus         Methane emission factor for the Farm System (US Farm Systems)
     Nc            Number of dairy cows included in the manure recovery system
     NH            Number of heifers included in the manure recovery system
     NEC =         Excretion of nitrogen per dairy cow per day
     NEH =         Excretion of nitrogen per heifer per day
     NFb           Nitrous oxide emission factor for the baseline scenario system
     NFus          Nitrous oxide emission factor for the Farm System (US Farm system)
     N2O           Oxide nitrous
     NF1           Nitrous oxide emissions factor for the bedding (dry management)
     NF2           Nitrous oxide emissions factor for the storage of liquid manure
     NL            Percentage of nitrogen in liquid manure transferring into the lagoons after passing through the
                   separators
     NLb           Nitrogen percentage in liquid manure transferring into the lagoons
     NS1           Percentage of nitrogen retained by the first separator
     NS2           Percentage of nitrogen retained by the second separator
     NSS           Nitrogen percentage retained by the separator
     O3            Ozone
     OML           Percentage of organic matter in liquid manure
                   transferring into the lagoons after passing through the separators
     OMSd =        Percentage of organic matter, or volatile solids, which is retained by the process
                   for the baseline scenario system
     OMLb          Percentage of organic matter in liquid manure
                   going through the lagoons for the baseline scenario system
     OMS1          Percentage of organic matter, or volatile solids retained by the first separator
     OMS2          Percentage of organic matter, or volatile solids retained by the second separator
     OMSS          Percentage of organic matter, or volatile solids retained by the standard separator
     tCO2          Tonnes de CO2 équivalent
     VSH           Volatile excretion from solids per heifer per day
     VSc           Volatile excretion from solids per dairy cow per day




     GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                Page 4 of 50
INTRODUCTION

    Introduction of the editing and quantification team

    Lagacé & Legault International Inc. is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate
    financing. These past two years, we have developed an expertise for the quantification
    of carbon credit. In that capacity, we help companies to count, quantify and accrue
    their carbon credits and ensure their selling. Our expertise consists of elaborating
    calculation methodologies to quantify the emissions based on reputable international
    principles. The reports are drafted in accordance with the following guidelines: ISO
    14064, CCX and the Over-The-Counter Market (OTC).

    To develop the quantification report for the California farms, five professionals
    developed the calculations and validated the assumptions. Following is a profile
    summary of each person involved in the project.


    Profile summary of the team members
    Hélène Lahaie, B.Eng.

    Mrs. Lahaie took a course in Electrical Engineering, in Process and Network
    Management and she also has a significant experience in national projects
    management. She reoriented her career towards environmental projects. Mrs. Lahaie
    is skilled in carbon chemistry and in research applied mathematics. She is currently
    completing a certificate in environmental sciences.

    Donald Ratté, M.Env.

    Mr. Ratté has a Bachelor of Geography and a Master’s Degree in Environmental
    Sciences. In addition, graduated from the environmental assessment micro program.
    He also participated in the quantification of greenhouse gas for the City of Laval and
    Domtar. He is concerned about applying the general rules and concentrates on
    implementing methodologies of work that comply with the requirements of the auditors
    responsible for the quantification reports.

    Pierre Gosselin, Environmental Eng.

    Mr. Gosselin is a specialized environmental engineer; he has a Master’s Degree in
    Environmental Sciences Management and he took a course for ISO 14001 certification
    and an environmental assessment course. He has many years of experience as and
    Environmental Project Director. In fact, he worked as an environmental project
    manager for the “ministère de l’Environnement du Québec” (Quebec Department of
    Environment) more specifically on project relating to water treatment in lagoons. He
    was a director of an environmental department in the private sector and he has a
    strong environmental experience in the municipal, industrial, institutional and

    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm              Page 5 of 50
agricultural sectors. And for several years now, he has been concentrating on the
climatic change issues.

He has developed and managed various mega projects relating to sewage and water
treatment in lagoons, characterization and sampling programs, treatment of gaseous
and liquid discharge, contaminated soils, natural environment protection and audits on
environmental issues. He has presented some conferences and published articles
concerning the environment. He arranged some conferences, one of which was on
climatic changes and GHGs. He is a member of the Engineers’ Environment
Committee. He has developed a unique expertise in methodologies and calculation
matrix for quantifying the GHG emissions and reduction.

Agridelta: Hugo Fréchette, P.Ag. and Lucie Maltais, P.Ag.

Agridelta is a private consulting firm composed of agrologists specialized in
agroecology. Agridelta worked with our quantifiers to interpret the data on organic
materials, on the methodology for acquiring a mass balance, on the greenhouse gas
offsets calculation matrix, on the percentage calculation of the retention of solids and
finally, in giving us specific tips on the interpretation and the orientation of certain
information.

Mrs. Maltais had the privilege to be involved in the implementation of the association
for managing the organic fertilizers of the Yamaska River (AGEO or Association de
gestion des engrais organiques du bassin de la rivière Yamaska) in 1996. The
AGEO’s mission was the agronomic, environmental and economic management of the
mineral and organic fertilizers of the Yamaska River. Within the same organization,
she was also responsible for coordinating the agrologists who were responsible for the
agroecology compliance records of the agricultural enterprises. In consultation with
other organizations from the Quebec agriculture sector, she was in charge of different
projects within the AGEO concerning issues in the porcine production sector
(producers’ federation, research and learning institutes, private enterprise, etc.). Mrs.
Maltais also participated in the provincial information circuit concerning the
agroecology fertilizing plans (PAEF – Plan agroenvironnemental de fertilisation),
organized by the Order of Agrologists of Quebec (O.A.Q.) in 2003 and 2004.

As an instructor, she is currently teaching a course, “Bilan Alimentaire” at the Institut
de technologie agroalimentaire (agri-food technology institute at the Saint-Hyacinthe
Campus) and she also teaches another course, “Encadrement législatif de la
production agroalimentaire” for the “Carrefour Blé” organization. She also acts as a
fertilization specialist with the Order of Agrologists of Quebec (O.A.Q.).

Hugo Fréchette, P. Ag.
Mr. Fréchette is a professional agrologist specialized in the agroecology sector. He
started his career in different agroecology clubs by supporting the clients in improving
and standardizing their practices. In 2004, he and the AGEO team joined forces. The
AGEO is specialized in the regional management for the manure surplus and the
responsible organization for the treatment of liquid manure. In 2005, he co-founded
Agridelta, the first private agroecology consultant in the province of Quebec.

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                Page 6 of 50
Mr. Fréchette was also elected presiding officer by the Order of Agrologists of Quebec
from 2002 to 2004. He will also be the speaker at the “Rendez-vous avicole” event
organized by the AQINAC (Association québécoise des industries de nutrition animale
et céréalière) in November.

Supervision

Mr. Yves Legault (Finance) and Mrs. Christine Lagacé (Management) are responsible
for supervising the carbon credits quantification team. For many years now, they have
been on the look-out for their customers needs regarding the quantification of
greenhouse gas. They created a methodology allowing the calculation and the selling
of the carbon credits on the organized markets such as the CCX and the voluntary
market.

Report limitations

This quantification report was prepared with the help of different sources of
information. A site visit and a meet with the client took place in September 2006.
Then, the customer sent us a few additional requests by fax or courier. The meet with
the client and the site visit take approximately 1:30 to 2:00 hours and is conducted like
a semi-structured interview. The customers’ answers to our questions allow us to
prepare the report.

However, we face some constraints when preparing the report:
       Scarcity of studies or researches in existing literature;
       Geographic distance;
       Learning of the United States and California legislative conditions;
       The farmer is not familiar with the transfer process of information he considers
       to be confidential;
       The farmer’s availability is limited due to his daily farm management obligations;
       Long delays in obtaining precise information due to the client’s slow learning
       process;
       Unavailability of private studies from US Farms;
       Different working language.
Despite above constraints, we were able to collect a minimum of information allowing
us to justify that by using the US FARMS SYSTEMS technology, the farmer can
considerably reduce his greenhouse gas emissions.

The demonstration was performed with the aid of indirect sources: references from
scientific studies, public literature documents, direct interviews and site visits. Our
procedures, assumptions and conclusions were validated in close consultation with
two persons, recognized in the province of Quebec for their expertise in manure
analysis, namely Hugo Fréchette and Lucie Maltais, both professional agrologists. We
also worked with the US FARM agrologist to validate certain data.

The references format in the footer are presented as certain sources (IPCC, EPA,etc.)


GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                Page 7 of 50
FARM AND CER (Certified Emission Reduction) INFORMATION SUMMARY


                             Table 1: Farm general information


                  Farm’s Name :                                 Bos Farm

                 Contact person:                               Mr. Gary Bos

                     Address :                            20397, Road 152
                                                          Tulare, California
                                                               93274

                 Phone number :                                559-687-8230
                  Fax number :                                 559-687-8362

                     Latitude :                         119 degree, 14 min,10 sec.
                    Longitude :                          36 degree, 9 min, 30 sec.

    Table 2: BOS Farm GHG offsets and CER(Certified Emission Reduction)
    SUMMARY

                                Allowance                 OTC
                                   Year                 tmCO2 equiv.
                                  Goods                        CER
                                   2001                        2 419
                                   2002                        6 631
                                   2003                        6 631
                                   2004                        6 631
                                   2005                        8 637
                                   2006                    10 643

                                   Total                   41 592




    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                     Page 8 of 50
CHAPTER 1: FARM DESCRIPTION

    1.1    Bos Farm History

    Mr.Gary BOS purchased his land in 1976. Six years later, the owner started the
    operations of his dairy farm with the purchase of 1750 cows.

    For the next 20 years, the farm expanded and developed its facilities. In April 2001, a
    new facility was built in addition to the installation of a first separator, a processing pit
    and decantation lagoons. In 2005, the farm proceeded with the installation of the
    second stage separator. The farm now operates with 3,450 dairy cows.



                    Table 3: Bos Farm Evolution (manure system and herd)


                      Year      Description    Cows      Operations    Screens

                                Dairy Farm
                      1982
                                 first year
                      2000                      1750
                                                         Processing    1 set of
                     March          New
                                                1750         pit       screens
                     2001         screens
                                                          Lagoon      0,035 inch
                      2002                      3450
                      2003                      3450
                      2004                      3450
                                                                      1 set of 2
                      July                                             screens
                                                3450      2nd stage
                      2005                                            0.015 inch

                      2006                      3450




    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                   Page 9 of 50
1.2    Farm Management

Bos Farm specializes mainly in the milking of cows. It has a total size of 880 acres
out of which 255 are used for Alfalfa crop, 450 acres for other crops such as corn and
weed and the remaining 175 acres are dedicated to the dairy farm operations and the
manure management. All crops are used for animal feeding.


                            Figure 1: Aerial view of Bos Farm




One of Bos Farm’s missions, apart from cow milking, is to reduce GHG (greenhouse
gas) emissions. Therefore, Bos Farm has decided to implement a system that will
handle cow manure, which is a major cause of GHG emissions on a dairy farm. The


GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm             Page 10 of 50
methane released by the cow’s manure is extremely harmful to the atmosphere, but it
is now possible to treat it and reduce its emissions.
Bos Farm uses a combination of technologies including mechanical separators,
processing pit and anaerobic lagoon to manage manure. Solid storage manure
separated from the flush water with the separators is then recycled as bedding and
crop fertilizer.


       Figure 2: Bos Dairy Farm- View of the lagoons and the separator system




GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm            Page 11 of 50
CHAPTER 2: US FARM SYSTEMS, EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROJECT
SCENARIO

    2.1    General Information

    The information presented in this chapter originates from a patent deposited by the US
    Farm United States Patent of which the date of approval was on March 11, 2003 and
    which was allocated No: US 6,531,051 B1(United States Patented Web Site)

    On dairy farms, dairy cows eat and walk on concrete flush lanes. While in these lanes,
    the cows excrete solid and liquid waste. Approximately 15 to 20 gallons of solid waste
    are excreted from a cow everyday. The solid waste is a valuable product and it can be
    used for fertilizing as well as creating bedding for cows.

    Also, when manure is not handled and managed properly, it becomes an important
    source of GHG. Therefore, dairy farms pump water from large storage lagoons into the
    dairy cow flush lanes in order to flush the lanes and collect the solid and liquid waste.

    The solid and liquid wastes are stored in a storage pit from which it is mixed and
    pumped over a screen separator to remove the solid parts from the water. The water
    passes through the metal screen while a percentage of the solid waste remains on the
    top surface of the metal screen filter. The solid waste slides off the screen onto a solid
    waste storage slab. The solid waste then can be removed from the storage slab and
    used as fertilizer, or it may be further processed into a compost heap to make a more
    valuable form of fertilizer. Once a percentage of solid waste is removed from the
    flushed water, the flushed water is drained into a storage lagoon.




    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                Page 12 of 50
                          Pictures of the process equipment:


Figure 3: Bos Farm Technology: Two separators with two screens and a processing pit




This equipment illustrates the separation process extracting the solid material from the
dairy cow waste, and therefore reducing the GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Emissions.




GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm              Page 13 of 50
                                    Figure 4: Bos Farm: Processing pit




2.2      US Farm System - Basic process description

Diagram 1 shows a basic process of manure separation, usually called solid waste
separator. Water is first stored in the storage lagoon (A). Flush pump (B) pumps
water from the storage lagoon to the dairy cow flush lanes (C). Flushed water drains
from the dairy cow flush lanes to a mixing pit and is then pumped by an agitator pump
(D) to the solid waste separator (E). The solid waste separator (E) separates a
percentage of the solid waste from the flushed water, whereupon the waste settles on
the solid waste storage slab (F). The processed flushed water is then drained from
the separator (E) back to the storage lagoon (A).1




1
  USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database, (2003). Method and apparatus for separating solid material from water used to
flush livestock flush lanes, p1.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6531057.P
N.&OS=PN/6531057

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                           Page 14 of 50
                              Diagram 1: Basic process global view




2.3     Us Farm System process separator description

Diagram 2 shows a graphic representation of a US Farm Systems solid waste basic
separator. The flushed water in the known dairy cow flush lane system is pumped
directly to the solid waste separator (Diagram 2). The flow of the pumped flushed
water into the solid waste separator is shown by the arrow (A). The flushed water then
flows down the metal screen filter (B), which allows the water to pass through, but
stops the solid waste (C) from flowing through the metal screen filter. A series of
clean water spray nozzles (D) are installed over the surface of the screen to keep the
surface and the solids moist between the separation cycles, thus preventing the solid
waste from drying and sticking to the screen surface and insuring good operating
conditions at the beginning of the next separation cycle. The flushed water, having
been processed through the metal screen filter (B), drains out to the storage lagoon,
the flow of the processed flushed water being indicated by arrow (E).2
2
 USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database, (2003). Method and apparatus for separating solid material from
water used to flush livestock flush lanes, p1.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s
1=6531057.PN.&OS=PN/6531057
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                              Page 15 of 50
                         Diagram 2: US Farm System Separator




GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm       Page 16 of 50
Diagram 3 shows a solid waste separator (Diagram 3) coupled to a conveyor system
(A). The conveyor system adds one more step in the processing of the solid waste, by
moving the solid waste (B), which comes from the solid waste separator (Diagram 3),
up a screen conveyor (C). The conveyor moves the solid waste into a spring loaded
tunnel press (D), which removes excess water from the solid waste. The excess water
drains to either the process pit or the storage lagoon through pipe (E). The solid waste
drops and stacks into a solid waste stack (F). This extra step allows the solid waste
to stack higher and drier. The drier the solid waste is, the easier it is to move and it is
to convert to a compost stack. Compost is a more valuable form of fertilizer.3


              Diagram 3: US Farm System Separator Coupled to a Conveyor




Diagram 4 presents an optimal dairy cow flush system as proposed by US Farm
System. Flushed water drains from the dairy cow flush lanes (A) through a pipe
system commonly known as the processing pit (B). The processing pit (B) may be a
concrete pit. Volume of the pit can vary from 30,000 to 100,000 gallons US depending
on the size of the dairy farm. The processing pit may also be a storage tank of the
same size, or a fibber-glass covered pit of the same size. The processing pit may be
any sort of water storage device that can hold such volume of water. Non-limiting
examples of types of processing pits are: uncovered square concrete walled
processing pits; uncovered round concrete-walled processing pits; uncovered
3

USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database, (2003). Method and apparatus for separating solid material from
water used to flush livestock flush lanes, p1.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s
1=6531057.PN.&OS=PN/6531057

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                             Page 17 of 50
rectangular concrete-walled processing pit; uncovered cement-walled processing pit;
and uncovered brick-walled processing pits. The processing pit must also be able to
contain a flush pump and an agitator pump. This agitator pump mixes solid and liquid
and will be pumping to create a homogeneous mixture to increase the amount of solid
pumped from the pit to the separator.
Agitator pump (C) pumps processing pit water to the solid waste separator (D)
through a pipe system. The agitator pump is a pump that agitates the solid waste and
water in the processing pit so that more solid waste can be pumped to the solid waste
separator. Non-limiting examples of types of agitator pumps are centrifugal chopper
pumps directly coupled to an agitator, a centrifugal chopper pump and a separate
agitator, wherein the agitator pre-agitates the water before the centrifugal chopper
pump activates. Agitator pumps are supplied by US Farm Systems.
The solid waste separator (D) may be a single metal screen filter system or a double
metal screen filter system. The metal screen filter may have a mesh size of 0.008" up
to 0.045" The solid waste separator may also be coupled to a screen chain conveyor
with a spring loaded tunnel press, which further processes the solid waste by removing
more water from the waste, thereby allowing the waste to stack better and higher. The
storage pit water processed by the solid waste separator drains from the separator to
the storage lagoon (E) through a pipe system.
The storage lagoon (E) is usually a large hole dug into the dairy farm property. The
storage lagoon is usually built to hold enough water to ensure a 3 to 6 month supply of
water for dairy farm use, including flushing and separation of solid matter. The size of
the lagoon is determined by the number of dairy cows which is permitted to keep on
premises.
The storage lagoon is coupled to a centrifugal flush pump (F) that pumps water to
the dairy cow flush lanes (A) to flush the dairy cow flush lanes. The storage lagoon
pump (F) can be a floating pump from 10 HP to 75 HP in size. This pump has a check
valve that prevents water from draining back into the process pit and lagoon. Non-
limiting examples of storage lagoon pumps are: centrifugal chopper pumps, centrifugal
pumps, wall-mounted pumps; floating pumps.
The processing pit (B) also is coupled to a flush pump (H) used to send water to the
dairy cow flush lanes (A), in order to flush the lanes. The processing pit flush pump
(H) can be a floating centrifugal chopper pump from 20 HP to 75 HP in size. This pump
has a back-flow valve that prevents water from draining back into the processing pit
and lagoon. The processing pit flush pump can also be a stationary wall mounted
centrifugal chopper pump from 20 HP to 75 HP in size. A non-limiting example of a
processing pit pumps would be centrifugal chopper pumps. Flush pumps (F and H)
pump water to dairy cow flush lanes (A) via a pipe system.
One advantage of the US Farm System is that there is no need to pump the flushed
water immediately to the solid waste separator (D), because the water is being
recycled many times to flush more lanes from the processing pit before it is pumped
over solid separator.



GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm              Page 18 of 50
              Diagram 4: US Farm System - Flush Water Optimal Process




Since the agitator pump in the invention needs to run only 5.27 hours per day, as
opposed to 12.2 hours per day for the solid waste pump, the energy cost in running the
agitator pump with a processing pit is much lower.
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm             Page 19 of 50
Further, since the processing pit has a higher concentration of solid waste, and water
is pumped from the process pit to the solid waste separator, and not from the storage
lagoon, the solid waste separator is able to remove more solid waste. The solid waste
separator removes up to two-thirds more solid waste in US Farm System than a basic
separation system. Since water from the solid waste separator has two-thirds more
solid waste removed from it in the present invention, as the water drains from the solid
waste separator to the storage lagoon, the storage lagoon remains cleaner, with less
solid waste in it.4

When a dairy farm is equipped with a processing pit, the operator may flush with fresh
water recycled from the milking parlours instead of wastewater stored in the lagoon.
This alternative reduces the need of pumping and avoids the overflowing of cow alleys
filled with ammonia-contaminated water. The processing pit reduces the usage of
electricity and prevents N2O emission.




4USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database, (2003). Method and apparatus for separating solid material from
water used to flush livestock flush lanes, p1.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s
1=6531057.PN.&OS=PN/6531057

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                              Page 20 of 50
CHAPTER 3: INDUSTRY TRENDS

    The dairy industry in the United States has undergone deep changes during the past
    decades. There has been a lot of improvement which came from the advancement
    made in the farms technologies’. These changes have created an effect of
    consolidation of the industry and this situation has changed all levels of the dairy
    industry. Indeed, these advances have allowed the market to be served by fewer,
    larger operations. Productivity growth has allowed more milk to be produced with fewer
    cows.5.


    Actually, there are approximately 90,000 dairy farms in the United States. They are
    located in the following States:

                            Figure 1: 2001 Milk Production – Top Ten States




                                                                                       6



    According to USDA, California is the leading State for dairy production. California
    became the largest milk-producing States in 1993 and since that time the production
    continues to grow. In 2003, it accounted for approximately 21% of the total US milk
    production. We will focus on this State specifically to observe the industry trends in
    California.

    3.1     The dairy industry of California

    In California, the size of the dairies is not only bigger; they are also gathered in specific
    geographic areas. Indeed, more than 1,600 dairies are located in the Central Valley of



    5 USDA, ERS from USDA, Nass data USDA, ERS from USDA, Nass data,
                                                                                                th
    Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Dairy/Background.htm, consulted on January 18 , 2007.
    6
      EPA, Background of Dairy Production in the U.S, p.1 http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/dairybackground.html,
    consulted on Jan. 18th, 2007

    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                  Page 21 of 50
California also called “The San Joaquin Valley”. Over the last 30 years, the number of
dairy cows has more than doubled while the number of dairies has dropped by half.7

There are approximately 1.7 million lactating dairy cows in California. Nearly 73% of
the cows are located in the San Joaquin Valley, which consists of San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties.8

The top five milk producing counties in California are: Tulare (26%), Merced (14%),
Stanislaus (10%), Kings (9%) and San Bernardino (7%). These counties produce
approximately 66% of the milk production of California (CDFA).



                Figure 2: San Joaquin Valley Dairy Farms (Source: ref.8, p.6)




7
  USEPA, (2006). Regional geographic initiative: Agricultural sustainability projects in California’s San Joaquin
Valley 2001-2005.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/ag/docs/rgi-report-for-r9-ag-program-july-2006.pdf, p.1,consulted on
           th
January 18 .
8
  Liebman J., EPA (2006), San Joaquin Valley Dairy Manure Collaborative:identifying & implementing technologies
                                                st
to treat manureJames, consulted on October 31 , 2006, p.5.
Available at: http://www.wef.org/NR/rdonlyres/B7C965B8-C43D-413A-9259-
3C9D807DC901/0/PacificSymposiumJamesLiebman.pdf
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                    Page 22 of 50
                              Figure 3: San Joaquin Valley Relief Map9




3.1.1. Climate
California has a lot of attributes playing an excellent role in the growth of its dairy
industry. First, the climate provides a significant cost advantage compared to colder
region. The average temperature is between 25°C to 30°C for summer and 15°C to
20°C for winter. California weather is the ideal climate to cultivate alfalfa and a variety
of crops, which are an important element of the nutrient plan of almost all California
dairy farms. This situation allows the dairies to grow the necessary food for their
livestock, thus having a cost effective alternative to conventional feeding. San Joaquin
Valley, more precisely, has a mean annual temperature of 60-63º F (16-17º Celsius).10




9
 USEPA, (2006). Regional Geographic Initiative, Agricultural Sustainability Projects in California’s San Joaquin
Valley, (2001-2005). P.1.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/Region9/ag/docs/rgi-report-for-r9-ag-program-july-2006.pdf, consulted on January
18th, 2007.
10
  Professional Soil Scientist Association of California, http://www.pssac.org/castatesoil.htm, consulted on January
26th, 2007.

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                      Page 23 of 50
3.1.2. Breeds
   According to the California Dairy research foundation, there are 5 breeds of cows in
   California

        Holstein
        Jersey
        Brown Swiss
        Guernsey
        Short thorn

These cattle are genetically selected for the production of milk.
The black and white Holstein is the most popular breed; it
represents over 90% of all dairy cows of the USA. The Holstein
has the ability to produce the largest volume of milk and protein.
The second most popular are the Jersey which accounts for 7%
of the United States dairy cows. The remaining breeds
represent less than 2 % of the dairy cattle population in the US.

Holstein dairy cows weight approximately 1,400 pounds and eat
about 50 pounds of dry food daily, which accounts for half of the
dairies production costs. Thus the total food intake annually is about 4000 kg by cow.
Feeding usually includes: fermented corn silage, winter grain silage, alfalfa hay, corn,
barley, food wastes such as hulls and fruit pulps, cottonseed, soybean seed and other
high energy additives like fats. Roughage must comprise 40 percent of feed in order to
allow the rumen to function properly. 11

Water consumption is also important. Dairy cows drink about 10 times daily. “Dry
Holstein cows drink on the average of 40 kilograms per day; milking cows about 85
kilograms per day. Calves drink 4 to 23 kilograms per day.12” The USDA estimate that
the average consumption of water is between 25-50 gallons per day, with another 30
gallons of water per cow devoted to washing equipment, stalls and the milking parlors.
Thus, a 3,000 head dairy will use 345,000 gallons of water per day…13” which does not
include water used for crop irrigation that will become food. A dairy of this size should
apply for a wastewater permit to discharge 75,000 gallons per day into a lagoon
system.




 Dairy Research and Development Corporation. (1995). Grain Consumption by the Dairy Industry to double by
11

year 2000. Meyers Strategy Group, p.3.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/projects/Dairy.ppt#261,1, Corporate Dairy Production: How the Industry Profits at Our
Expense Jason McVay Urban Studies 515 Race Poverty & the Urban Environment
12
   Irwin, R.W.,Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Factsheet (1992). Water Requirements of Livestock.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/86-053.htm#dairy
13
  Concerned Citizens for Clean Water, Inc. Industrialized Dairies and CAFO’s Contribute to Water Depletion and
Pollution
Available at: http://www.saveourwatersupply.org/cafos/

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                    Page 24 of 50
One cow pollutes like 34 people, producing 114 pounds of waste per day and 22.5
tons in one year.14


3.2      Dairy production system

In California, the dairies produce milk from cows raised for intensive systems. This kind
of cows do not graze, they eat food rations highly concentrated. Current practice is to
produce as much milk as possible with fewer cows, and at the cheapest cost possible
to ensure competitive prices. The average size of a dairy in California, in 2004, is 825
cows.15 These cows are milked two or three times each day.

3.2.1. Freestall

Usually, the Californian production system
includes freestall facilities. These are
structures for housing animals in which the
animals are contained in pens, under a
roof, and have free access to feed bunks,
watering and stalls for resting.16




14
   Natural Resources Defense Council. (1998). America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent Pollution
from Livestock Waste, California Report.
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stcal.asp
15
   California Dairy Research Foundation, (2004). California Dairy Facts.
Available at: http://www.cdrf.org/content.asp?contentID=55
16
   San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, rule 4570, Confined animal facilities. P.4.
Available at: http://valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/Rule%204570%200606.pdf

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                            Page 25 of 50
CHAPTER 4: MANURE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
    The California have 2,3 % of the 100 000 farms of the USA in 1997. Approximately 45
    % of the farms have livestock of more than 700 milk cows. The dairy production of
    California represents to 21 % of the USA production.17

    California Dairy cows generate approximately 40 million tons of manure each year.
    This situation binds the farmers to find adequate manure management techniques for
    their operations.

    4.1      Flushing System

    Free stalls have paved lanes and are generally situated in a roofed barn with open
    sides. Free stall facilities with a flushing system for manure removal are now
    commonly used in the San Joaquin Valley, which houses most of the state’s dairy
    farms. At a typical free stall dairy with approximately 1,000 adult cows, an estimated
    7,000 - 10,000 cubic-foot of liquid manure are generated daily from animal manure
    and wash water (Van Eenennaam, 1997; Shultz, 1997; Meyer and Schwankl,
    2000).18The dairy farm installation also required milking parlor to manual operation
    during the milking. There are numerous designs for the milking parlor: walk-through,
    step-up, rotary,

    The majority of the dairies in the Central Valley use a flush manure management
    system. In fact, about 80% of Californian dairies use flush system to clean their
    stalls.19 This practice contributes to the cows' good health. The frequency of flushing
    practice will affect dust, odor and air emissions. Farmers flush free stall alleys with
    lagoon water in average 3,2 times a day.20 A majority of dairies in the San Joaquin
    Valley re-use wastewater for flushing animal housing21. The liquid animal waste is then
    sprayed onto cropland via sprinklers to serve as fertilizer. A lot of technical reports

    17(EPA. 821-R01-003January 2001), Development Document for the proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant
    Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
    Available at:
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/owrccatalog.nsf/065ca07e299b464685256ce50075c11a/bfab4a92a9afea4785256b06
    00723501!OpenDocument
    18
      Thomas Harter and al., Effects of Dairy Manure Nutrient Management on Shallow Groundwater Nitrate: A Case
    Study, (2001). 2001 ASAE Annual International Meeting Sponsored by ASAE
    Available at: http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_201_ASAE2001_UCCE_Case_Study_paper.pdf
    19
      James Liebman, US, EPA and al., (2005). An Assessment of Technologies for Management and Treatment of
    Dairy Manure in California's San Joaquin Valley, California, USA.
    Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dmtfaprprt.pdf
    20
      Castillo Alejandro R., (2004). Flushing and scraping freestalls and drylot pens, University of California cooperative
    extension, Dairy News.
    Available at: http://cemerced.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/Dairy_Notes5584.pdf
    21
      James Liebman, US, EPA and al., (2005). An Assessment of Technologies for Management and Treatment of
    Dairy Manure in California's San Joaquin Valley, California, USA, p.21.
    Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dmtfaprprt.pdf

    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                       Page 26 of 50
recommended a minimum of 2 or three times a day. Usually, the flushing is practiced
one hour after the feeding; it helps to maintain clean cows and decrease odors and air
emissions.

4.2     Lagoons
Most dairies in California store manure into
lagoons22. A lagoon is: a basin constructed,
maintained and operated to store and treat
animal waste23. The solid part of the manure
goes at the lower level and the liquid part will
be at the surface.

4.2.1. Treatment technologies

The purpose of manure treatment is to convert manure to a more stable product.24
There are three general treatment categories: physical, chemical and biological. These
technologies have many positive effects on manure negative attribute:


     - Reduce odor problems                             - Produce greater fertilizer value
     - Produce energy with the manure                   - Reduce volume of the manure
     - Kill pathogens                                   - Decrease pollution and GHG


Physical treatment

Usually, physical treatment consists of a solid-liquid separation which is done by
decantation lagoon or mechanical separator. There are different separation processes.

First by gravity, this is typically done with a setting of lagoons or tanks, no separator
being required for this kind of system. The solid will naturally follow the low level of the
lagoon while the liquid slurry will remain at the surface. It’s the most natural way to
separate solid and liquid manure.

Mechanical separation means screening to summarize the process of the manure that
passes through a separator with screens of different sizes. While the solid is collected,
the liquid passes through the screen. The efficiency of this kind of separation will
depend on the size of the screens. Indeed, there are many different types of
separators like: centrifuge, rotating cone, and screw press, filter presses.

22 Mayer D.M. and al., (1997), A Survey of Dairy Manure Management Practices in California, J Dairy Science 80:

1841-1845.
Available at: http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/8/1841
23
  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, rule 4570. p.4.
Available at: http://valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/Rule%204570%200606.pdf
24
  EPA : Alternative technologies uses for manure, (2000). P.6.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_report.pdf

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                   Page 27 of 50
The most important to remember is that the solid-liquid separation by gravity is a
standard practice in California. Indeed, separators of varying types (gravity or
mechanical) are found on almost all California dairies25.

According to the article published in the Newspaper of Dairy Science of 1997, several
dairy farms of California used a liquid solid separation. In fact, in their survey,
approximately half of the participating farms used this process26.

The solid-separation is the first step in the following process:

        To re-use manure solid for bedding or re-feeding
        To improve the treatment efficiency of vegetative area and leach fields
        To use liquid for flushing
        To reduce the volume of waste to be hauled


Chemical treatment

It is possible to treat manure chemically, with this manner you can improve the solid
removal, killing micro-organisms and eliminating odors. You can proceed in various
ways:

             Treat manure chemically by raising the PH to about 12 for 30 minutes. Lime
             is typically added to raise the PH livestock manure
             Adding coagulating agent to improve the dewatering characteristic of
             manure.

The chemical treatments are not for everyone because some products are corrosive
and dangerous for health. When this kind of treatment is not done properly, dangerous
emissions could be produced.


Biological treatment

Biological treatment uses naturally occurring microorganisms in manure to change
properties of the waste.27 There are many ways to treat manure biologically: biodrying,
anaerobic digestion, anaerobic lagoons, and aerobic lagoons.


25
 James Liebman, US, EPA and al., (2005). An Assessment of Technologies for Management and Treatment of
Dairy Manure in California's San Joaquin Valley, California, USA, p.22.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dmtfaprprt.pdf
26
  Mayer D.M. and al., (1997), A Survey of Dairy Manure Management Practices in California, J Dairy Science 80:
1841-1845.
Available at: http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/8/1841
27
  EPA : Alternative technologies uses for manure, (2000). P.8.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_report.pdf

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                  Page 28 of 50
An anaerobic environment is always oxygen-free. The technology used for the
anaerobic digestion is an anaerobic digester. The advantage of this technology is the
possibility to recover the biogas from the manure and to use it as an energy source.
The odors will also be reduced. The covered-lagoon, plug-flow digester, completely-
stirred tank reactor are three types of digesters.28

Uncovered anaerobic lagoons will also produce the decomposition of the manure, but
they will not pick-up biogas. Typically, it’s this kind of lagoons that is used by the
California dairy farms. They are 100 times larger 29than anaerobic digesters.

The farming community perception about the anaerobic digesters is one of the largest
social barriers to the acceptance of the technology (Rozdilsky 1997). Every farmer
knows someone who tries without success to use a digester. Anaerobic digesters
require high-level management time, and when farmers do not have the skill or time to
manage the digesters, the systems tend to fail. Farmers are reluctant to use digesters
because the operation and maintenance costs are too high compare to the financial
returns from energy production.30

4.2.2. Bedding

The use of dry manure solids for bedding is a common practice in California.31Farmers
also use bedding as an inexpensive fertilizer. A solid-liquid separation has to be done
to be able to produce bedding with livestock manure.

4.2.3. Compost
Manure can be converted to valuable product such as compost. Composting comes
from the aerobic decomposition of manure under controlled conditions. This process
generates a lot of heat and CO2. The compost can be used as fertilizer. It is important
to avoid the over application of nutrient on the agricultural soil. This situation may
cause environmental problems.




28
  James Liebman, US, EPA and al., (2005). An Assessment of Technologies for Management and Treatment of
Dairy Manure in California's San Joaquin Valley, California, USA. P.29.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dmtfaprprt.pdf
29
  EPA : Alternative technologies uses for manure, (2000). P.8.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_report.pdf
30
  EPA : Alternative technologies uses for manure, (2000). P.27.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_report.pdf
31
  Jean Bonhotal and al., Use of dried manure solids as bedding for dairy cows, Cornell Waste Management
Institute. P.1
Available at: http://www.nyfarmviability.org/aic/activities/AIC_2005%20Compost-web.pdf, consulted on January 19h,
2007.

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                   Page 29 of 50
CHAPTER 5: LAWS AND REGULATIONS

    5.1    Objective of Greenhouse Gas Reductions

    California has the worst air quality of the United States. At the end of last October, the
    governor of California, MR. Arnold Schwarzenegger, announced his objectives of
    greenhouse gas reduction. The objectives are:

           Reduction of GHG emissions to 2000 level by 2010
           Reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 level by 2020
           Reduction of GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 level by 2050

    These reduction objectives are really aggressive. Consequently, California dairies will
    be under increased regulation because of their contribution of water and air pollution.

    5.2    The regulatory environment

    The structure for regulating air quality in the San Joaquin Valley combines three
    jurisdictions:

           Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Federal
           California Air Resource Board (CARB): State
           San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD): Local

    The structure of the regulatory agencies is complicated. For example, the jurisdiction
    for air pollution regulation will be attributed according to the location it occurs and to
    which type of emission is released in the air. The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is
    enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition to overseeing
    state and local agency implementation of the requirements of the CAA, the EPA
    regulates the manufacture and use of mobile sources in conjunction with the California
    Air Resources Board (CARB).32 CARB is also responsible for the California Air
    Pollution Control Laws, including the California Clean Air Act.33 Another responsibility
    of this regulatory agency is to monitor the entire 35 local air districts.




    32 Air Quality & Environmental Protection Work Group, CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN
    VALLEY
    http://www.greatvalley.org/sjpartnership/docs/0506/AQ_Report5.16.06.doc
    33
       Air Resources Board, Federal and State Statutes, (2006).
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/lawsregs.htm, consulted on January 18th, 2007.
    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                        Page 30 of 50
5.3     Air regulation

Various regulations will be implemented in California to ensure that the state’s
governor’s goals are achieved. Taking into consideration, major legislative reforms
undertaken in California to recycle GHG emission Dairy farm owner should either
improve actual manure management practices and bank granted GHG offsets to face
upcoming compliance issues.


5.3.1. Dust regulation

The Clean Air Act requires that all serious PM10 non-attainment areas establish, adopt,
and implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for all significant PM10
sources in those areas. The BMPs covered six farm areas:
         On-field
         Off-field
         Farm yards
         Track-out
         Unpaved farm roads
         Storage piles


Each farmer has the choice of various control options in each area.

5.4     Water regulation

Manure generated in dairy production generates impacts on water quality caused by
nitrate and salts from the land-applied manure. Potential water quality impacts from
improper handling and disposal of dairy manure include accidental or intentional
discharges or inadequate management of nutrients that cause pollutants to reach
surface water or to recharge to groundwater


5.4.1. CAFO: Confined Animal Feeding Operations

Under the United States Clean Water Act, the EPA requires confined animal feeding
operations that produce discharges to water to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Facilities above a specified size are required to
develop and implement a nutrient management plan identifying manure management
practices.34 . The nutrient management has to include requirement to apply manure

34
   EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Animal Feeding Operations. Consulted on
January 18th, 2007.
Available at: http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                Page 31 of 50
and process wastewater with landsite specific nutrient. They also have to develop
management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of nutrient. These
plans have associated permits and are administered by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Boards.

5.4.2. State Water Resources Control Board

California’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) imposes waste
discharge requirements for individual livestock facilities. Violations of these
requirements can lead to enforcement actions and facilities may be required to prepare
a Report of Waste Discharge. The RWQCBs are also responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of the requirements of the U.S. EPA confined animal
feeding operation regulations mentioned previously.35


5.5     New and Future Regulation

California has important reduction of greenhouse gas objective. Consequently, many
new rules and regulations will appear promptly. A lot of rules are now being proposed
to the different regulatory agencies. Right below, you will find some examples of rules
that will maybe be in place in the next few years.

        The California Air Resources Board is proposing new regulations that would
        require farmers and ranchers to replace older stationary diesel agricultural
        engines with new ones by 2011.36

        Rule 4570 from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District was
        adopted on June 15th, 2006, and will require the implementation of many
        mitigation measures in the following aspects of the dairy farms:

                 Feed management
                 Milk parlor
                 Free stall barn
                 In each corral where animals have been housed in the
                 last thirty days
                 The handling or storage of solid animal waste or separated solids outside
                 the animal housing
                 The handling of animal waste in a liquid form
                 The application of dry or liquid animal waste to crop land




35
   California Environmental Protection Agency, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Control Board,
consulted on January 18th, 2007.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/available_documents/index.html#confined
36
   Air Resources Board, In-Use Stationary Diesel Agricultural Engines. Consulted on January 18th.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/ag/inuseag.htm

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                   Page 32 of 50
    The provision of this rule shall not apply to a CAF, which remains at all times below the
    threshold of 1000 milking cows.37

CHAPTER 6: Supervision and Monitoring Plan


    6.1      General Information
    The data collection for the GHG emissions reduction project was completed during a
    site survey. Collected data originates from two sources: the farm's owner and US
    Farm. The project is managed by the farm's owner in collaboration with US Farm.
    Gestion du projet. The data verification was completed directly beween the GHG
    quantification technical expert and the farms' owner. Original documents were
    consulted and copies were obtained. Client data is saved on a per farm basis. An
    information checklist summarize the data available for each farm.


    6.2      US Farm Maintenance Program
    US Farm Maintenance program consists in the complete stop of the separation
    process to allow US Farm technical team to clean filters and to proceed with the
    equipment mechanical maintenance (motors, etc.) US Farm also provides separator
    cleaning service using water jets. US Farm Maintenance Program is performed
    methodically and periodicaly at specific dates.


    6.3      Collected data and collection frequency
    The characteristics of each animal included in the manure handling system will have to
    be kept up to date year after year. For instance, each year, the number of animals, the
    animal type, the farm system equipment and the average weight will be taken into
    consideration. Included in the US Farm maintenance plan, a laboratory analysis of the
    manure (liquid and solid part) will have to be carried out every three months in order to
    determine if there is any change in its composition. Furthermore, the quantity of
    consumed electricity coming from the treatment basin pumps (processing or lagoon pit)
    will have to be updated every year. The composition of the organic fertilizer as well as
    its related volume will have to be collected every 6 months to facilitate the observation
    of any change in the fertilizer’s structure. Any change in the process frequency or any
    change made in the used technology must be signalled. The cow’s diet will also have
    to be updated each year: The quantity of digested food, components and proportion of
    these components are some examples of the collected data. US Farm Systems shall
    consult the farmer about these matters every 6 months.

    6.3.1. Data storage
    The information will be stored at the dairy farm as well as in a computer located at US
    Farm’s offices. This information will be available an electronic format but there will also
    be a paper report in case the computer system breaks down.

    37
     San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, rule 4570, Confined animal facilities. P.4.
    Available at: http://valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/Rule%204570%200606.pdf
    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                          Page 33 of 50
CHAPTER 7: BASELINE SCENARIO VERSUS FARM SYSTEM PROJECT
SCENARIO

    In California's counties of Tulare, Fresno and Madera, according to Mayer38, 95.9% of
    the dairy farms, in his sample, stored flush waters in ponds and only 14.2 % of the
    farms used mechanical solid separators to reduce the solid loading rate. 41b

    Some farms carry out the manure management by solid-liquid separation39. Solid-
    liquid separation can be defined by ‘any system that carries out the separation of
    manure into two quite distinct parts: one having a greater dryness than the other40.

    There are several systems, going from a simple separation by gravity in a large lagoon
    (anaerobic) to a simple mechanical separation using a motionless incline screen.
    Farmers generally use a combination of separation methods for manure treatment.

    The baseline scenario is based on the hypothesis stating that a majority of dairy
    farms use an anaerobic lagoon as a component of their manure management system
    (57%), according to EPA for the state of California.41 Other systems could have been
    considered as baseline scenario such as Liquid/slurry systems (21%), solid storage
    (9%). However, EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2005) reports a lower distribution for
    those systems, being more frequent in small or medium size than in large size dairy
    farms (more than 700 cows).

    The Farm System is a scenario using US Farm technology (mechanical solid-liquid
    separation process). Sifting of liquid manure is done by mechanical separators. The
    Farm System change history is presented in section 1.2.1, Table 1 and the Farm
    System is summarized in Diagram 5.

    Finally, the difference between the baseline scenario (lagoons system) and the Farm
    System is calculated on a yearly basis and is presented in the next chapter.




    38 Mayer D.M. and al., (1997), A Survey of Dairy Manure Management Practices in California, J Dairy Science 80:
    1841-1845. P.1.
    Available at: http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/8/1841
    39
       James Liebman, US, EPA and al., (2005). An Assessment of Technologies for Management and Treatment of
    Dairy Manure in California's San Joaquin Valley, California, USA. P.22. Consulted on 2006/10/27
    Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dmtfaprprt.pdf
    40
       James Liebman, US EPA Pacific Southwest Region, personnel communication, consulted on 2006/10/20.
    41 EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.10. P. A-188.

    Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                   Page 34 of 50
CHAPTER 8: GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

    8.1    Scope of the Farm System
    8.1.1. General scope
    Animal manure management in agricultural farms is an issue of great importance. In
    fact, as previously mentioned, the pollution generated by the intensive livestock
    production, especially in North America, has a major impact on the quality of the air,
    water and soil and more precisely in California where there is a significant air quality
    problem. This situation is more detailed in the Environmental impacts section. Such
    problems urge the state of California to take action and implement new rules and
    regulations, as previously described. The Farm System, reducing GHG emissions on a
    single farm basis, contributes to the immediate and future California’s environmental
    plans and allows the emissions reduction in the agricultural sector. By removing more
    solids from the manure flow, using separators, the farmer reduces methane emissions
    significantly.

    This dairy producer manages manure in order to limit GHG emissions as much as
    possible by using US Farm Systems and by recycling the bedding. Indeed, US Farm
    Systems allows the removing of more solids by a mechanical separation system. The
    solids are then used for bedding, thus, eliminating sand purchases and hauling. Also,
    the liquid part recovered in the lagoons after separation, is used as a nutrient rich
    fertilizer to spread in the fields. This farmer tries as much as possible to reduce GHG
    emissions using this economically viable manure management system (See Diagram 5
    for Global View).




    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm              Page 35 of 50
                    Diagram 5: Farm Systems Scenario Global View




     Cow
 Flush Lanes




                              Liquid
                             Storage




                     Solid Waste Storage




                 Wastewater Storage Lagoon




GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm           Page 36 of 50
8.1.2. Emission types: Quantified GHGs
Quantified GHG emissions are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide
(N2O). However, CH4 and N2O generate the majority of emissions in this project as
CO2 emissions are negligible compared to methane, released under anaerobic
conditions. Also, CH4 and N2O account for the majority of all GHG emissions
generated by the agricultural activities. 42 Indeed, the CO2 portion represents less than
1% of total emissions.43 Thus, the existing manure management system highlights a
single technology of mechanical separation, responsible for the emissions reduction.

8.2      Emission sources:
8.2.1. Enteric emissions:
Enteric emissions will not be calculated since the cows' ration remains the same
through the project.

8.2.2. Free stalls:
Stalls and flush lanes remain identical in the two scenarios. Thus, these sources are
ignored.

8.2.3. Processing pit:
The processing pit size is approximately 1600 square feet. Thus, its surface is less
than 1% the size of an anaerobic lagoon and will not be quantified in terms of CH4 and
N2O emissions. However, it represents the most important CO2 emission source of
the project with its electrical pump used for the separator. This pump is the only
additional CO2 emissions source that could be considered in the project since the
baseline scenario flushing system still necessitates some pumping system to take the
water from the lagoon to the flush lanes. This scenario is conservative since the
distance between the processing pit and the flush lanes is shorter than the distance
from the lagoon and should require less electricity.

8.2.4. Solid waste stack from separator:
The solid waste stack will be considered as a significant source of emissions as it is a
significant feature in the Farm Systems Scenario. The baseline scenario does not
involve a separator. (See Diagram 6)

8.2.5. Lagoon – Liquid waste
The liquid waste in the lagoon is the main feature in the baseline scenario and a
significant source of emissions in the farm system. Both scenarios will be quantified.




42
  IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4, Chapter 1,
                         th
consulted on January 18 , 2007.
Available: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_01_Ch1_Introduction.pdf,
43 Table de concertation d’Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada sur le changement climatique, (1999), Document
de fond d’Agriculture et Agroalimentaire sur le changement climatique,
http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/pdfs/climate_change/foundafr.pdf, consulted on January 18th, 2007.
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                            Page 37 of 50
8.2.6. Dredged lagoon– Solid waste:
The project scenario reduces or even eliminates the need for lagoon dredging. .
Therefore, the quantification for the solid waste is considered conservative since it
ignores emissions generated by this activity in the baseline scenario.

8.2.7. Construction emissions:
Negligible emissions are involved in the installation of the separator and the
construction of the processing pit.

8.2.8. Maintenance Emissions (US Farm):
The maintenance necessitates one visit per three months and involves negligible
emissions.

8.2.9. Maintenance – Fertilizer and manure transportation:
The solid waste will reduce the need for fertilizer and bedding, reducing hauling. Of
course, some more work might be done on site to move the solid wastes around.
However, the project scenario seems still conservative neglecting this source.


                                Table 4: GHG Emission Sources

          GHG Emission                 Baseline     Farm System     GHG                    GHG          Source
            Sources                    Scenario       Scenario  Quantification             Type          Type
                                      Emissions      Emissions
                                       (A Level)      (B Level)  (A-B level)
                                        Baseline                                                       Controlled
 1 Enteric Emissions                     level        No change             0            CH4, N2O
                                        Baseline                                                       Controlled
 2 Free Stalls                           level        No change             0            CH4, N2O
                                                                       CH4, N2O                        Controlled
                                                                        negligible       CH4, N2O
 3 Processing pit                        N/A          Negligible      CO2 quantified       CO2
 4 Separator Solid Waste Stack           N/A          Low level        Quantified        CH4, N2O      Controlled
                                       Baseline                                                        Controlled
 5 Lagoon - Liquid Waste                level        Lower Level       Quantified        CH4, N2O
                                                                      Reduction not                    Controlled
  6 Dredged Lagoon - Solid Waste Negligible            Reduced         quantified        CH4, N2O
  7 Construction emissions             Low level       Low level       Negligible*         CO2         Associated
    Maintenance Emissions (US                                                                          Associated
  8 Farm)                              Negligible      Negligible      Negligible*          CO2
    Maintenance –                      Baseline                                                        Controlled
  9 Fertilizer/bedding                   level       Less hauling       Negligible          CO2
* Note: sources quantified and less than 1% of total or de minimis.




GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                               Page 38 of 50
         Diagram 6: Farm Systems scenario – Major sources of GHG emissions




                                                        CH4, N2O


                                                                Separator Processed
                                                                   Solid Waste




                                                              CH4, N2O
                                     Anaerobic Lagoon
                                                                                  Manure and Waste
                                                                                       Water


                    Anaerobic Treatment

                                                                                  Sludge Storage




8.3     GHG emissions accounting

The total GHG emissions reduction result from the comparison of the US Farm
Systems scenario with the baseline scenario system. The solid-liquid separation
used by the farm is more effective than the one presented in the baseline scenario
system as it is rapidly providing solid storage with a mechanical separation system.
Indeed, a screen system makes it possible to retain more solids rapidly. (Ref.1.2)

The reader should note that the Farm’s GHG emissions reduction is benchmarked
against common use practices to determine the incremental effect to be credited to the
farm.

8.4     Set-up formula to calculate the emissions

The standard unit used for quantification in this section is tmCO2 eq (i.e.: GHGs
equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide) . Each gas has a specific Global Warming
Potential (ex.: methane is GWPCH4 = 21, nitrous oxide is GWPN2O = 310), which is an
index that converts gas emissions impacts into emissions of an equivalent mass of
CO2.44

44EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                               Page 39 of 50
As detailed in Chapter 2, the US Farm system allows more solids to be removed by the
separators, which reduces the organic matter from the semi-purified liquid that passes
through to the anaerobic lagoons. Two significant GHGs are involved in manure
management (CH4 and N2O), and their emissions are calculated as follows:

RT = total reduction: tmCO2 eq unit


RT = (EBCH4 – ECH4) + (DBN2O – DN2O) +(ECO2)

RT =            GHG emissions reduction generated by manure management. Emission
                sources are dairy cows and heifers. Reductions originate from solid-liquid
                mechanical separation with the Farm System scenario in comparison with the
                baseline scenario (ref. Chap. 7) tmCO2 eq unit;

ECH4 =          Methane emissions resulting from the liquid and solid storage in the Farm
                System (US Farm Systems) scenario; tmCO2 eq unit;

EBCH4 =         Methane emissions resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the baseline
                scenario; tmCO2 eq unit;

DN2O =          Direct Nitrous oxide emissions resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the
                Farm System Scenario (US Farm Systems); tmCO2 eq unit.

DBN20 =         Direct nitrous oxide emissions resulting from the liquid and solid
                phases in the baseline scenario system; tmCO2 eq unit.

ECO2=           CO2 emissions resulting from electrical equipment in the Farm system scenario.

Indirect nitrous oxide emissions are much below one percent of total emissions and will
not be quantified. The project scenario being lower than the baseline scenario, this
approach is considered conservative.

8.4.1. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO: Methane emissions (CH4)
       (CH4) resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the Farm System.
       (Mechanical solid-liquid separation)

ECH4 = ((VSc * 365 * NC * BOV * CW/1000) + (VSH * 365 * NH * BOH * HW/1000)) * MCFus
* 0.67 * GWPCH4;45

VSc =           Volatile solids excretion rate for California dairy cows: 9.35 kg/day/1000
                kg as per EPA (2005);46

NC =            Number of dairy cows associated with the manure recovery system;



45 EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
46 EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11, p A-186.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                Page 40 of 50
BOV =            Maximum methane producing capacity: 0.24 m3 of methane per kg of
                 volatile solids for dairy cows.47

CW =             Typical average animal mass for dairy cows: 604 kg/cow as per EPA
                 (2005);

GWPCH4 =         Methane Global Warming Potential = 21

VSH =            Volatile solids excretion rate for California heifers: 6.81 kg/day/1000 kg as
                 per EPA (2005);48

NH =             Number of heifers associated with the manure recovery system;

BOH =            Maximum methane producing capacity: 0.17m3 of methane per kg of
                 volatile solids for heifers, as per EPA (2005);

HW =             Typical average animal mass for heifers: 476 kg as per EPA (2005);

0,67 =           Conversion factor of m3 CH4 to kg CH4

8.4.2. FARM SYSTEM: Methane emission conversion factor (MCFus)

         MCFus =          Methane emission factor for the Farm System scenario (US Farm
                          System). This factor considers the volatile solids quantity
                          retained.

         MCFUS= ((VSS1+ VSS2)* CF1) + (VSL * CF2))

         VSS1 =           Fraction of volatile solids retained by the first separator; this
                          value may change with the Farm System Scenario specific
                          equipment 0,40 (Farm system scenario for years 2001-
                          2005/6/30)49.

         CF1 =            Methane conversion factor for the bedding (dry management); 4%
                          or 0,04 (for the purpose of this equation) of the solid part retained
                          by the separator50;

         VSS2 =           Fraction of volatile solids retained by the second separator; 0,24.
                          This factor was based on the hypothesis that a second separator
                          would remove 40% of the 60% residual volatile solids from


47
   EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
48 EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11, p A-186.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
49 Chastain, J.P. and al. (2001), Effectiveness of liquid-Solid separation fro treatment of Flushed Dairy Manure,

Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol.17(3): p.343-354.
50
   IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4,
chapter 10, table 4.10
Available http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/4_Agriculture.pdf, consulted on 2006/10/14.
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                   Page 41 of 50
                         separator 1 effluent liquid (Farm system scenario for years
                         2005/7/1-2006).

        VSL =            Fraction of volatile solids in the liquid manure directed towards
                         the lagoons after passing through the separators. This value may
                         change with the Farm System scenario specific equipment (1-
                         (VSS1 +VSS2));

        CF2 =            Methane conversion factor for the liquid storage (residual liquid
                         component to anaerobic lagoon) in the Farm System Scenario =
                         77% 51 or 0,77 for the purpose of this equation.

8.4.3. BASELINE SCENARIO SYSTEM: Methane emissions (CH4)
       (CH4) resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the baseline scenario system
       (See Chapter 7)

        EBCH4 = ((VSc * 365 * NC * Bov * CW/1000) + (VSH * 365 * NH * BOH *
                  HW/1000)) * MCFb * GWPCH4 * 0.67 ; 52;

8.4.4. BASELINE SCENARIO SYSTEM: Methane emission factor (CH4)
       This factor considers the proportion of volatile solids retained and what remains
       in the lagoons.

        MCFb =           Methane emission factor for the baseline scenario system

        MCFb =           VSLb * CF3

        VSLb =           Fraction of volatile solids in the liquid manure and directed towards
                         the lagoons in the baseline scenario system: 1,0

        CF3 =            Methane conversion factor for the liquid storage with a baseline
                         scenario system using anaerobic lagoon: 77% 53 or 0,77 for the
                         purpose of this equation.

8.4.5. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO: Nitrous oxide emissions (N2O)
       (N2O) emissions resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the Farm System
       scenario (mechanical solid-liquid separation)

        DN2O = ((NEC * 365 * NC * CW/1000) + (NEH* 365 * NH * HW/1000)) *
                  NFUS* GWPN2O * 44/28: 54;


51
   IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4,
chapter 10, table 4.10
Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/4_Agriculture.pdf, consulted on 2006/12/09 .
52 EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
53
    EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
54
    EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, annex 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                 Page 42 of 50
        NEC =            Average Nitrogen excretion rate for dairy cows: 0.44 kg of nitrogen
                         per day per 1000kg mass;

        NEH =            Average Nitrogen excretion rate for heifers: 0.31 kg of nitrogen per
                         day per 1000kg mass;

        NFUS=            Nitrous oxide emission factor in the Farm System scenario.

        GWPN2O =          Nitrogen Global Warming Potential = 310

        44/28=           conversion of N2O-N emissions to N2O emissions

8.4.6. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO: Nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) emission factor
       (N2O) emissions resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the Farm System
       scenario (mechanical separation).

        NFUS = ((NS1 + NS2)* NF1) + (NL * NF2)) 55

        NS1 =            Percentage of nitrogen retained by the first separator 40% or 0,4
                         for the purpose of this equation;

        NS2 =            Percentage of nitrogen retained by the second separator 24% or
                         0,24 for the purpose of this equation. This factor was based on
                         the hypothesis that a second separator would remove 40% of the
                         60% residual volatile solids from separator 1 effluent liquid (Farm
                         system scenario for years 2005/7/1-2006).

        NF1 =            Nitrous oxide emission factor for the bedding (dry management):
                         0,005 kg N2O-N/ kg Nitrogen excreted for solid storage as per
                         IPCC (2006)56.

        NL =             Percentage of nitrogen in liquid manure which is directed towards
                         the lagoons after passing through the separators;

        NF2 =            Nitrous oxide emission factor for the liquid storage (residual liquid
                         component): 0 kg N2O-N/ kg Nitrogen excreted for anaerobic
                         lagoon as per IPCC (2006)57.




55
  IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4,
chapter 10.
Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/4_Agriculture.pdf, consulted on 2006/10/14.
56IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4,

chapter 10, Table 10.21.
Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/4_Agriculture.pdf, consulted on 2006/10/14.
57 IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4,

chapter 10, Table 10.21.
Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/4_Agriculture.pdf, consulted on 2006/10/14.
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                 Page 43 of 50
8.4.7. BASELINE SCENARIO SYSTEM Nitrous emissions (N2O)
       (N2O) emissions resulting from the liquid and solid phases in the baseline
       scenario system

       DBN20 = ((NEC * 365 * NC * Cw/1000) + (NEH * 365 * NH * Hw/1000)) *
                 NF2 * GWPN2O * 44/28

       NF2=            Nitrous oxide emission factor for the baseline scenario system: 0
                       kg N2O-N/ kg Nitrogen excreted for anaerobic lagoon as per IPCC
                       (2006).

       NEC =           Average Nitrogen excretion rate for dairy cows: 0.44 kg of nitrogen
                       per day per 1000kg mass;

       NEH =           Average Nitrogen excretion rate for heifers: 0.31 kg of nitrogen per
                       day per 1000kg mass;

       GWPN2O =          Nitrogen Global Warming Potential = 310

8.4.8. FARM SYSTEM SCENARIO – Carbon Dioxide CO2

       ECO2 = Cus * Eef

       Cus =           US Farm equipment electricity consumption MWH

       Eef =   CO2 Electricity emission factor for California = 0,337 tCO2 /mwh58




58Energy Information Administration, US dept. of Energy, State Electricity Profiles 2004, p.20
Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sep2004.pdf

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                           Page 44 of 50
CHAPTER 9: TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

    9.1     General information
    This section presents the total emissions and reductions per scenario, per gas. It also
    lists the principal references for the data used in the quantification.

    Total reduction (RT)
    The total reduction of GHG emissions for this farm is calculated based on the
    summation of avoided CH4 and N2O emissions. Total emissions reduction is obtained
    by subtracting the emissions in the Farm System scenario from the baseline
    scenario.


          Table 5: CH4 reductions and CO2 emissions per year and total for the project

                 US Farm System -
          Year       Scenario              Baseline Scenario                   Reductions           Emissions
                        CH4                        CH4                            CH4                 CO2
                  t CH4       t CO2e       t CH4       t CO2e          t CH4          t CO2e      t CO2
                    B            C           D            E            (B-D)           (C-E)
          2001       208         4 367        335         7 035              127            2 668  55,2
          2002       547        11 479        881       18 491               334            7 012  55,2
          2003       547        11 479        881       18 491               334            7 012  55,2
          2004       547        11 479        881       18 491               334            7 012  55,2
          2005       446         9 375        881       18 491               434            9 116  55,2
          2006       346         7 271        881       18 491               534          11 219   55,2
                                                                   Total reductions CH4 - tCO2e Total CO2
                                                                                          44 039   331


             Table 6: N2O emissions and total reductions per year and for the project

                 US Farm System -
          Year   Scenario                  Baseline Scenario            Emissions              Total
                                                                                              Emission
                           N2O                     N2O                     N2O               Reductions
                  tN20       tCO2e          tN20       tCO2e           tN20       tCO2e     CH4+N2O+CO2
                    B            C           D           E            (B-D)        (C-E)
          2001       623             193           0           0             623      193               2 419
          2002     1 052             326           0           0           1 052      326               6 631
          2003     1 052             326           0           0           1 052      326               6 631
          2004     1 052             326           0           0           1 052      326               6 631
          2005     1 367             424           0           0           1 367      424               8 637
          2006     1 683             522           0           0           1 683      522              10 643
                                                                   Total réductions
                                                                   N2O –
                                                                   tCO2e            2 117   tCO2e      41 592



    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                  Page 45 of 50
9.2     Research protocol for data and calculation

Primary data used for calculation were provided partly by the farmer, the agronomist
firm and by the mean of scientific articles from different Universities on December 15,
2006; the latter collected samples of manure upstream and downstream from the
separation process (See 2.1 -General Information and Preface – Item 4). As for the
emissions factors and information relating to the tendencies and laws of the state of
California, information was gathered from public sources and documents produced by
either the state government or Air Regulator. However, the main source of information
used to calculate GHG emissions reduction was EPA 2005 (Environmental Protection
Agency) with data specific to California, the IPCC 2006 (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change). When information was not available, we referred to university
reports pertaining to this particular subject. Thereafter, we referred to the Air Quality
Board to seek information about the Californian good practices pertaining to manure
management in dairy farms, as well as specific studies for the region of San Joaquin
Valley. The description of US Farm Systems equipment is based on US Patent
6531057 documentation.

9.3     Calculations limits and uncertainty

The calculation methodology set out in this report should be used for dairy cow manure
management only. Moreover, the coefficient factors will need to be updated, in the
years to come.

All factors and equations were obtained from IPCC 2006 or EPA 2005 as described in
the footnotes of the preceding quantification section. Each of these factors has its own
uncertainty level. Some of them, for instance the Methane conversion factors (MCF)
for the different types of manure management systems, were estimated by different
IPCC Expert Groups referring to different studies (Solid storage: Amon et al. (2001)
and Uncovered anaerobic lagoon: Mangino et al. (2001))59. Moreover, all factors used
in this quantification originate from country specific data which reduces the range of
uncertainty. Thus, the quantification presented in this project tends toward IPCC Tier II
method rather than the more uncertain Tier I methodology. Consequently, based on
the IPCC uncertainty estimation for Tier II method for CH4, we could estimate the
uncertainty range for the factors to be +/- 20%. Based on the EPA manure
management emissions estimation for the American Inventory, we could also conclude
that the N2O emission source, in the case of manure management, has a larger
uncertainty range (-16%,+24%) than the CH4 although the N2O emissions, in this
project, represent a small percentage of the overall emissions (3%).60




59 IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (2006), volume 4,
chapter 10, Table 10.17
Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/4_Agriculture.pdf, consulted on 2007/2/1.
60 EPA (2005), Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sink 1990-2004, Chapter 6, Agriculture, p.11.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                 Page 46 of 50
The efficiency factor used for the mechanical separation (40%) represents the
approximate mean efficiency rate for either Total Solids or for Volatile solids in different
University studies including Chastain (2001)61. Several factors could influence the
performance of the mechanical separator. Among them,

                  maintenance to clean the screen openings;
                  percentage of suspended solids removable physically;
                  small size of the openings in the screen, etc.

US Farms separators include sprinklers that maintain the screen openings clear. The
use of milk parlour waste water from the processing pit instead of using lagoon water
increases the efficiency of the separator because it does not contain as much
dissolved organic matter. US farm separators feature screens varying from 0,008'' to
0,045''. These screen sizes are smaller than most of the screens analysed in studies.
Therefore, these screens increase the probability to retain a higher percentage of small
organic matter components. However, in a more general review of literature, the
efficiency of screens can vary for all those reasons from 20% to 60% efficiency. Thus
the separator efficiency factor, in the project scenario, is neither very optimistic nor
very conservative but reflects the above context.

On the other hand, the reduction of emissions is quantified based on historical data
instead of future hypothetical data, reducing the uncertainty related to project
implementation.

According to general market rules, uncertainty related to international standard are
accepted by offset purchaser as a factor imbedded in the commodity. However, over
and above the uncertainty related to the factors, an additional 10% uncertainty is
declared. This margin covers errors and omissions that may have occurred during the
quantification process that is custom designed for the client. This position is
considered to be conservative and has been stated to protect market integrity.
Therefore, it should be seen by the purchaser not as a reserve but more as a safe
harbour. To reduce the uncertainty related to errors and omissions, conservative
quantification decisions were made. For instance,

                  emission reductions for indirect nitrogen (solid storage project versus
                  anaerobic lagoon) were neglected;
                  CO2 emissions (less than 1% of total) were included;
                  reduction in artificial fertilizer and sand hauling for bedding were
                  neglected;
                  emissions reduction generated by pumping from a processing pit rather
                  than pumping from a distant lagoon were omitted as well as reduced
                  lagoon dredging;
                  conservative direct Nitrogen emission factor was selected.




61 Chastain, J.P. and al. (2001), Effectiveness of liquid-Solid separation fro treatment of Flushed Dairy Manure,
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol.17(3): p.343-354.

GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                       Page 47 of 50
CHAPTER 10: PROJECTION

    10.1 Credit allocation
    Effective immediately, the quantity of GHG emissions (CO2 Eq) will be reduced due to
    the manure management system, which separates the solids before the manure
    passes through the lagoons.
    Projection according to the objectives: since the farm commits to continue using the
    US Farms’ manure management system, it will contribute in reducing the greenhouse
    gas emissions. Furthermore, the equipment useful life should be approximately 10 to
    15 years without the need for major changes. And, the reduction should be constant if
    the farm’s objectives are met.


    10.2 GHG Offsets and Certified Emission Reduction (CER)
    Although the client chose the OTC (Over The Counter) Market, it is appropriate to
    introduce a benchmark alternative, which is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), to
    clarify the market terminology and justify the client’s choice.

    The CCX commodity is called GHG offsets. GHG offsets are determined based on
    GHG Emissions Reduction Projects. These projects use the principle of the reference
    year (CCX) and 2002 will be selected for this reference. Therefore, according to the
    CCX system of allowance rules, the emissions reduction in 2002 will be deducted from
    the following years, starting in 2003 as it is the first year the farmer is eligible for GHG
    offsets (e.g. Offsets 2003 = R2003 - R2002, CCX).62

    On the North American voluntary carbon market, the OTC (Over-The-Counter) market
    is another option. The GHG offsets (CCX) equivalent commodity is called CER
    (Certified Emission Reduction). The base year is equivalent to the reference year and
    1999 was selected for the quantification (Chicago Agreement).

    Quantification and verification criteria require that a project activity be additional. A
    project activity is considered additional if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are
    reduced to a level lower than the existing emissions before the project activity starts.
    The Project Owner shall demonstrate to the Certification Entity that there is a clear
    evidence that a project is additional as the appropriate baseline was selected and the
    emissions were found to be below the level of the selected baseline scenario.63




    62   CCX, Rulebook Chapter 9.1 Offsets for agricultural Methane Emission
    63 International Emissions Trading Association, The Voluntary Carbon Standard Verification Protocol and Criteria
    (Proposed Version 2), p20.
    http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/Voluntary_Carbon_Standard_Version_2_final.pdf

    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                                 Page 48 of 50
                 Table 7: GHG offsets (CCX) and CER (OTC) per year


                            Allowance                OTC
                                Year                 tCO2 equiv.
                               Goods                       CER
                                2001                   2 419
                                2002                   6 631
                                2003                   6 631
                                2004                   6 631
                                2005                   8 637
                                2006                   10 643

                               Total                  41 592

10.3 Future objectives and credit allocation
The CER forecast is based on the farm separator technology: no change will be
implemented before a new, more efficient and more profitable treatment technology
will be available. . However, due to the long-term US Farm equipment useful life, it is
expected that the farmer remains in the same situation until 2010.

            Table 8: Future CER (OTC) and GHG offsets (CCX) Objectives


                             Allowance               OTC
                                Year                 tCO2 equiv.
                                2007                   10 643
                                2008                   10 643

                                2009                   10 643

                                2010                   10 643



                         Projected Total              42 572
Offsets use
Due to the significant changes being initiated in California towards the GHG reduction,
the acquired offsets (CER) will be used for market trading.


GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm             Page 49 of 50
CHAPTER 11 : ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    11.1 Environmental impact description

    The Government is responsible for performing the formal assessment concerning
    the environmental impacts. To this effect, each farm owns an operating licence
    issued by the government. This licence confirms that the farm meets the
    environmental requirements. No studies or environmental reports are conducted.
    However, further to our evaluation we trust that the project will incure no negative
    environmental impacts due to the following reasons:

    The flush system, the lagoons and the processing pit were designed and built
    with a hydrologic barrier to prevent any seepage loss towards the water tables.

         1. The use of separators does not produce any additional GHG emissions in
            the atmosphere.
         2. The use of separators reduces the hauling of bedding material.
         3. The use of separators reduces organic wastes.

    The GHG issues became a priority in the state of California. By 2050 the new
    target is nothing less than an 80% reduction of the GHG emissions based on the
    emissions of 199064. To this effect, some adapted legislation is anticipated in the
    years to come. Therefore, why not initiate changes towards a reduction of the
    GHG emissions, similar to the US Farm Systems scenario using mechanical
    solid-liquid separation. In fact, the GHG reduction, specifically methane, happens
    at source, with better manure management practices.

    11.2 EIA

    An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not necessary for this US Farm
    Systems scenario as it uses a certified manure treatment and there is no use of
    specific toxic chemicals65. The system US Farm operates a mechanical
    separation system that pumps the liquid manure, therefore incurring a low
    electricity consumption.



    64
      Office of the Governor, Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Reduce
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2006/9/27. Consulted on 2007/2/7.

    Available at: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/
    65
       UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC) (2006),
    Clean development mechanism (CDM), call for inputs,
    http://cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/meth/Meth08repan1_pdd.pdf, site consulté le 23 mai 2006.

    GHG Emission Reductions Quantification Report / BOS Farm                      Page 50 of 50

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:153
posted:1/28/2011
language:English
pages:50