California to regulate cattle emissions for greenhouse gases

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/California-targets-dairy-cows-to-combat-global-10641403.php

GALT, Calif. (AP) — California is taking its fight against global warming to the farm. The nation's leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock.

Despite strong opposition from farmers, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September that for the first time regulates heat-trapping gases from livestock operations and landfills.

Cattle and other farm animals are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Methane is released when they belch, pass gas and make manure.

"If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming," said Ryan McCarthy, a science advisor for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up rules to implement the new law.

Livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, with beef and dairy production accounting for the bulk of it, according to a 2013 United Nations report.

Since the passage of its landmark global warming law in 2006, California has been reducing carbon emissions from cars, trucks, homes and factories, while boosting production of renewable energy.

In the nation's largest milk-producing state, the new law requires dairies and other livestock operations to reduce methane emissions 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. State officials are developing the regulations, which take effect in 2024.

"We expect that this package ... and everything we're doing on climate, does show an effective model forward for others," McCarthy said.

But dairy farmers say the new regulations will drive up costs when they're already struggling with five years of drought, low milk prices and rising labor costs. They're also concerned about a newly signed law that will boost overtime pay for farmworkers.

"It just makes it more challenging. We're continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don't exist," said Paul Sousa, director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen.

The dairy industry could be forced to move production to states and countries with fewer regulations, leading to higher emissions globally, Sousa said.

"We think it's very foolish for the state of California to be taking this position," said Rob Vandenheuvel, general manager for the Milk Producers Council. "A single state like California is not going to make a meaningful impact on the climate."

Regulators are looking for ways to reduce so-called enteric emissions — methane from the bodily functions of cows. That could eventually require changes to what cattle eat.

But the biggest target is dairy manure, which accounts for about a quarter of the state's methane emissions.

State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that's not nearly enough to equip the state's roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with the local utility, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the grid.

But co-owner Arlin Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer, says he couldn't afford one if he had to buy and run it himself.

"The bottom line is it's going to negatively impact the economics of the California dairy industry," Van Groningen said of the new law. "In the dairy business, the margins are so slim that something like this will force us out of state."

State officials say they're committed to making sure the new regulations work for farmers and the environment.

"There's a real opportunity here to get very significant emissions reductions at fairly low cost, and actually in a way that can bring economic benefits to farmers," Ryan said.

**AlmightyWalrus**

"It just makes it more challenging. We're continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don't exist," said Paul Sousa, director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen.

Translation: we don't want to pay for the externalities we cause.

**whembly**

Nice way to drive out business.

I'm sure other states will take 'em.

**Rosebuddy**

Industrial cattle farming shouldn't exist, anyway.

**Frazzled**

Rosebuddy wrote:
Industrial cattle farming shouldn't exist, anyway.

Under this regulation, thats the only kind of cattle farming that could exist.

You know thats the real point right? Its a crony capitalism bill to drive out small and midsized dairy farms because only the Big Ag can afford the regulation.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Rosebuddy wrote:
Industrial cattle farming shouldn't exist, anyway.

It could easily be downsized, sure. We waste tons of food every day, and THAT needs to end before we work on slowing down farming. But for the population of humanity (and our meat eating pets) to sustain itself, some industrial farming is required. We simply can't produce the amount of food needed to sustain our population with local small farms, and that's not even counting areas that can't raise cattle.

Open to suggestions though...

**DarkTraveler777**

State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that's not nearly enough to equip the state's roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with the local utility, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the grid.

That is a pretty clever solution to the problem. I wonder if it is like solar power, where the farm gets a % of revenue generated from the electricity their digersters produce. If that is the case, the complaint about costs being too high seems short sighted. Utilize the state grants to help get a digerster in place, and apply the savings in electrical costs to the cost of the digerster. Over a few years you'd break even, and then eventually make a profit. But that is if this system is set up like some solar power systems in the state.

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

**CptJake**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that's not nearly enough to equip the state's roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with the local utility, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the grid.

That is a pretty clever solution to the problem. I wonder if it is like solar power, where the farm gets a % of revenue generated from the electricity their digersters produce. If that is the case, the complaint about costs being too high seems short sighted. Utilize the state grants to help get a digerster in place, and apply the savings in electrical costs to the cost of the digerster. Over a few years you'd break even, and then eventually make a profit. But that is if this system is set up like some solar power systems in the state.

How many years do you think it takes a ranch to recoup 4 million through energy savings costs? What is 'a few years'?

**kronk**

I don't have an answer for it, but you'll have to take my steak knife and ribeye from my cold, dead hands.

Good luck, you emaciated, vegetarian hippies!

Ha, ha!

**DarkTraveler777**

CptJake wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

If your labor force can't complete the work your company needs done in a regular work day, you need to either pay overtime or hire more employees. I don't see the problem here? If smaller dairies can't compete because they can't pay overtime, there is something wrong with those businesses.

CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that's not nearly enough to equip the state's roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with the local utility, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the grid.

That is a pretty clever solution to the problem. I wonder if it is like solar power, where the farm gets a % of revenue generated from the electricity their digersters produce. If that is the case, the complaint about costs being too high seems short sighted. Utilize the state grants to help get a digerster in place, and apply the savings in electrical costs to the cost of the digerster. Over a few years you'd break even, and then eventually make a profit. But that is if this system is set up like some solar power systems in the state.

How many years do you think it takes a ranch to recoup 4 million through energy savings costs? What is 'a few years'?

Dunno how long it would take a ranch to recoup the costs. Presumably the dairies wouldn't be paying the full amount due to the state grants available. It is also unclear in the article if the 4 million dollar price was for all digesters or for the particular one used at that 1500 head dairy. I would imagine that those pieces of equipment aren't "one size fits all" and smaller, cheaper units are available for smaller dairies, but I really know little about farm equipment.

But to me a "few years" would be 5-10 years. For recouping the costs of major infrastructure upgrades that seems reasonable for a business.

**Frazzled**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

If your labor force can't complete the work your company needs done in a regular work day, you need to either pay overtime or hire more employees. I don't see the problem here? If smaller dairies can't compete because they can't pay overtime, there is something wrong with those businesses.

If smaller dairies can't compete because large dairies spend campaign money to lobby for laws that drive them out, thats crony capitalism, not something wrong with those businesses.

**DarkTraveler777**

Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

If your labor force can't complete the work your company needs done in a regular work day, you need to either pay overtime or hire more employees. I don't see the problem here? If smaller dairies can't compete because they can't pay overtime, there is something wrong with those businesses.

If smaller dairies can't compete because large dairies spend campaign money to lobby for laws that drive them out, thats crony capitalism, not something wrong with those businesses.

So explain to me the pro-side of not paying workers overtime? Other than keeping money in a company's pockets.

**Frazzled**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

If your labor force can't complete the work your company needs done in a regular work day, you need to either pay overtime or hire more employees. I don't see the problem here? If smaller dairies can't compete because they can't pay overtime, there is something wrong with those businesses.

If smaller dairies can't compete because large dairies spend campaign money to lobby for laws that drive them out, thats crony capitalism, not something wrong with those businesses.

So explain to me the pro-side of not paying workers overtime? Other than keeping money in a company's pockets.

Different issues. Its a government attempt to drive smaller companies out of business. If it wasn't a government attempt I'd have no issues with it.

To be clear, I am a Texan who swore to never ever go back to California. I gave it enough chances to try to kill me. If California wants to

the consumers and small business in favor of BigAg, I say more power to em. Burn baby burn.

**WrentheFaceless**

Cow farts are serious business

**LordofHats**

All this does is show the ineffectiveness of state level solutions to national problems.

**Tannhauser42**

My first thought when reading the headline was how would you control how much methane a cow produces? I had this mental image of a farmer saying "sorry, Bessie, you've hit your quota for the day so I gotta stick this cork in your butt."

**DarkTraveler777**

Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

If your labor force can't complete the work your company needs done in a regular work day, you need to either pay overtime or hire more employees. I don't see the problem here? If smaller dairies can't compete because they can't pay overtime, there is something wrong with those businesses.

If smaller dairies can't compete because large dairies spend campaign money to lobby for laws that drive them out, thats crony capitalism, not something wrong with those businesses.

So explain to me the pro-side of not paying workers overtime? Other than keeping money in a company's pockets.

Different issues. Its a government attempt to drive smaller companies out of business. If it wasn't a government attempt I'd have no issues with it.

To be clear, I am a Texan who swore to never ever go back to California. I gave it enough chances to try to kill me. If California wants to the consumers and small business in favor of BigAg, I say more power to em. Burn baby burn.

Source on this being a government ploy to cater to Big Ag?

Without that, it just seems like small operators wanting to dodge paying their workers appropriately.

And, I need to revise my earlier statements. I misread the article and thought the overtime pay was a new thing for the dairy workers and not a boost to existing overtime pay. It doesn't change my overall stance that employers should conform with labor laws and pay their employees properly according to the law, and if those costs can't be absorbed the business shouldn't be in business.

**Frazzled**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
My first thought when reading the headline was how would you control how much methane a cow produces? I had this mental image of a farmer saying "sorry, Bessie, you've hit your quota for the day so I gotta stick this cork in your butt."

Yes it lends itself to many bad images.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Source on this being a government ploy to cater to Big Ag?

Without that, it just seems like small operators wanting to dodge paying their workers appropriately.

Its an increased cost that can be afforded by the BigAg with connectiosn to the nice government programs. The smaller farms cannot absorb the cost. EDIT (sorry that was from something from work)

**DarkTraveler777**

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Source on this being a government ploy to cater to Big Ag?

Without that, it just seems like small operators wanting to dodge paying their workers appropriately.

Its an increased cost that can be afforded by the BigAg with connectiosn to the nice government programs. The smaller farms cannot absorb the cost. What the hell do you think it is?

Without doing research on the exact law that raised overtime pay, my first instinct would be to think it was a cost of living increase like the other increases in wages that have occurred within the state.

A government conspiracy wouldn't be the first place my mind would go.

**Frazzled**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Source on this being a government ploy to cater to Big Ag?

Without that, it just seems like small operators wanting to dodge paying their workers appropriately.

Its an increased cost that can be afforded by the BigAg with connectiosn to the nice government programs. The smaller farms cannot absorb the cost. What the hell do you think it is?

Without doing research on the exact law that raised overtime pay, my first instinct would be to think it was a cost of living increase like the other increases in wages that have occurred within the state.

A government conspiracy wouldn't be the first place my mind would go.

Step back from the overtime issue. I am in your corner in finding that to be BS.
I am talking about the regulation requiring, effectively industrial scrubbing units for...cows.

**LordofHats**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
My first thought when reading the headline was how would you control how much methane a cow produces? I had this mental image of a farmer saying "sorry, Bessie, you've hit your quota for the day so I gotta stick this cork in your butt."

The most practical way is a cap on how many cows there are.

Beyond that there's probably some scientific way of controlling feed and numbers to keep gases in check.

**Frazzled**

Easier, ship the herds across state lines. Advantage Nevada!

**TheCustomLime**

"It just makes it more challenging. We're continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don't exist," said Paul Sousa, director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen.

The dairy industry could be forced to move production to states and countries with fewer regulations, leading to higher emissions globally, Sousa said.

Ahh yes, this old threat that business roll out every time Sacramento does something to slightly inconvenience them. The world needs to do something about methane emissions and it's nice to see Sacramento doing something about it. Businesses should be held accountable for the damage they do to the environment.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:
Easier, ship the herds across state lines. Advantage Nevada!

Honestly, while the dairy farmers seem to be getting the attention of the reports, I'm not entirely sure why. Does the law actually target them, or just cows in general?

Dairy cows don't make many green house gases;

Dairy as you may notice is all the way over there on the right, even lower than generally carbon efficient chicken, tuna, and eggs. Beef cows are the ones who are feed feed to bulk them up, and the ones who produce the most green house gases total (lamb surprisingly is even less carbon efficient but the US isn't huge on lamb). If California wanted to make a bad law to control greenhouse gases from farm animals, would it have killed them to actually target the leading source (which is strictly beef cattle)?

**Frazzled**

The law applies to them.

**DarkTraveler777**

Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Source on this being a government ploy to cater to Big Ag?

Without that, it just seems like small operators wanting to dodge paying their workers appropriately.

Its an increased cost that can be afforded by the BigAg with connectiosn to the nice government programs. The smaller farms cannot absorb the cost. What the hell do you think it is?

Without doing research on the exact law that raised overtime pay, my first instinct would be to think it was a cost of living increase like the other increases in wages that have occurred within the state.

A government conspiracy wouldn't be the first place my mind would go.

Step back from the overtime issue. I am in your corner in finding that to be BS.
I am talking about the regulation requiring, effectively industrial scrubbing units for...cows.

Glad we agree on the overtime thing!

We probably won't agree on the poo scrubbers, though. Cows and the methane they produce have been a known environmental problem for years. I think using their poo to generate electricity is a pretty brilliant idea.

As for the BigAg thing, I dunno. I am not a fan of lobbyists pushing their companies' agendas over the interests of the little guy, but I am for pushing forward the science on renewable energy, green solutions to problems, etc. If BigAg lobbied for these poo scrubbers as a means to knock small farms out of business but the scrubbers actually help the environment, then I'd have to call it a push.

**BigWaaagh**

I got it! We relocate the cattle to the slopes of volcanoes, which, according to very reliable sources, cause more atmospheric CO2 than anything else, and build gigantic intake exhausts with scrubbers to collect both bovine and magma-related emissions all at once!

**NinthMusketeer**

Something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the undercurrent of water use. I strongly suspect that this regulation is expected to drive out at least some of the industry which will take its water consumption with it. Packaging it as an environmental regulation makes liberals happier and means no one needs to bring up how California has a water problem. Ultimately I think this is a good thing, but primarily because it will create more investment into reclaiming methane and doing something useful with it. Just letting that gas loose is a pretty big waste of resources all things considered.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easier, ship the herds across state lines. Advantage Nevada!

Honestly, while the dairy farmers seem to be getting the attention of the reports, I'm not entirely sure why. Does the law actually target them, or just cows in general?

Dairy cows don't make many green house gases;

Dairy as you may notice is all the way over there on the right, even lower than generally carbon efficient chicken, tuna, and eggs. Beef cows are the ones who are feed feed to bulk them up, and the ones who produce the most green house gases total (lamb surprisingly is even less carbon efficient but the US isn't huge on lamb). If California wanted to make a bad law to control greenhouse gases from farm animals, would it have killed them to actually target the leading source (which is strictly beef cattle)?

It looks like that is based on per-unit basis of meat. So cows may be much less, but if there are 100x as many cows as anything else...

**Relapse**

Frazzled wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

As for the farmers who are griping about rising costs to pay workers overtime, feth off.

It is a legitimate complaint. If labor costs go up, they have to charge more for the product. If the market won't bear that cost at the same demand point, the smaller farms go out of business (the bigger farms due to economy of scale can usually absorb more of the labor cost hikes).

Part of this gov't forced labor costs is the price of a gallon of milk going up, which hurts the same folks the increased minimum wage is supposed to help.

If your labor force can't complete the work your company needs done in a regular work day, you need to either pay overtime or hire more employees. I don't see the problem here? If smaller dairies can't compete because they can't pay overtime, there is something wrong with those businesses.

If smaller dairies can't compete because large dairies spend campaign money to lobby for laws that drive them out, thats crony capitalism, not something wrong with those businesses.

Most people don't know jack about the problems small farmers face or what the danger is in letting a few large corporations control the food supply.

**sourclams**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
It looks like that is based on per-unit basis of meat. So cows may be much less, but if there are 100x as many cows as anything else...

Of the primary meat-producing breeds including cattle, hogs, and chickens in the US, cattle numbers will be very much the minority. The industry slaughters about 600k cattle every week for meat, ~2 million hogs, and upteen million chickens.

Cattle numbers have been in a stragiht-line decline for decades but is offset by raising heavier animals that produce more meat per-capita.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

If smaller dairies can't compete because large dairies spend campaign money to lobby for laws that drive them out, thats crony capitalism, not something wrong with those businesses.

Most people don't know jack about the problems small farmers face or what the danger is in letting a few large corporations control the food supply.

Dairy margins are notoriously thin due to a few factors:

'Standard Make' for cheese in the US is cheddar. The rest of the world consumes gouda. This generally makes US cheese a difficult export item except within NAFTA countries. This is a smaller issue compared to:

Price floors in milk set by the US gov't genuinely promote over production. Imagine there was a number that your price could not go below. You would be incented to produce as much as you possibly could. This particularly encourages the 'least cost operator' which is generally going to be a large commercial entity due to economies of scale. Overall this is probably good because the population generally benefits from high production and the accompanying low prices. You might not feel that milk prices are cheap, but they are at the dairy level. The processor and retail level is generally where they remain 'sticky' and where the money is made.

The dairy industry is also relatively fragmented. Every state has got some sort of dairy operation, and many of them have a large-scale commercial operator. If you go out for a drive in the country and see black and white or brown cows, that's a dairy. The more modern dairies with larger herds (i.e. commercial operators) are most likely to have the best waste disposal and highest animal husbandry standards. No commercial operator can really treat its animals poorly, but that's particularly true for dairies where excess stress will result in poor milk production. Poor milk production is going to result in lower output, less contribution to overhead costs, and far less margin in an industry with very thin margins.

TLDR; almost all of the myths about commercial food production are false, especially as they apply to commercial dairies.