specified gas emitters egulationcontent.ccrasa.com/library_1/1427 - selection for residual...

Prepared by: Climate Change Central/Alberta Agriculture/University of Alberta

SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION

SSEELLEECCTTIIOONN FFOORR RREESSIIDDUUAALL FFEEEEDD IINNTTAAKKEE IINN BBEEEEFF CCAATTTTLLEE

QQUUAANNTTIIFFIICCAATTIIOONN PPRROOTTOOCCOOLL

SEPTEMBER 2009 Draft Version 2.0

Draft RFI Selection Protocol September 2009

Page i


Page ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... ii

1.0 Project and Methodology Scope and Description ...................................................... 1 1.1 Protocol Scope and Description ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Glossary of New Terms .................................................................................................. 7

2.0 Quantification Development and Justification ........................................................... 9 2.1 Identification of Sources and Sinks (SS’s) for the Project .............................................. 9 2.2 Baseline Scenario .......................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1. Identification and Assessment of Possible Baseline Scenarios ................... 14 2.3 Selection and Justification of Baseline Scenario .......................................................... 15 2.4 Identification of SSs for the Baseline ........................................................................... 15 2.5 Selection of Relevant Project and Baseline SS’s .......................................................... 20 2.6 Quantification of Reductions, Removals and Reversals of Relevant SS’s ................... 24

2.6.1 Quantification Approaches .............................................................................. 24 2.6.2. Contingent Data Approaches ....................................................................... 36 2.7 Management of Data Quality ........................................................................................ 36

2.7.1 Record Keeping ............................................................................................... 36 2.7.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) ................................................. 36

APPENDIX A: ................................................................................................................................ 38 Relevant Emission Factors...................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX B: ................................................................................................................................. 41 Sample Calculation ................................................................................................................. 41

APPENDIX C: ................................................................................................................................ 49 Testing Criteria for RFI .......................................................................................................... 49

List of Figures FIGURE 1.1 Process Flow Diagram for Project Condition 2 FIGURE 1.2 Process Flow Diagram for Baseline Condition 3 FIGURE 2.1 Project Element Life Cycle Chart 6 FIGURE 2.2 Baseline Element Life Cycle Chart 12

List of Tables TABLE 2.1 Project SS’s 7 TABLE 2.2 Baseline SS’s 13 TABLE 2.3 Comparison of SS’s 17 TABLE 2.4 Quantification Procedures 21 TABLE 2.5 Contingent Data Collection Procedures 24


Page 1

1.0 Project and Methodology Scope and Description

The opportunity for generating carbon offsets with this protocol arises from the direct and indirect reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from selecting beef cattle with increased feed efficiency through the genetic merit trait known as low residual feed intake (RFI). This protocol is applicable throughout the beef cattle production chain. This quantification protocol is written for the beef cattle managers or project developer, and familiarity with, or general understanding of beef cattle production practices is expected.

1.1 Protocol Scope and Description

This protocol quantifies emission reductions in methane emissions from calves, cows and bulls (cattle) and emissions reductions from manure handling, storage and application. FIGURE 1.1 offers a process flow diagram for a typical project. GHG reductions (primarily methane from enteric fermentation) are due to the reduced feed intake of cattle that utilize their feed more efficiently. This also results in less manure production from low RFI cattle. The necessary elements for implementation of this protocol are:

• The seedstock breeder will be breeding low RFI breeding animals or semen for sale. It is expected that breeding stock/semen for sale will have certified low RFI values and accuracies as part of the sale information;

• The cow-calf operator purchases the certified low RFI breeding stock and uses them in matings to produce progeny. The genetic merit of offspring from such a mating will be equivalent to half the genetic merit of the sire plus half the genetic merit of the dam. Thus each progeny is assigned an expected RFI value equal to the average or mean of the parents.

• The majority of the progeny will be sold, with accompanying paperwork to backgrounding operations or feedlots for finishing.

Protocol Approach

Residual feed intake (RFI) is a measure of feed efficiency, and it represents the amount of feed consumed, net of the animal’s requirements for maintenance of body weight and production. In beef cattle, RFI is defined as the difference between an animal's actual feed intake and its expected feed intake based on its body size and growth over a specified period. The residual portion of feed intake can be used to identify animals that deviate from their expected feed intake, with efficient animals having lower (negative) RFI values. Cattle with low RFI produce less methane from enteric fermentation and also less manure (methane and N2O) relative to higher RFI cattle, due to that fact that they consume less feed for the same body weight and level of production. This reduction in feed intake is captured by the RFI value.


Page 2

The Beef RFI Selection Protocol serves as a generic ‘recipe’ for project developers to follow in order to meet the applicability, measurement, monitoring, and GHG quantification requirements. There are specific requirements listed in this protocol that project developers must meet in order to qualify for project eligibility (next section). Any flexibility mechanisms allowing a deviation from the prescribed project eligibility will be stated within the Protocol Flexibility section below. The Beef RFI Selection protocol quantifies emissions reductions on the basis of the kg of dry matter feed intake per day. Thus, the starting point for all quantification is the determination of potential sire’s or replacement heifer’s RFI in comparison to other similar animals or ‘base year animals’ under standardized test conditions. Guidelines for standardized test conditions are outlined in more detail in Appendix C of this protocol. The baseline condition for projects applying this protocol is defined as the Dry Matter Intake (DMI) of the base year animals of similar weight grouping, class and ration. This is compared to the project condition of known genetic merit for RFI or sires with Estimated Breeding Value (EBV) for RFI and the resultant dry matter intake. FIGURE 1.2 offers a process flow diagram for a typical baseline configuration. EBVs for RFI in the project condition must be registered with the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA), a third party, and/or an Alberta registry, confirmed by operational records, for the purpose of this protocol. Animals in the project condition have EBVs computed using a specified year as the base year or beginning of the project. The mean EBV of a particular trait is set to zero for all the animals born in that year or earlier. This ensures that genetic improvement relative to the animals in the baseline condition can be tracked over several years. This base year can also be used in the protocol to illustrate that practice change since that year has resulted in reductions in GHG emissions. For RFI, it is also essential that the average feed intake (DMI) of animals during the RFI test period for the base year is calculated or estimated. The project condition is defined as using low (negative) RFI EBV sires and/or replacement heifers and encompasses pens and/or pastures where the cattle are raised and fed, the facility where manure is stored, and the land where the manure is spread. The project may include a number of sites, and a variety of enterprises, but all project farms will address the activities within the boundary of the Beef RFI Selection Protocol.

Protocol Applicability

To demonstrate that a project meets the requirements under this Quantification Protocol, the project developer must supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate that:

1. The Project Developer has had beef animals in the project condition tested for RFI at an established individual animal feed intake facility listed in Appendix C to achieve a certified RFI EBV, classified as Post-weaning RFI (RFIP). These will be measured on breeding cattle (bulls and replacement heifers) when they are 8 to 13 months of age. RFI requires the measurement of actual individual animal feed intake over a specific time period (according to Appendix C). Animals with


Page 3

certified RFI EBVs from within North America can be used so long as it can be demonstrated the EBV’s are conducted within breed or genetic strain, and the registration certificates accompany the animal to Alberta.

2. If RFI EBVs have been calculated by multiplying the phenotypic RFI by the trait

heritability (e.g., 40%) then minimum accuracy values for RFI is set at 60%. If RFI EBVs have been calculated using Best Linear Unbiased Predcition (BLUP) procedures then minimum accuracy for RFI EBV is set at 40%.

3. The Project Developer must identify and provide full information and documentation from the facility generating the certified EBV(s) on any RFI tested animal(s) or purchased bulls/semen with certified RFI-EBVs. This information will be needed for verification and/or auditing requirements.

4. All qualifying cattle to be included under this protocol must have actual birth dates

registered with the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA) and/or an Alberta registry, confirmed by operational records. The date of first calf born or season of calving for a group is not acceptable for the purposes of this protocol.

5. Credit duration – first generation only within Alberta’s eight year crediting period.

This means that reductions may be claimed on the animals with low RFI EBVs and their first generation progeny only.

6. All farms in the project are currently storing manure and applying manure or

custom applying manure to land as confirmed by an affirmation from the project developer.

7. The quantification of reductions achieved by the project is based on actual

measurement and monitoring (exceptions where noted) as indicated by the proper application of this protocol.

8. The project must meet all other requirements for offset eligibility as specified in the

applicable regulation and guidance documents for the Alberta Offset System. Of particular note:

o The date of equipment installation, operating parameter changes or process reconfiguration are initiated or have effect on the project on or after January 1, 2002 as indicated by records;

o Ownership and/or title to the emission reduction offsets must be established as indicated by the necessary contracting and/or records.

Protocol Flexibility

Flexibility in applying the quantification protocol is provided to project developers in three ways:

1. Projects that do not have the appropriate data for establishing Dry Matter Intake (DMI) for animals in the baseline year (‘base year animals) may use regional data


Page 4

by animal category, diet composition and dry matter intake (DMI) for establishment of the baseline conditions or DMI can be calculated from IPCC Tier 2, NRC (2001) and/or a ration formulation computer program like CowBytesTM (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development) within animal category and ration (e.g., 650 to 750 lb steer calves on a backgrounding diet growing at 1.75 lb/day).

2. If one of the parents of a first generation progeny does not have its own certified RFI-EBV, its EBV can be assumed to be zero (meaning the average RFI for the progeny will be 50% of the certified RFI-EBV parent); and,

3. Site specific emission factors may be substituted for the generic emission factors indicated in this protocol document. The methodology for generation of these emission factors must ensure reasonable accuracy and verifiability.

If applicable, the project developer must indicate and justify why flexibility provisions have been used and provide sufficient justification for verification purposes. Note: this Beef RFI Selection quantification protocol may be bundled with other approved quantification protocols that have been designed for beef cattle operations (i.e. such as Edible Oils in Cattle Feeding Regime).


Page 5

FIGURE 1.1: Process Flow Diagram for Project Condition

P16 Electricity Usage

P7 Fuel Extraction / Processing

P8 Fuel Delivery

P17 Development

of Site

P20 Construction on Site

P22 Site Decommissioning

P18 Building Equipment

P21 Testing of Equipment

P3 Feed Production

P4 Feed Transportation

P10 Feed Consumption

P9 Farm Operation

P14 Manure Transportation

P15 Land Application

P11 Finished Cattle

Transportation

P12 Processing and Distribution

P13 Manure Storage and

Handling

P1b Cattle Production

P2 Cattle Transportation

P19 Transportation of

Equipment

P5 Production of Other Agricultural

Inputs

P6 Transportation of Other

Agricultural Inputs

P1a Cattle Husbandry


Page 6

FIGURE 1.2: Process Flow Diagram for Baseline Condition

B16 Electricity Usage

B7 Fuel Extraction / Processing

B8 Fuel Delivery

B17 Development

of Site

B20 Construction on Site

B22 Site Decommissioning

B18 Building Equipment

B21 Testing of Equipment

B3 Feed Production

B4 Feed Transportation

B10 Feed Consumption

B9 Farm Operation

B14 Manure Transportation

B15 Land Application

B11 Finished Cattle

Transportation

B12 Processing and Distribution

B13 Manure Storage and

Handling

B1b Cattle Production

B2 Cattle Transportation

B19 Transportation of

Equipment

B5 Production of Other Agricultural

Inputs

B6 Transportation of Other

Agricultural Inputs

B1a Cattle Husbandry


Page 7

1.2 Glossary of New Terms

Accuracy (of selection) Accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBVs) range

from zero to 100 and is a measure of the strength of the relationship between true breeding value and the predicted breeding value for a trait under selection. When accuracy is high, prediction of breeding values will be good, and the breeding value is less likely to change. If RFI EBVs have not been calculated using standardized Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) procedures then RFI EBVs can be approximated by multiplying the phenotypic RFI value by the heritability of RFI (40%). In a classical sense, the accuracy of such EBVs can be approximated as the square root of the heritability x 100 or 63%. Thus for this protocol the minimum accuracy values for RFI EBVs is set at 60% and

pertains to animals that have been measured for

individual animal feed intake and growth following

standard operating procedures (Arthur et al. 2001; Basarab et al. 2003; Nkrumah et al. 2006; BIF 2009)1.

Dry Matter Intake (DMI) The amount of feed an animal consumes after all of

the water has been removed from the wet and dry feeds.

Gross Energy Intake (GEI) The energy content of the dry matter intake. Enteric Emissions Emissions of methane from the cattle as part of the

digestion of feed materials. Estimated Breeding Value (EBV) Are predictions or estimates of an animal’s genetic

merit, based upon available performance information on the individual and it’s relatives. EBV is a systematic way of combining available performance information on the individual and sibs and the

1 Basarab, J.A., Price, M.A., Aalhus, J.L., Okine, E.K., Snelling W.M., and Lyle, K.L. 2003. Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83:189-204. Arthur, P.F., Renand, G. and Krauss, D. 2001. Genetic and phenotypic relationships among different measures of growth and feed efficiency in young Charolais bulls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 68:131-139.

Nkrumah, D.J., Okine, E.K., Mathison, G.W., Schnid, K., Li, C., Basarab, J.A., Price, M.A., Wang, Z. and Moore, S.S. 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 84:145-153. Crews, D.H. Jr., Carstens, G.E., Basarab, J.A., Hill, R.A. and Nielsen, M. E. 2009. CHAPTER 7 – FEED INTAKE and EFFICIENCY. In “Beef Improvement Federation Guidelines”


Page 8

progeny of the individual. Expected progeny differences (EPDs) have replaced EBVs in most breed association programs.

Expected Progeny Difference (EPD) The difference in expected performance of

future progeny of an individual, compared with expected performance of future progeny of an individual of average genetic merit in the base time frame for the genetic evaluation. EPDs are estimated from phenotypic merit of an individual and all of its relatives and are one-half of the EBV

Functional Equivalence The Project and the Baseline conditions should

provide the same function and quality of products or services. This type of comparison requires a common metric or unit of measurement (such as the number of acres farmed) for comparison between the Project and Baseline activities. In this case, it is per kg of beef produced between baseline and project.

Land Application The beneficial use of the manure and/or digestate

applied to cropland based upon crop needs and the composition of agricultural material as a source of soil amendment and/or fertility.

Residual Feed Intake (RFI) The difference between an animal’s actual feed intake and its expected feed requirements for maintenance and production. RFI values are expressed as kg of dry matter intake (DMI) per day and are standardized to 10 MJ of metabolizable energy (ME) intake per kg of DMI. For the purposes of this protocol, all RFI values calculated for breeding animals are post-weaning RFI values or RFIP as opposed to RFI values calculated during the finishing period (RFI-F) – the latter is not contemplated under this protocol. These values are certified by an Alberta animal testing facility (see Appendix C).


Page 9

2.0 Quantification Development and Justification The following sections outline the quantification development and justification.

2.1 Identification of Sources and Sinks (SS’s) for the Project

SSs were identified for the project by reviewing the technical seed documents and relevant process flow diagrams, consulting with the Technical Working Group and reviewing best practice guidance as well as other relevant GHG quantification protocols. This iterative process confirmed that the SSs in the process flow diagrams covered the full scope of eligible project activities under the protocol. The criteria for classifying the SSs, based on best practice guidance are as follows: Controlled: The behaviour or operation of a controlled SS is under the direction and

influence of a project developer through financial, policy, management, or other instruments.

Related: A related SS has material and / or energy flows into, out of, or within a

project but is not under the reasonable control of the project developer. Affected: An affected SS is influenced by the project activity through changes in

market demand or supply for projects or services associated with the project. Based on the process flow diagrams provided in FIGURE 1.1, the project SS’s were organized into life cycle categories in FIGURE 2.1. Descriptions of each of the SS’s and their classification as controlled, related or affected are provided in TABLE 2.1.


Page 10

FIGURE 2.1: Project Element Life Cycle Chart

On Site SS’s During Project

Upstream SS’s During Project

Downstream SS’s During Project

Downstream SS’s

Before Project Downstream SS’s

After Project

P7 Fuel Extraction / Processing

P8 Fuel Delivery

P3 Feed Production




P5 Production of Other Agricultural

Inputs

P6 Transportation of Other

Agricultural Inputs

P16 Electricity

Usage

P17 Development

of Site

P20 Construction on Site




P19 Transportation of

Equipment

P11 Finished Cattle

Transportation




P13 Manure Storage and

Handling

P10 Feed Consumption

P9 Farm Operation

P1a Cattle Husbandry


Page 11

TABLE 2.1: Project SS’s

1. SS 2. Description 3. Controlled, Related or

Affected

Upstream SS’s during Project Operation

P1a Cattle Husbandry Cattle husbandry may include insemination and all other practices prior to the birth of the calf. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be contemplated to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Related


Cattle production may include raising calves, including time in pasture, that are input to the enterprise. Feed consumption includes the enteric emissions from the cattle and related manure production. The feed composition would need to be tracked to ensure functional equivalence with the baseline condition. Length of each type of feeding cycle would need to be tracked.

Related


Cattle may be transported to the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would be used to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Related

P3 Feed Production

Feed may be produced from agricultural materials and amendments. The processing of the feed may include a number of chemical and mechanical amendment processes. This requires several energy inputs such as natural gas, diesel and electricity. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Related


Feed may be transported to the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would be used to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Related

P5 Production of Other Agricultural Inputs

Other agricultural inputs, such as feed supplements, bedding, etc., may be produced from agricultural materials and amendments. The processing of these inputs may include a number of chemical, mechanical and amendment processes. This requires several energy inputs such as natural gas, diesel and electricity. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Related

P6 Transportation of Other Agricultural Inputs

Feed may be transported to the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would be used to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Related


Page 12

P7 Fuel Extraction and Processing

Each of the fuels used throughout the on-site component of the project will need to be sourced and processed. This will allow for the calculation of the greenhouse gas emissions from the various processes involved in the production, refinement and storage of the fuels. The total volumes of fuel for each of the on-site SS’s are considered under this SS. Volumes and types of fuels are the important characteristics to be tracked.

Related

P8 Fuel Delivery

Each of the fuels used throughout the on-site component of the project will need to be transported to the site. This may include shipments by tanker or by pipeline, resulting in the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is reasonable to exclude fuel sourced by taking equipment to an existing commercial fuelling station as the fuel used to take the equipment to the site is captured under other SS’s and there is no other delivery.

Related

P16 Electricity Usage

Electricity may be required for operating the facility. This power may be sourced either from internal generation, connected facilities or the local electricity grid. Metering of electricity may be netted in terms of the power going to and from the grid. Quantity and source of power are the important characteristics to be tracked as they directly relate to the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions.

Related

Onsite SS’s during Project Operation

P9 Farm Operation

Greenhouse gas emissions may occur that are associated with the operation and maintenance of the facility operations. This may include running vehicles and facilities at the project site for the distribution of the various inputs. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked.

Controlled

P10 Feed Consumption Feed consumption includes greenhouse gas sources from enteric fermentation and related manure production. The feed composition for various lots or groupings of animals on various rations would need to be tracked in both baseline and project to ensure functional equivalence.

Controlled

P13 Manure Storage and Handling

Greenhouse gas emissions can result from the operation of manure storage and handling facilities. This will include emissions from energy use, and from the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from the manure being stored and processed. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked. Quantities, duration and conditions would also need to be tracked.

Controlled


Manure may need to be transported to the field for land application from storage. Transportation equipment would be fuelled by diesel, gas or natural gas. Quantities for each of the energy inputs would be contemplated to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Controlled


Manure may then be land applied. This may require the use of heavy equipment and mechanical systems. This equipment would be fuelled by diesel, gas, or natural gas resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. Other fuels may also be used in some rare cases. Quantities for each of the energy inputs would be contemplated to evaluate functional equivalence with the baseline condition.

Controlled

Downstream SS’s during Project Operation


Page 13

P11 Finished Cattle Transportation

Finished cattle may be transported from the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would need to be tracked.

Related


Greenhouse gas emissions may occur that are associated with the processing and distribution components downstream of the cattle finishing facility operations. This may include running vehicles and facilities at other sites. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked.

Related

Other

P17 Development of Site

The site of the facility may need to be developed. This could include civil infrastructure such as access to electricity, gas and water supply, as well as sewer etc. This may also include clearing, grading, building access roads, etc. There will also need to be some building of structures for the facility such as storage areas, storm water drainage, offices, vent stacks, firefighting water storage lagoons, etc., as well as structures to enclose, support and house the equipment. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels and electricity used to power equipment required to develop the site such as graders, backhoes, trenching machines, etc.

Related


Equipment may need to be built either on-site or off-site. This includes all of the components of the storage, handling, processing, combustion, air quality control, system control and safety systems. These may be sourced as pre-made standard equipment or custom built to specification. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels and electricity used to power equipment for the extraction of the raw materials, processing, fabricating and assembly.

Related

P19 Transportation of Equipment

Equipment built off-site and the materials to build equipment on-site, will all need to be delivered to the site. Transportation may be completed by truck, barge and/or train. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels to power the equipment delivering the equipment to the site.

Related

P20 Construction on Site The process of construction at the site will require a variety of heavy equipment, smaller power tools, cranes and generators. The operation of this equipment will have associated greenhouse gas emission from the use of fossil fuels and electricity.

Related


Equipment may need to be tested to ensure that it is operational. This may result in running the equipment using fossil fuels in order to ensure that the equipment runs properly. These activities will result in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the combustion of fossil fuels and the use of electricity.

Related


Once the facility is no longer operational, the site may need to be decommissioned. This may involve the disassembly of the equipment, demolition of on-site structures, disposal of some materials, environmental restoration, re-grading, planting or seeding, and transportation of materials off-site. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels and electricity used to power equipment required to decommission the site.

Related


Page 14

2.2 Baseline Scenario

2.2.1. Identification and Assessment of Possible Baseline Scenarios

An assessment of potential baseline scenarios was conducted based on the recommended methodology from best practice guidance in the Alberta Offset Credit Project Guidance Document (February 2008). Potential baseline options were assessed based on their capacity to incorporate the project developer’s historical cattle feed intake prior to selection and measurement for low residual feed intake animals (e.g. the ‘business as usual’ practice). Each baseline scenario also contemplated the selection of a static or dynamic approach. TABLE 2.2, below provides a summary of the different baseline scenarios considered. TABLE 2.2: Assessment of Possible Baseline Scenarios

1. Baseline

Options 2. Description

3. Static /

Dynamic

Baseline

4. Accept or Reject and Justify

Performance

Standard

Assessment of baseline scenario based on the assessment of a typical Dry Matter Feed Intake of cattle based on best practice guidance.

Static.

Accept as alternate scenario to historical based. Standardized programs like Cowbytes or NRC databases can be used to estimate Dry Matter Intake for Base Year Animals of a similar ration and weight class as the Project Condition animals.

Projection

Based

Projection of the baseline scenario based on modeling the future reductions of GHG emissions due to low residual feed intake selection within herds.

Dynamic. Reject. Actual RFI-EBV testing is required for Baseline to Project conditions and efficacy in selecting for low RFI animals.

Normalized

Baseline

Assessment of avoided emissions from current practice levels of reduced feed intake from low RFI cattle.

Dynamic

Reject. RFI Selection methods are new and additional – very little market penetration. No normalized baseline approach is required.

Historic

Benchmark

Assessment of the baseline scenario based on verifiable records of number of animals and feed intake on farms prior to project implementation.

Static.

Accept. Based on actual farm records of Dry Matter Intake per groups of animals on similar rations and weight classes.


Page 15

1. Baseline

Options 2. Description

3. Static /

Dynamic

Baseline

4. Accept or Reject and Justify

Comparison

Based

Assessment of baseline scenario based on the actual measurement of emissions from a control group of animals to be compared with the project group.

Static.

Reject. Emissions measurement impractical on herd sizes contemplated under this protocol. Measurement based on research methods and not commercially available.

2.3 Selection and Justification of Baseline Scenario

The baseline condition for this protocol is defined as the GHG emissions from a grouping of animals as a result of normal dry matter intake (DMI) of feed prior to the selection for low RFI (i.e. DMI of base year animals of similar weight classes on similar rations). The baseline GHG emissions are quantified based on the business as usual efficiency of the cattle in the baseline year. The baseline condition assesses the average feed intake for specific categories of animals on specific diets (e.g., 650-750 lb steers on a backgrounding diet growing at 1.75 lb/day). The average is based on two to three lots or groups of animals for one year prior to the project implementation. Various types of records may be used to develop the baseline including, but not limited to, animal category (e.g., replacement heifer on pasture; yearling steers on a finishing diet), average group weight of animals, approximate age (e.g., 6-7 month old steers calves, 11-12 month old yearling heifers), diet ingredient composition, and dry matter, energy and crude protein content of ration. The project and baseline are compared, with the common metric used to demonstrate emission reductions from the selection of low RFI beef cattle being the kg of DMI per day, for specific categories of animals on specific rations. The GHG emissions per kilogram of beef in the project condition is compared to the baseline condition of an inefficient herd of animals – thus providing functional equivalence to the protocol.

2.4 Identification of SSs for the Baseline

Based on the process flow diagrams provided in FIGURE 1.2, the baseline SS’s were organized into life cycle categories in FIGURE 2.2. Descriptions of each of the SS’s and their classification as either ‘controlled’, ‘related’ or ‘affected’ is provided in TABLE 2.3.

The approach to quantifying the baseline will be primarily historical-based with farm level data. The baseline scenario for this protocol is static as the emissions profile for the base year animals would be compared to the slow turnover of the cattle herd to more efficient animals over time.


Page 16

FIGURE 2.2: Baseline Element Life Cycle Chart

On Site SS’s During Baseline

Upstream SS’s During Baseline

Downstream SS’s During Baseline

Downstream SS’s

Before Baseline Downstream SS’s

After Baseline

B7 Fuel Extraction / Processing

B8 Fuel Delivery

P3 Feed Production




B5 Production of Other Agricultural

Inputs

B6 Transportation of Other

Agricultural Inputs


B9 Farm

Operation

B13 Manure Storage and

Handling

B16 Electricity

Usage

B17 Development

of Site

B20 Construction on Site




B19 Transportation of

Equipment



B11 Finished Cattle

Transportation


B1a Cattle Husbandry


Page 17

TABLE 2.3: Baseline SS’s

1. SS 2. Description 3. Controlled,

Related or Affected

Upstream SS’s during Baseline Operation

B1a Cattle Husbandry Cattle husbandry may include insemination and all other practices prior to the birth of the calf. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be contemplated to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Related


Cattle production may include raising calves, including time in pasture, that are input to the enterprise. Feed consumption includes the enteric emissions from the cattle and related manure production. The feed composition would need to be tracked to ensure functional equivalence with the project condition. Length of each type of feeding cycle would need to be tracked.

Related


Cattle may be transported to the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would be used to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Related

B3 Feed Production

Feed may be produced from agricultural materials and amendments. The processing of the feed may include a number of chemical, mechanical and amendment processes. This requires several energy inputs such as natural gas, diesel and electricity. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be contemplated to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Related


Feed may be transported to the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would be used to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Related

B5 Production of Other Agricultural Inputs

Other agricultural inputs, such as feed supplements, bedding, etc., may be produced from agricultural materials and amendments. The processing of the feed may include a number of chemical, mechanical and amendment processes. This requires several energy inputs such as natural gas, diesel and electricity. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be contemplated to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Related

B6 Transportation of Other Agricultural Inputs

Feed may be transported to the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would be used to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Related

B7 Fuel Extraction and Processing

Each of the fuels used throughout the on-site component of the project will need to be sourced and processed. This will allow for the calculation of the greenhouse gas emissions from the various processes involved in the production, refinement and storage of the fuels. The total volumes of fuel for each of the on-site SS’s are considered under this SS. Volumes and types of fuels are the important characteristics to be tracked.

Related


Page 18

B8 Fuel Delivery

Each of the fuels used throughout the on-site component of the project will need to be transported to the site. This may include shipments by tanker or by pipeline, resulting in the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is reasonable to exclude fuel sourced by taking equipment to an existing commercial fuelling station as the fuel used to take the equipment to the site is captured under other SS’s and there is no other delivery.

Related

B16 Electricity Usage

Electricity may be required for operating the facility. This power may be sourced either from internal generation, connected facilities or the local electricity grid. Metering of electricity may be netted in terms of the power going to and from the grid. Quantity and source of power are the important characteristics to be tracked as they directly relate to the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions.

Related

Onsite SS’s during Project Operation

B9 Farm Operation Greenhouse gas emissions may occur that are associated with the operation and maintenance of the beef production facility operations. This may include running vehicles and facilities at the project site for the distribution of the various inputs. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked.

Controlled

B10 Feed Consumption Feed consumption includes GHG sources from enteric fermentation and related manure production. The feed composition for various lots or groupings of animals on various rations would need to be tracked in both baseline and project to ensure functional equivalence.

Controlled

B13 Manure Storage and Handling

Greenhouse gas emissions can result from the operation of manure storage and handling facilities. This will include emissions from energy use, and from the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from the manure being stored and processed. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked. Quantities, duration and conditions would also need to be tracked.

Controlled


Manure may need to be transported to the field for land application from storage. Transportation equipment would be fuelled by diesel, gas or natural gas. Quantities for each of the energy inputs would be tracked to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Controlled


Manure may then be land applied. This may require the use of heavy equipment and mechanical systems. This equipment would be fuelled by diesel, gas, or natural gas resulting in GHG emissions. Other fuels may also be used in some rare cases. Quantities for each of the energy inputs would be tracked to evaluate functional equivalence with the project condition.

Controlled

Downstream SS’s during Project Operation

B11 Finished Cattle Transportation

Finished cattle may be transported from the project site by truck, barge and/or train. The related energy inputs for fuelling this equipment are captured under this SS, for the purposes of calculating the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Type of equipment, number of loads and distance travelled would need to be tracked.

Related


Greenhouse gas emissions may occur that are associated with the processing and distribution components downstream of the cattle finishing facility operations. This may include running vehicles and facilities at other sites. Quantities and types for each of the energy inputs would be tracked.

Related


Page 19

Other

B17 Development of Site

The site of the facility may need to be developed. This could include civil infrastructure such as access to electricity, gas and water supply, as well as sewer etc. This may also include clearing, grading, building access roads, etc. There will also need to be some building of structures for the facility such as storage areas, storm water drainage, offices, vent stacks, firefighting water storage lagoons, etc., as well as structures to enclose, support and house the equipment. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels and electricity used to power equipment required to develop the site such as graders, backhoes, trenching machines, etc.

Related


Equipment may need to be built either on-site or off-site. This includes all of the components of the storage, handling, processing, combustion, air quality control, system control and safety systems. These may be sourced as pre-made standard equipment or custom built to specification. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels and electricity used to power equipment for the extraction of the raw materials, processing, fabricating and assembly.

Related

B19 Transportation of Equipment

Equipment built off-site and the materials to build equipment on-site, will all need to be delivered to the site. Transportation may be completed by train, truck, by some combination, or even by courier. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels to power the equipment delivering the equipment to the site.

Related

B20 Construction on Site The process of construction at the site will require a variety of heavy equipment, smaller power tools, cranes and generators. The operation of this equipment will have associated greenhouse gas emission from the use of fossil fuels and electricity.

Related


Equipment may need to be tested to ensure that it is operational. This may result in running the equipment using fossil fuels in order to ensure that the equipment runs properly. These activities will result in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the combustion of fossil fuels and the use of electricity.

Related


Once the facility is no longer operational, the site may need to be decommissioned. This may involve the disassembly of the equipment, demolition of on-site structures, disposal of some materials, environmental restoration, re-grading, planting or seeding, and transportation of materials off-site. Greenhouse gas emissions would be primarily attributed to the use of fossil fuels and electricity used to power equipment required to decommission the site.

Related


Page 20

2.5 Selection of Relevant Project and Baseline SS’s

Each of the SS’s from the project and baseline condition were compared and evaluated as to their relevancy using the guidance provided in the Draft Guide to Protocol Developers, Alberta Environment 2009. The justification for the exclusion or conditions upon which SS’s may be excluded is provided in TABLE 2.4 below. All other SS’s listed previously are included.


Page 21

TABLE 2.4: Comparison of SS’s

1. Identified SS 2. Baseline

(C, R, A)

3. Project

(C, R, A)

4. Include or

Exclude from

Quantification

5. Justification for Inclusion / Exclusion

Upstream SS’s

P1a Cattle Husbandry N/A Related Exclude Excluded as animal husbandry is functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B1a Cattle Husbandry Related N/A Exclude

P1b Cattle Production N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the project cattle production greenhouse gas emissions is functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B1b Cattle Production Related N/A Exclude

P2 Cattle Transportation N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B2 Cattle Transportation Related N/A Exclude

P3 Feed Production N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the introduction of Low Residual Feed Intake cattle across many operations is unlikely to affect the distribution of the types of feed production upstream from the project. Baseline and project conditions will be functionally equivalent.

B3 Feed Production Related N/A Exclude

P4 Feed Transportation N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B4 Feed Transportation Related N/A Exclude

P5 Production of Other Agricultural Inputs

N/A Related Exclude Excluded as upstream production of other agricultural inputs are not impacted by the implementation of the project and as such the baseline and project conditions will be functionally equivalent.

B5 Production of Other Agricultural Inputs

Related N/A Exclude

P6 Transportation of Other Agricultural Inputs

N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B6 Transportation of Other

Agricultural Inputs Related N/A Exclude

P7 Fuel Extraction and Processing

N/A Related Exclude Excluded as these SS’s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practises are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. B7 Fuel Extraction and

Processing Related N/A Exclude

P8 Fuel Delivery N/A Related Exclude Excluded as these SS’s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practises are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. B8 Fuel Delivery Related N/A Exclude

P16 Electricity Usage N/A Related Exclude Excluded as these SS’s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practises are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. B16 Electricity Usage Related N/A Exclude

Onsite SS’s

P9 Farm Operation N/A Controlled Exclude Excluded as beef production is not impacted by the implementation of the


Page 22

B9 Farm Operation Controlled N/A Exclude project and as such the baseline and project conditions will be functionally equivalent.

P10 Feed Consumption N/A Controlled Include Included, as this is the one of the main criteria for this project in determining the amount of GHG emission reductions due to selection for the low residual feed intake animals.

B10 Feed Consumption Controlled N/A Include

P13 Manure Storage and Handling

N/A Controlled Include Included, as the introduction and selection of the low RFI cattle into an operation, across many operations, (while there will be a reduction in amount of manure produced) is unlikely to affect the way manure is stored and or managed between baseline and project.

B13 Manure Storage and Handling

Controlled N/A Include

P14 Manure Transportation N/A Controlled Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B14 Manure Transportation Controlled N/A Exclude

P15 Land Application N/A Controlled Include Included, as the introduction and selection of the low RFI cattle into an operation, across many operations, is unlikely to affect the way manure is applied, nor will supplemental Nitrogen need to be applied in the project as a result of less manure being generated in the project condition. The main reason for this is that manure is spread only on 5% of the land base in Alberta. The distance that manure is hauled from the confined feeding operation is constrained by economic circumstances. This means that the same lands typically receives manure. It is unlikely that the incremental reductions in manure production between baseline and project condition would require the use of any supplemental N.

B15 Land Application Controlled N/A Include

Downstream SS’s

P11 Finished Cattle Transportation

N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B11 Finished Cattle

Transportation Related N/A Exclude


N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the emissions from processing and distribution are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B12 Processing and

Distribution Related N/A Exclude

Other

P17 Development of Site N/A Related Exclude Emissions from site development are not material given the long project life, and the minimal site development typically required.

B17 Development of Site Related N/A Exclude Emissions from site development are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal site development typically required.

P18 Building Equipment N/A Related Exclude Emissions from building equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal building equipment typically required.

B18 Building Equipment Related N/A Exclude Emissions from building equipment are not material for the baseline


Page 23

condition given the minimal building equipment typically required.

P19 Transportation of Equipment

N/A Related Exclude Emissions from transportation of equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal transportation of equipment typically required.

B19 Transportation of Equipment

Related N/A Exclude Emissions from transportation of equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal transportation of equipment typically required.

P20 Construction on Site N/A Related Exclude Emissions from construction on site are not material given the long project life, and the minimal construction on site typically required.

B20 Construction on Site Related N/A Exclude Emissions from construction on site are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal construction on site typically required.

P21 Testing of Equipment N/A Related Exclude Emissions from testing of equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal testing of equipment typically required.

B21 Testing of Equipment Related N/A Exclude Emissions from testing of equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal testing of equipment typically required.

P22 Site Decommissioning N/A Related Exclude Emissions from decommissioning are not material given the long project life, and the minimal decommissioning typically required.

B22 Site Decommissioning Related N/A Exclude Emissions from decommissioning are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal decommissioning typically required.


Page 24

2.6 Quantification of Reductions and Removals of Relevant SS’s

2.6.1 Quantification Approaches

Quantification of GHG reduction in cattle with low residual feed intake (RFI) The production of methane from enteric fermentation in cattle can be measured directly in metabolic chambers or indirectly using tracers such as sulphur hexafluoride. These are short duration techniques, and are expensive, cumbersome and not practical under normal farming conditions. Hence they are useful research tools but not practical quantification method for methane production. The scientific evidence for the relationship between selection for low RFI and reduction in methane production indicates that this is through the reduction in feed intake and improved diet dry matter digestibility. This reduction in feed intake is captured by RFI indices, since it is the reduction in feed intake relative to the expected feed intake for the size and growth of the animal. Measured as kg of feed (DM basis) per day, this should form the basis of any project for GHG emission reduction from selection for low RFI. The protocol is based on genetic selection for low RFI, hence the genetic merit (expressed as EBV) of an animal for RFI (rather than the phenotypic measure) should be used for quantification of reductions in GHG emissions. The preferred method of calculating greenhouse gas production from enteric fermentation and manure production in the baseline and project conditions for groupings of animals on similar rations is through collecting actual DMI intakes from farm data. However, estimates of DMI from IPCC Tier 2 (IPCC 2006), calculated form Cowbytes or similar computer programs, can also be used in standard equations (e.g. IPCC 2006) to estimate the greenhouse gas production from enteric fermentation and manure production (alternate performance standard approach to baselines). Thus the first step in calculating emission reductions in this protocol is to estimate the expected percentage reduction in DMI for the project animals, relative to that of the base year animals – for cattle groupings of similar weight and ration. The second step is to estimate actual reductions in DMI for the year of interest (typically the current year for which a GHG assertion will be made, e.g. 2009). The actual reduction in DMI due to selection for low RFI-EBV cattle is then calculated as:

(Estimated mean DMI for e.g 2009) x (percentage change in DMI between project and base year animals)/100

Please refer to Appendix B for a sample calculation. Estimating reductions in GHG emissions These estimates of DMI can then be used in the standard IPCC (2006) equations to estimate the greenhouse gas production from enteric fermentation due to feed consumption and manure production (per the methodologies and equations in Table 2.5). The greenhouse


Page 25

gas production of these animals can then be compared with those obtained from using the estimated DMI for the year of interest (2009 in the above example). Please refer to Appendix B for a robust example of the application of the method. Quantification of the reductions, removals and reversals of relevant SS’s for each of the greenhouse gases will be completed using the methodologies outlined in TABLE 2.5, below. A listing of relevant emission factors is provided in Appendix A. These calculation methodologies serve to complete the following three equations for calculating the emission reductions from the comparison of the baseline and project conditions.

Where:

Emissions Baseline = sum of the emissions under the baseline condition.

Emissions Cattle = emissions under B10 Feed Consumption; B15 Land Application; B13 Manure Storage and Handling

Emissions Project = sum of the emissions under the project condition.

Emissions Cattle RFI-EBV= emissions under P10 Feed Consumption; P15 Land Application; P13 Manure Storage and Handling

Emission Reduction = Emissions Baseline – Emissions Project

Emissions Baseline = Emissions Cattle

Emissions Project = Emissions Cattle (* RFI EBV)


Page 26

TABLE 2.5: Quantification Procedures

1.0 Project /

Baseline SS

2. Parameter /

Variable 3. Unit

4. Measured /

Estimated 5. Method 6. Frequency

7. Justify measurement or

estimation and frequency

SS’s

P10 Feed Consumption (for Certified RFI-EBV cattle)

Emissions Cattle = Σ (Number Production i * DOF i * DMI i * GE Diet * (EF Enteric i / 100%) / EC Methane)

Enteric Emissions from Cattle for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Cattle

kg CH4 / day / per weight

grouping

N/A N/A N/A Quantity being calculated.

Number of Cattle in Grouping i / Number

Production i Head Measured

Direct measurement of number of head sent to slaughter within each grouping of animals.

Continuous Direct measurement is the highest level possible.

Days on Feed for Each Feed Regime for RFI-EBV Cattle in Grouping i / DOF i

Days Measured Direct measurement of days at the feedlot.


Dry Matter Intake for Each Feed Regime for Cattle in Grouping i / DMI i

kg dry matter / head /

day Estimated

Estimated based on average mass of feed provided to cattle during period on diet.

Continuous Based on actual feed delivery records to each pen.

Default value Gross energy content (GE) of the diet GE

Diet

MJ / kg dry matter

Estimated 18.45 MJ / kg dry matter for diets with no edible oils added to the diet.

Annual

Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC, 2006 guidance (Section 10.4.2).

Emission Factor for Enteric Emissions for Each Feed Regime in Grouping i / EF Enteric i

% Calculated

Derived for Low RFI-EBV animals through calculating the reduction in expected GE value or % methane lost as a function of Gross Energy in the diet

Continuous Calculated using Example Equations in Appendix B; Step 6.

Energy Content of Methane / EC Methane

MJ / kg

methane Estimated 55.65 MJ / kg methane Annual

Conversion factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Section 10.3.2).


Emissions Cattle = ΣΣ (Number Production i * DOF * DMI I * GE Diet * (EF Enteric i / 100%) / EC Methane)

Enteric Emissions from Cattle for each feed regime within

kg CH4 / day / per weight



Page 27

each weight grouping / Emissions Cattle

grouping





Days on Feed for Each Feed Regime for Cattle in Grouping i / DOF i

Days Estimated

Average for cattle in weight grouping over the three years prior to the implementation of the project.

Annual Based on available farm records.


kg dry matter / head /

day Estimated

Estimated based on average mass of feed provided to cattle during period on diet.



Diet

MJ / kg dry matter

Estimated 18.45 MJ / kg dry matter for diets with no edible oils added to the diet.

Annual


Emission Factor for Enteric Emissions for Each Feed Regime in Grouping i / EF Enteric i

% Estimated

3.5% for diets with greater than or equal to 90% concentrates and no added edible oils; 6.5% for diets with less than 90% concentrates and no added edible oils.

Continuous

Based on both best available science for beef feeding in Canada (Beauchemin et al 2005)2 and in reference to the IPCC 2006 guidance.

Energy Content of Methane / EC Methane

MJ / kg

methane Estimated 55.65 MJ / kg methane Annual


P13 Manure Storage and P15 Land Application

VS i = [(DMI i * GE Diet * (1 – (TDN i / 100%))) + (UE * DMI I * GE Diet)] * ((1 – (Ash / 100%)) / GE Diet )

Daily Volatile Solid Excreted for Livestock in Grouping i and Each Feed Regime / VS i

kg / head / day N/A N/A N/A Quantity being calculated.

2 Beauchemin K.A. and MCGinn, S. M. 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley and corn diets. J. Anim. Sci. 83:653-651.


Page 28

(for Certified RFI-EBV cattle)


kg dry matter / head / day

Estimated Estimated based on average mass of feed provided to cattle during period on diet.



Diet

MJ / kg dry matter Estimated 18.45 MJ / kg dry matter Annual Conversion factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Section 10.4.2).

Total Digestible Nutrients for Each Feed Regime for Cattle in Grouping i / TDN i

% Estimated Estimated based on composition of feed provided to cattle during period on diet.

Continuous Estimation based on diet composition and/or from direct analysis of the total mixed ration.

Urinary Energy / UE

- Estimated

0.04 for diets with less than 90 % concentrates. 0.02 for diets with greater than 90 % concentrates.

Annual


Ash Content of Manure Calculated as a Fraction of the Dry Matter Feed Intake for Cattle / Ash

% Estimated 8% for forage based diets and

2% for grain based diets Annual

Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC, 2006 guidance.

Emissions Manure CH4 = Σ (Number Production i * DOF i * VS i * Bo * ρ Methane * (MCF3 / 100%))

Methane Emissions from Manure Handling, Storage and Land Application for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions

Manure CH4

kg CH4 / day / per weight grouping







Page 29


days Measured Direct measurement of days at the feed lot.


Maximum Methane Producing Capacity for Manure Produced / Bo

m3 CH4 / kg VS Excreted

Estimated 0.19 m3 CH4 / kg VS Excreted Annual Conversion factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Table 10A-5).

Density of Methane / ρ Methane

m3 / kg Estimated 0.67 m3 / kg Annual Physical property of methane at standard temperature and pressure.

Methane Conversion Factor / MCF

% Estimated

The default MCF for pasture, range, and/or paddock system

is 1.0% while that for solid storage is 2.0%. A value of 1.6% could be used for a

system that assumes 40% of the manure was produced on

pasture while 60% was produced in feedlot and stored

in the solid form.

Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC 2006 guidance.

Nitrogen Excreted i = (DMI i * ((CP i / 100%) / CF Protein)) * (1 – Nitrogen Retention)

Nitrogen Excreted by the Livestock in Grouping i / Nitrogen

Excreted i






Percent Crude Protein in Diet for Each Feed Regime in Cattle in Grouping i / CP i




Page 30

Conversion from Mass of Dietary Protein to Mass of Dietary Nitrogen

kg feed protein / kg

nitrogen Estimated 6.25 kg feed protein / kg nitrogen Annual


Fraction of Annual Nitrogen Intake Retained / Nitrogen

Retention

kg retained / kg intake Estimated 0.07 kg retained / kg intake Annual Factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Table 10.20).

Emissions Direct Nitrous Oxide = Σ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted I * CF Manure) * 44 / 28

Direct Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Manure for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Direct Nitrous Oxide

kg N2O / day / per weight grouping


CF Manure - Estimated 0.02 kg N2O-N / kg Nitrogen Excreted

Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC.

Emissions Direct Storage = Σ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * Frac Storage * EF Storage) * 44 / 28

Direct Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Manure Storage / Emissions Direct Storage



Frac Storage - Estimated 0.8 Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

EF Storage kg N2O-N /

kg Nitrogen Excreted Estimated

0.007 kg N2O-N / kg Nitrogen Excreted

Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

Emissions Indirect Volatization =Σ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * Frac Volatization * EF Volatization) * 44 / 28


Page 31

Indirect Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Volatilization for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions

Indirect Volatization



Frac Volatization - Estimated 0.2 Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

EF Volatization kg N2O-N /




Emissions Indirect Leaching = Σ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * Frac Leach * EF Leach) * 44 / 28

Indirect Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Leaching for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Indirect Leach



Frac Leach - Estimated 0.1 Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

EF Leach kg N2O-N /




B13 Manure

Storage and


VS i = [(DMI i * GE Diet * (1 – (TDN i / 100%))) + (UE * DMI I * GE Diet)] * ((1 – (Ash / 100%)) / GE Diet )

Daily Volatile Solid Excreted for Livestock in Grouping i and Each Feed Regime / VS i







Page 32


Diet

MJ / kg dry matter Estimated 18.45 MJ / kg dry matter Annual Conversion factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Section 10.4.2).

Total Digestible Nutrients for Each Feed Regime for Cattle in Grouping i / TDN i



Urinary Energy / UE

- Estimated

0.04 for diets with less than 90 % concentrates. 0.02 for diets with greater than 90 % concentrates.

Annual


Ash Content of Manure Calculated as a Fraction of the Dry Matter Feed Intake for Cattle / Ash

% Estimated 8% for forage based diets and

2% for grain based diets Annual

Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC, 2006 guidance.

Emissions Manure CH4 = ΣΣ (Number Production i * DOF i * VS i * Bo * ρ Methane * (MCF / 100%))

Methane Emissions from Manure Handling, Storage and Land Application for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions

Manure CH4

kg CH4 / day / per weight grouping







Days Estimated

Average for cattle in weight grouping over the three years prior to the implementation of the project.

Annual Based on available farm records.


Page 33

Maximum Methane Producing Capacity for Manure Produced / Bo

m3 CH4 / kg VS Excreted

Estimated 0.19 m3 CH4 / kg VS Excreted Annual Conversion factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Table 10A-5).

Density of Methane / ρ Methane

m3 / kg Estimated 0.67 m3 / kg Annual Physical property of methane at standard temperature and pressure.

Methane Conversion Factor / MCF

% Estimated

The default MCF for pasture, range, and/or paddock system

is 1.0% while that for solid storage is 2.0%. A values of

1.6% could be used for a system that assumes 40% of the manure was produced on

pasture while 60% was produced in feedlot and stored

in the solid form.

Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC, 2006 guidance.

Nitrogen Excreted i = DMI i * (CP i / 100%) / CF Protein * (1 – Nitrogen Retention)

Nitrogen Excreted by the Livestock in Grouping i / Nitrogen

Excreted i





Continuous Estimation based on farm records.

Percent Crude Protein in Diet for Each Feed Regime in Cattle in Grouping i / CP i



Conversion from Mass of Dietary Protein to Mass of Dietary Nitrogen

kg feed protein / kg

nitrogen Estimated 6.25 kg feed protein / kg nitrogen Annual



Page 34

Fraction of Annual Nitrogen Intake Retained / Nitrogen

Retention

kg retained / kg intake Estimated 0.07 kg retained / kg intake Annual Factor taken from IPCC, 2006 guidance (Table 10.20).

Emissions Direct Nitrous Oxide = ΣΣ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * CF Manure) * 44 / 28

Direct Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Manure for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Direct Nitrous Oxide

Kg N2O / day / per weight grouping


CF Manure - Estimated 0.02 kg N2O-N / kg Nitrogen Excreted

Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC.

Emissions Direct Storage = ΣΣ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * Frac Storage * EF Storage) * 44 / 28

Direct Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Manure Storage for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Direct Storage



Frac Storage - Estimated 0.8 Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

EF Storage kg N2O-N /




Emissions Indirect Volatization = ΣΣ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * Frac Volatizaton * EF Volatization) * 44 / 28


Page 35

Indirect Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Volatization for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Indirect Volatization



Frac Volatization - Estimated 0.2 Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

EF Volatization kg N2O-N /




Emissions Indirect Leaching = ΣΣ (Number Production i * DOF i * Nitrogen Excreted i * Frac Leach * EF Leach) * 44 / 28

Indirect Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Leaching for each feed regime within each weight grouping / Emissions Indirect Leach



Frac Leach - Estimated 0.1 Annual Set based on best available science and in reference to the IPCC

EF Leach kg N2O-N /




Notes: 1) 44/28 represents the conversion factor from N2O-N to N2O 2) The diet characteristics (DMI, TDN and CP) are to be the same in the baseline and project condition.


Page 36

2.6.2. Contingent Data Approaches

Contingent means for calculating or estimating the required data for the equations outlined in Section 2.6.1 are summarized in TABLE 2.6, below.

2.7 Management of Data Quality

In general, data quality management must include sufficient data capture such that the mass and energy balances may be easily performed with the need for minimal assumptions and use of contingency procedures. The data should be of sufficient quality to fulfill the quantification requirements and be substantiated by company records for the purpose of verification. The project developer shall establish and apply quality management procedures to manage all data and information. Written procedures should be established for each measurement task outlining responsibility, timing and record location requirements. The greater the rigour of the management system for the data, the more easily a verification and potential government audits will be to conduct for the project.

2.7.1 Record Keeping

Record keeping practises should include: a. Electronic recording of values of logged primary parameters for each

measurement interval; b. Printing of monthly back-up hard copies of all logged data; c. Written logs of operations and maintenance of the project system including

notation of all shut-downs, start-ups and process adjustments; d. Retention of copies of logs and all logged data for a period of 7 years; and e. Keeping all records available for review by a verification body.

2.7.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

QA/QC can also be applied to add confidence that all measurements and calculations have been made correctly. These include, but are not limited to:

a Protecting monitoring equipment (sealed meters and data loggers); b Protecting records of monitored data (hard copy and electronic storage); c Checking data integrity on a regular and periodic basis (manual assessment,

comparing redundant metered data, and detection of outstanding data/records);

d Comparing current estimates with previous estimates as a ‘reality check’; e Provide sufficient training to operators to perform maintenance and

calibration of monitoring devices; f Establish minimum experience and requirements for operators in charge of

project and monitoring; and g Performing recalculations to make sure no mathematical errors have been

made.


Page 37

TABLE 2.6: Contingent Data Collection Procedures

1.0 Project /

Baseline SS

2. Parameter /

Variable 3. Unit

4. Measured /

Estimated

5. Contingency

Method 6. Frequency

7. Justify measurement or

estimation and frequency

Project SS’s

P1b Cattle Production and P10 Feed Consumption

Mass of Cattle Produced / Mass

Production kg beef Estimated

Estimation based on number of head of cattle brought to slaughter and average weight for most recent period.

Monthly Provides a reasonable estimate for the given period.

P13 Manure Storage and P15 Land Application





Baseline SS’s

B1b Cattle Production and B10 Feed Consumption





B13 Manure Storage and B15 Land Application






Page 38

APPENDIX A:

Relevant Emission Factors


Page 39

Table A1: Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) – Global Warming

Potentials (2nd

Assessment)

Specified Gas Formula 100-year

GWP

Carbon dioxide CO2 1

Methane CH4 21

Nitrous Oxide N2O 310

Sulphur Hexafluoride SF6 23900

Perfluorocarbons (PFC) Perfluoromethane CF4 6500

Perfluoroethane C2F6 9200

Perfluoropropane C3F8 7000

Perfluorobutane C4F10 7000

Perfluorocyclobutane c-C4F8 8700

Perfluoropentane C5F12 7500

Perfluorohexane C6F14 7400

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) HFC-23 CHF3 11700

HFC-32 CH2F2 650

HFC-41 CH3F 150

HFC-43-10mee C5H2F10 (structure: CF3CHFCHFCF2CF3) 1300

HFC-125 C2HF5 2800

HFC-134 C2H2F4 (structure: CHF2CHF2) 1000

HFC-134a C2H2F4 (structure: CH2FCF3) 1300

HFC-143 C2H3F3 (structure: CHF2CH2F) 300

HFC-143a C2H3F3 (structure: CF3CH3) 3800

HFC-152a C2H4F2 (structure: CH3CHF2) 140

HFC-227ea C3HF7 (structure: CF3CHFCF3) 2900

HFC-236fa C3H2F6 (structure: CF3CH2CF3) 6300

HFC-245ca C3H3F5 (structure: CH2FCF2CHF2) 560

All values interpreted from Volume 1 of the technical report: A National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Criteria Air Contaminant (CAC) and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Emissions by the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry dated September 2004 completed by Clearstone Engineering Ltd. on behalf of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). Table A2: Emission Intensity of Fuel Extraction and Production (Diesel, Natural

Gas, and Gasoline) Diesel

Production

Emissions Factor (CO2) 0.138 kg CO2 per Litre

Emissions Factor (CH4) 0.0109 kg CH4 per Litre

Emissions Factor (N2O) 0.000004 kg N2O per Litre

Natural Gas

Extraction

Emissions Factor (CO2) 0.043 kg CO2 per m3

Emissions Factor (CH4) 0.0023 kg CH4 per m3

Emissions Factor (N2O) 0.000004 kg N2O per m3

Processing

Emissions Factor (CO2) 0.090 kg CO2 per m3

Emissions Factor (CH

specified gas emitters egulationcontent.ccrasa.com/library_1/1427 - selection for residual...

Documents