This paper is in-progress.
Carbon-neutral Dairy Farming:
How to Respond to the
Oncoming Tsunami of Demand
By T. M. Halydean
Special thanks to Rebecca Melton, PhD, who is a director at Halydean Corporation, for her edits and support. Special thanks to Halydean Corporation for their supportive efforts and environmental research in the dairy industry, and for their goals to help dairy farmers and to improve animal care everywhere. Even without considering their cow massaging stations, their cows receive better care, eat a healthier diet, and see more daylight than most researchers.
Abstract
This paper reviews demand forecasts for beef and dairy and deals with factors that will determine the outcome and consequences. The paper discusses some of the previous research and proposes new management strategies to result in new best practices for the dairy farming industry that are net carbon neutral. This includes reasons for demand, per-cow milk yields, farm size and scale, land management, emissions measurement methods, and economic pressures. Solutions should be both environmentally and economically responsible. The paper discusses future areas of research, and a summary is included in the conclusion.
Unavoidable Dairy Growth
Some might argue that because 70% of all carbon emissions come from cities (REFERENCE), the focus for improvement should be on cities. Should we not major on the majors and minor on the minors? Dairy cows are small in comparison to the much more massive American bison (REFERENCE). Are the 9.4 million dairy cows in America in 2018 (REFERENCE) even relevant in light of the 20 – 30 million bison that roamed America long before our arrival (REFERENCE)? How will the latest changes in global trends affect the future of the dairy industry?
Dairy farming has been with humanity since the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia (Loftus, MacHugh, Bradley, Sharp, & Cunningham,1994). Since our creation, humans have even evolved lactose tolerance to be able to drink milk as adults (Holden & Mace, 2009). Milk makes children grow taller and stronger than their shorter and scrawny non-milk-drinking counterparts (Wiley, 2005).
Over the next 40 years, the global population forecast is that we will have over nine billion people. The demand for food will increase 60% (F. A. O., 2013). Of those nine billion people, eight billion will be in developing nations. Some of these, such as India and China, will have median household incomes similar to those in the rest of the world. They will demand more milk (Tilman, Balzer, Hill, & Befort, 2011). They want their children to be taller and stronger, like Japan has done, like Europe, and like other developed nations.
Worldwide meat production has increased almost 400% over the last 50 years. Global meat consumption is expected to grow by 70% from 2000 to 2030, and is expected to grow 120% from 2000 to 2050. An organization called the IAASTD says these numbers are because of the rapidly expanding urban and middle classes in emerging economies that are westernizing their diets to include pizza, hamburgers, and even tacos. The IAASTD predicts large scale, vertically integrated industrial livestock systems to continue developing over the coming decades (Van Vuuren, et al, 2017).
2018 numbers from the USDA spell out that U.S. dairy exports have increased by 18%, up from the usual 10% – 15% export growth (REFERENCE). As with oil consumption, the U.S. is no longer the primary determinate. Foreign consumption of meat and dairy products from the new emerging middle class is now the driving factor in global demand. To meet the oncoming flood of demand, dairy farms will consolidate, improve genetics and animal care techniques, improve efficiencies, and expand substantially. The bulk of this expansion is going to have to come from the United States, as no other nation has the infrastructure to meet the oncoming demand. It is highly likely that prices on all classes of milk should increase substantially. There is no way to avoid the growing demand for high-protein food delivery.
With inevitable change, the good news is that dairy farming is evolving for the better. Dairy farming has remained virtually unchanged for the last 10,000 years. Only in the last 50 years have significant shifts begun as the dairy industry slowly joins the industrial revolution that has already affected so many other industries. Now, with the corporate consolidation of dairy farms beginning, the dairy farming industry is in for a revolution. How can agriculture transition into the future of dairy farming? How can farmers be encouraged to make environmentally sustainable decisions independently? How can animal care be improved at the same time? How will this flood of demand affect greenhouse gasses? How should farmers respond? Innovation, consolidation, and efficiency are needed.
Discussion of Previous Research
Increasing the milk yield per cow has been often discussed as a solution to reduce greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions from milk production. Research from Sweden demonstrates that a lower carbon footprint (CF) while increasing milk yield is possible if land use is managed sustainably. This same research demonstrates that large-scale dairy farming also has a lower CF than organic dairy farming where land use is managed sustainably. Increasing milk yield, by itself, does not necessarily decrease CF. Proper land use and farm expansion should be applied to dairy farms to achieve a lower CF. In other words, larger, more efficient farms are better than small, traditionally managed farms (Flysjö, Cederbert, Henriksson, & Ledgard, 2012).
The economics of dairy farming has shown that smaller farms struggle to compete with the larger, more efficient farms in most economic models, including technical efficiency, various profitability measures, and economies of scale. This does not include profitability that can come from strategic asset allocation, which is not traditional on small farms. The dairy industry in the U.S. is going through rapid change, evolving away from many small farmers to a more efficient model of very large farms (Nehring, Gillespie, Sandretto, & Hallahan, 2009). This economic pressure for farms to consolidate and grow can be used in a positive way for the good for the environment. A corporate model also allows small farmers to band together to achieve these benefits, while preserving their family heritage.
The way to measure carbon emissions is highly debated and there is no current consensus. Results can vary depending on the measurement style used (Flysjö, Cederbert, Henriksson, & Ledgard, 2012). This should be considered in calculating the net CF of a corporate farm that owns and maintains thousands of acres that are non-tillable. Wooded forest land, such as that owned by Halydean Corporation, is estimated to sequester 145 MgC02/ha (which is 358.3 MgC02/acre) in 50 years, or even up to 162 MgC02/ha (400 MgC02/acre) in 50 years if the land is maintained as a forest (Strohbach, Arnold, & Haase, 2012). This green space can act as a carbon sink. Carbon sinks absorb carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in the ground. How the land is maintained can have a strong influence on the CF. This green space can also serve as a sanctuary for wildlife, for responsible wildlife management, and for private recreation purposes exclusive to the original farm owners who have joined the corporation.
The application of digested natural manure fertilizer increases the effectiveness of the fertilizer used, and increases crop growth compared to undigested natural manure fertilizer (Möller, Stinner, Deuker, & Leithold, 2008). This system is already in use at Halydean Corporation, and further reduces dependence on fossil fuels, which positively impacts reduced CF. Privately funded researchers are now exploring ways to further improve the effectiveness of digested natural fertilizer with decreased mass. This could decrease fuel consumption and hauling expenses, and provide further nutritional benefit to the soil with less runoff. This would mean less fuel consumption and lower hauling expenses to apply the fertilizer, and less need for petroleum-derived liquid NH3 fertilizer. Such research could improve the environment while providing more income and profitability for farmers.
Paul Hawken produced a plan of several solutions to reversing global warming. Eight out of the top twenty items were food-related. They include (in order of importance and influence): Reduced food waste, plant-rich diet, Silvopasture, regenerative agriculture, tropical staple tree crops, conservation agriculture, tree intercropping, and managed grazing (Hawken, 2017).
Recommendations
Small farms should consolidate into larger farms. A publicly traded corporation offers a means for farmers to partner together without having to sell. This results in greater efficiencies, improved mitigation of local and geographic financial risks, succession planning, liquidity, shared workload, profitability improvements, capital gain improvements, and benefits to the environment with lower GHG emissions. This can happen when all farm managers have corporate access to better management ideas, education, and innovative new technology. When farms consolidate, corporations can participate in research and development in ways that an individual farm may not afford or understand. Research and development needs to happen which places tougher constraints on the environmental problem solving of innovation and higher standards for industry best practices.
Non-tillable land should be allowed to grow into forest, with no thinning of natural trees or brush to increase carbon sequestering towards a target of 162 MgC02/ha (400 MgC02/acre) in 50 years. A corporation consisting of hundreds of farms that have banded together can manage thousands of acres of wooded land for a substantial amount of carbon sequestration, with no added expense.
Farms that are banding together can also apply new microbial digestive technology to reduce their hauling costs via reduced consumption of fossil fuels. This can be done with plug-flow methane digesters, fixed media thin film digesters, and innovative new technology using special probiotics and mineral supplementation. The result can be lower fossil fuel consumption, lower NH3 application on fields, lower runoff, and increased crop health.
Methane digesters can transform the more harmful CH4 GHG into CO2, while producing energy at the same time. On-site cogeneration can produce electricity from methane that can be used right on the farm. According to thrifty logic, the optimum amount of electricity to produce in most states is that equal to what is consumed on-site. This is because the return on investment is greatest while reducing actual electrical costs, when electricity is purchased at retail price. A diminishing return happens when extra power is sold back to the grid at a lower wholesale price. Thus, to produce as much power as possible without actually having to sell any to the grid is the optimized amount of power to produce. Because of the certainty of the need for electricity, investments into electrical production via cogeneration and investments into waste reduction measures can be highly leveraged with debt on a long amortization. Such debt, if used with a fixed interest rate, offers less risk than financing other activities. Because of such reliable demand, the energy industry is one of the most highly leveraged industries in the world, with numerous government debt incentives (Scannella, 2012).
Expansions can use LED lighting and translucent barn construction materials for natural lighting. Lower operational costs make sense for any business, and in this case, it’s the environment that is the real winner. As industrial grade lighting systems become more and more cost effective, the dairy industry (as other industries) will gradually make the switch. The upgrade of older equipment to newer equipment can be done in an energy efficient manner as well. Pumps and motors consume a lot of electrical current. They are an excellent item to upgrade for energy cost savings when equipment is being updated (Waide & Brunner, 2011).
The cost of robotic automation has been falling and is now down to an hourly wage equivalent of $4 per hour. In the future, automation can eliminate the farmer’s need for huge implements. With the lower cost automation of the future, there will be no need to worry about the high cost of human time. More energy efficient row-cropping implements can be developed that can work the fields 24 hours per day. These self-driving machines will be able to get the same work done with smaller machines that work more hours. The fuel-hog 60 row planters will be a thing of the past when the farmer does not have to spend time operating the machinery.
Dairy farms should focus more on things such as diversifying their income via the encouragement of wind energy. If a wind turbine is placed on site, a contract for up to $100,000 per year can be brought in to the farm, with negligible effect on the operation of the farm itself. This can help to reduce the CF of the electricity being purchased, until the facility can ultimately become a net-zero electrical consumer. Halydean Corporation has partnered with a local power producer and is in the process of having a large wind turbine placed on its land with such a contract.
Environmentalists should seek out and reward farms that promote such stewardship. These businesses should be recognized for their efforts. Small steps today will lead to successively greater and greater improvements. How far can it go? These efforts are only beginning now. With continued innovation, dairy farming can someday in the future achieve a net-zero CF and more—Dairy farming can become a positive and stable force of sequestering carbon to help offset the real problem, society’s dependence upon fossil fuels and the cytotoxic and mutagenic pollution that they put into the biosphere (Bünger, Krahl, Baum, Schröder, Müller, Westphal, & Hallier, 2000; Bünger, Krahl, Franke, Munack, & Hallier, 1998; Perera, 2008).
Land management techniques such as leaving plants intact on the soil surface after harvest instead of plowing them into the soil or removing them in the fall can help reduce N2O emissions. Limiting nitrogen inputs to to the exact level of plant consumption can reduce emissions. Low-input agriculture with reduced product application such as fertilizer reduces GHG. A varied diet with diversified food for livestock can alter CH4 emissions. Greater fat intake as well as nitrate supplementation can do this, but these have their limits. There can be side effects with too much fat, and too much nitrate is toxic. Probiotics can be applied to the soil to reduce N2O emissions. Certain denitrifying bacteria cut N2O emissions in a recent study (Bent, 2015).
Of Hawken’s top 20 steps to reverse global warming (Reduced food waste, plant-rich diet, Silvopasture, regenerative agriculture, tropical staple tree crops, conservation agriculture, tree intercropping, and managed grazing), most of them do not directly involve dairy farming (Hawken 2017). There are, however, some helpful items that can be applied in dairy farming. Managed grazing can apply to dairy farming. Cows should not be free-ranged, but should utilize carefully managed “mob grazing” or harvested haylage and silage to maximize plant growth. Overgrazing depletes plant growth and reduces all positive productivity. Conservation agriculture principles mentioned above can be implemented. Silvopasture with livestock, orange, olive, and other production trees can benefit from the natural fertilizer produced by dry cows that are put to pasture and allowed to graze between the trees in an integrated, intensively-managed system where climate allows. In the United States, this may be more effective in the Southeast because of the precipitation and climate conducive to a wider variety of arboreal food crops.
Carbon Cycle versus Burning Sequestered Carbon
While everyone should do his or her part to improve the environment, a balanced perspective is also helpful. Researchers and activists should major on the majors, and minor on the minors. Animals (and dairy farming) are part of the carbon cycle, where carbon is pulled from the air via crops, fed to the animals, and then a portion of that carbon is eventually returned to the atmosphere after humans and animals consume it. The carbon cycle, in its pure form, is carbon neutral. Conversely, fossil fuels are sequestered carbon that is being harvested from the ground and re-introduced to the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are very different and are substantially worse than any emissions from humans and animals. 82% of all GHG produced by humans was from the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste, trees, and other chemical reactions (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015). With that in mind, much more effort in reducing GHG should be focused on reducing the worst offenders: fossil fuels. Farming researchers, however, will continue to do their small part.
Future Research
Biofuels are part of the carbon cycle, and are not fossil fuels. As such, they are carbons are taken from the atmosphere, not taken from sequestered carbon stock. Additionally, biofuels are better because they do not have the cytotoxic and mutagentic effects of fossil fuels (Bünger, et al, 2000 & 1998; Perera, 2008). Farms should continue to use biofuels, especially on-site cogeneration to produce electricity. Future research should explore how biofuels can be produced via land management techniques that result in less GHG emissions and without the use of artificial fertilizers made from natural gas.
Because it has been shown that the direct and indirect effects of CH4 are worse than those of CO2 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), probiotics that alter the digestive process to include less CH4 are easily within reach using today’s technology. Probiotics are inexpensive to produce, and may even be able to help boost milk production via improved bioavailability of nutrients and overall animal health while reducing CH4 emissions at farms. While this is not an option for the farm that has already invested in a CH4 cogeneration system, it could be a quick and easy fix. Small amounts of newly developed probiotic could be applied to haylage and sileage and allowed to propagate naturally during the feed fermentation process. Microbiologist researchers could identify and improve strains of bacteria that are beneficial in this regard. Farm researchers could test these bacteria to identify effects on milk quantity and quality, which may even result in higher profits. If a probiotic designed to reduce CH4 can be shown to increase net profits, it will be much easier to convince farmers to use it.
Innovation needs to be applicable with farmers and landowners, so that they can naturally be drawn to environmental stewardship via innovation that makes economic sense, to raise the bar for the whole industry. Financial research is needed. Among entrepreneurial circles, practitioners sometimes have a disdain for researchers in “the ivory tower.” It did not help when researchers were publicized as “trying to collect cow farts to save the planet”. They deservedly became the laughing stalk of not only the dairy industry but also the public in general. Economically irresponsible environmental suggestions do more harm than good, as they turn segments of society against environmental progress. Likewise, it is ethically wrong for environmental researchers to ignore the financial consequences of their suggestions. Better and more valuable research can arise within greater constraints. Many people believe that environmental innovation and responsibility costs more. This stereotype is wrong, because actions that are good for the environment can be profitable as well. There should be more study of environmental-financial benefits by researchers who are formally trained in the areas of finance and business administration. In this way, new best practices will be readily adopted.
Because it is difficult to quantify carbon emissions with any consensus from scholars, priority should be placed on efforts towards progress. Emissions measurements may yield very negative or very positive results, depending on the method of measurement used. To encourage farms to make improvements, measurements of GHG emissions should be made as a percentage of improvement, based upon accuracy from the consistent testing method on one site. Despite difficulty in measuring progress, best practices should be encouraged wherever they are a logical step in the right direction. Environmental researchers should encourage any step in the right direction until farm-specific measurement techniques are developed to gauge emissions in vertically integrated farms with greater accuracy and acceptance among a consensus of scholars.
Conclusion
Dairy farming began at the dawn of civilization and milk helps children to grow taller and stronger. Demand for meat has grown by 400% in the last 50 years and it is forecasted to grow even more in the future due to the emerging middle class of developing nations. Large-scale farming offers environmental improvements through efficiency and better access to helpful information for best practices in management. These strategies make economic sense. If done correctly, large-scale dairy farms reduce net carbon emissions per unit of milk produced. Land management techniques can greatly impact carbon emissions. Current measurement techniques of carbon emissions yield varied and controversial results. Wooded land owned by dairy farms can be managed to sequester more carbon. Non-tillable land can be afforested. Better land management practices can reduce costs and GHG. Fossil fuel emissions can be displaced with cogeneration of on-site electrical production. Microbial digested manure requires less fuel to haul, and replaces more petroleum-based fertilizer. Small farms should consolidate for increased efficiencies for the environmental benefits as well as economics and the ability to corporately fund research. Non-tillable acres should be turned into forestland to serve as powerful sinks for sequestering carbon. New microbial digestion technology can help improve the quality of fertilizer with environmental benefits and collateral reductions in fuel consumption. Cogeneration via methane digestion and on-site electrical power production converts CH4 to less harmful CO2 and reduces the consumption of fossil fuels in the process. By upgrading facilities and equipment, more efficient LED lighting and pumps can save money by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. Farms can partner with energy producers and facilitate grid power production by placing wind turbines on their land. Environmentalists should seek ways to encourage farms that are doing the right thing. Animals are part of the carbon cycle, which in its pure form is carbon neutral and much better than burning fossil fuels that actually injects carbon and worse mutagenic wastes into the atmosphere. While top priority should be placed on fossil fuels, dairy industry researchers can do their small part. Future research can include developing probiotics to reduce CH4 and increase milk production. Financial and business administration researchers should contribute. Environmental innovation that is economically beneficial is worth more to the environment because it is more readily implemented, and is the ethical obligation of researchers to seek. Better measurement methods need to be developed to recognize the progress of individual farms.
References
Bent, E. (2015). Reducing agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Conversation, (06)15. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-agriculture-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html#jCp on March 17, 2018.
Bünger, J., Krahl, J., Baum, K., Schröder, O., Müller, M., Westphal, G., & Hallier, E. (2000). Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects, particle size and concentration analysis of diesel engine emissions using biodiesel and petrol diesel as fuel. Archives of toxicology, 74(8), 490-498.
Bünger, J., Krahl, J., Franke, H. U., Munack, A., & Hallier, E. (1998). Mutagenic and cytotoxic effects of exhaust particulate matter of biodiesel compared to fossil diesel fuel. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 415(1), 13-23.
F. A. O. (2013). World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.
Flysjö, A., Cederbert, C., Henriksson, M., Ledgard, S. (2012). The interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change: Critical considerations in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 28(12) 134-142.
Hawken, P. (2017). Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Roll Back Global Warming. Penguin.
Holden, C., & Mace, R. (2009). Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Human biology, 81(5/6), 597-619.
Loftus, R. T., MacHugh, D. E., Bradley, D. G., Sharp, P. M., & Cunningham, P. (1994). Evidence for two independent domestications of cattle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(7), 2757-2761.
Möller, K., Stinner, W., Deuker, A., & Leithold, G. (2008). Effects of different manuring systems with and without biogas digestion on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in mixed organic dairy farming systems. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 82(3), 209-232.
Nehring, R., Gillespie, J., Sandretto, C., & Hallahan, C. (2009). Small US dairy farms: can they compete?. Agricultural Economics, 40(s1), 817-825.
Perera, F. P. (2008). Children are likely to suffer most from our fossil fuel addiction. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(8), 987.
Strohbach, M. W., Arnold, E., & Haase, D. (2012). The carbon footprint of urban green space: A life cycle approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(2), 220-229.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U. S. A. 108: 20260-20264.
Scannella, E. (2012). Project finance in the energy industry: new debt-based financing models. International Business Research, (5)2
U. S. Department of Energy, (2015). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2013 on March 17, 2018.
Van Vuuren, D. P. (2017). Outlook on agricultural changes and its drivers. IAASTD: Global Report. 279 – 281.
Waide, P., & Brunner, C. U. (2011). Energy-efficiency policy opportunities for electric motor-driven systems.
Wiley, A. S. (2005). Does milk make children grow? Relationships between milk consumption and height in NHANES 1999–2002. American Journal of Human Biology, 17(4), 425-441.
Taylor Moffitt of Halydean 