beef industry issues forums understanding the business and consumer climate

Beef Industry Issues ForumsUnderstanding the Business and

Consumer Climate

Beef Industry Issues ForumsUnderstanding the Business and

Consumer Climate

The Tightening Grip of Government Environmental Action on your

Livelihood and Profitability

The Tightening Grip of Government Environmental Action on your

Livelihood and Profitability

OverviewOverview● Clean Water Act CAFO Rule● Clean Air Act PM NAAQS● Fine PM Implementation Rule● Possible Ammonia Regulation● Superfund● Superfund and EPCRA● Ozone NAAQS● Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure

(SPPC) Rule● Oberstar and the Clean Water Act● Global Climate Change

● Clean Water Act CAFO Rule● Clean Air Act PM NAAQS● Fine PM Implementation Rule● Possible Ammonia Regulation● Superfund● Superfund and EPCRA● Ozone NAAQS● Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure

(SPPC) Rule● Oberstar and the Clean Water Act● Global Climate Change

Clean Water Act CAFO RuleClean Water Act CAFO Rule

● “Point Sources” must have NPDES permit to discharge to waters of the U.S.

● Final CAFO rule in February 2003– All CAFOs had Duty to Apply– Zero discharge from production area – 25 year, 24 hour– Land apply at agronomic rates– Agriculture stormwater exemption

● Appeal to 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals● Case heard in December 2004● Final decision in February 2005

● “Point Sources” must have NPDES permit to discharge to waters of the U.S.

● Final CAFO rule in February 2003– All CAFOs had Duty to Apply– Zero discharge from production area – 25 year, 24 hour– Land apply at agronomic rates– Agriculture stormwater exemption

● Appeal to 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals● Case heard in December 2004● Final decision in February 2005


● Major holdings– Vacated Duty to Apply– Upheld agriculture stormwater exemption –

agronomic rates– All NMPs must be available for public review,

comment and hearings

● Major holdings– Vacated Duty to Apply– Upheld agriculture stormwater exemption –

agronomic rates– All NMPs must be available for public review,

comment and hearings


● EPA issued proposed rule in June 2006● Final rule expected in late Summer 2008 ● Issues

– What are enforceable “terms” subject to public review?• Should only be the most important information, otherwise

background, or included in the General Permit• Terms

– Types and number of animals– Storage needs and capacity– Storage structure operation and maintenance– Manure application rate– Addition and Subtraction of land

● EPA issued proposed rule in June 2006● Final rule expected in late Summer 2008 ● Issues

– What are enforceable “terms” subject to public review?• Should only be the most important information, otherwise

background, or included in the General Permit• Terms

– Types and number of animals– Storage needs and capacity– Storage structure operation and maintenance– Manure application rate– Addition and Subtraction of land


● Issues continued– General Permit

• BMPs• Setbacks• Sampling Frequency• Methods of Handling Mortalities• Chemical Handling

– Background• All Recordkeeping• Map• Sample procedures and results• Method of Mortality storage prior to disposal• Measures to prevent direct contact with waters of the U.S.

● Issues continued– General Permit

• BMPs• Setbacks• Sampling Frequency• Methods of Handling Mortalities• Chemical Handling

– Background• All Recordkeeping• Map• Sample procedures and results• Method of Mortality storage prior to disposal• Measures to prevent direct contact with waters of the U.S.


● Issues continued– What changes to terms require public review?• Need Flexibility•Manure Application Rate• Addition and Subtraction of Land

– How often do operations need to report?– Discharge or “propose to discharge”– Double liability -- $32,500/day fine– Ability to be released from permit at any time

● Possible additional proposed rule any day now

● Issues continued– What changes to terms require public review?• Need Flexibility•Manure Application Rate• Addition and Subtraction of Land

– How often do operations need to report?– Discharge or “propose to discharge”– Double liability -- $32,500/day fine– Ability to be released from permit at any time

● Possible additional proposed rule any day now


● Application deadline of February 27, 2009• Six months after release of final rule• CAFOS have known NMP requirements – trust EPA• Final rules change all the time• Compliance is expensive – can’t ask producers to

speculate• Need two years

● Release Rule Now!!• 2008 Election year• New Administration

● NCBA urges discharging producers to fix the problem or get NPDES permit

• CAFOs are a target and will be for the foreseeable future

● Application deadline of February 27, 2009• Six months after release of final rule• CAFOS have known NMP requirements – trust EPA• Final rules change all the time• Compliance is expensive – can’t ask producers to

speculate• Need two years

● Release Rule Now!!• 2008 Election year• New Administration

● NCBA urges discharging producers to fix the problem or get NPDES permit

• CAFOs are a target and will be for the foreseeable future

Clean Air Act PM NAAQSClean Air Act PM NAAQS

● Every five years EPA must look at criteria pollutants● Dust has been regulated for 20 years but not

enforced● Only supposed to be regulated if substantial adverse

health effects● No evidence that agriculture dust causes health

problems at ambient concentrations● Urban/Rural distinction● Proposed rule had agriculture/mining exclusion● In October 2006, EPA issued final rule making dust

subject to regulation at unattainable level, even after BMPs

● Precautionary Principle

● Every five years EPA must look at criteria pollutants● Dust has been regulated for 20 years but not

enforced● Only supposed to be regulated if substantial adverse

health effects● No evidence that agriculture dust causes health

problems at ambient concentrations● Urban/Rural distinction● Proposed rule had agriculture/mining exclusion● In October 2006, EPA issued final rule making dust

subject to regulation at unattainable level, even after BMPs

● Precautionary Principle


● Favorable preamble, urban, BMPs– Not legally enforceable

● No codified exclusion● Nothing in regulation to preclude states from

regulating us or citizens from bringing an enforcement action– Pinal County SIP

• Stated the SIP rule “shall not be construed to prevent normal farm agricultural practices which cause fugitive dust.”• Rejected by EPA because it “effectively exempts

agricultural activities from the fugitive dust rules without justification.”

● Favorable preamble, urban, BMPs– Not legally enforceable

● No codified exclusion● Nothing in regulation to preclude states from

regulating us or citizens from bringing an enforcement action– Pinal County SIP

• Stated the SIP rule “shall not be construed to prevent normal farm agricultural practices which cause fugitive dust.”• Rejected by EPA because it “effectively exempts

agricultural activities from the fugitive dust rules without justification.”


● Types of dust– Tilling soil– Harvesting crops– Cattle moving– Driving on unpaved roads– Feed mixing

● Health-based standard– Must be met at property line no matter what– Economics do not matter– Operations out of compliance subject to enforcement

actions and citizen suits– Operations unable to comply after using BMPs may be

required to sell cattle

● Types of dust– Tilling soil– Harvesting crops– Cattle moving– Driving on unpaved roads– Feed mixing

● Health-based standard– Must be met at property line no matter what– Economics do not matter– Operations out of compliance subject to enforcement

actions and citizen suits– Operations unable to comply after using BMPs may be

required to sell cattle


● NCBA appealed final rule– Lack of basis for regulation of dust

• Health • Concentration level

– Cattle operations are unable to comply– Public perception that cattle operations cause disease and

premature death, instead of just nuisance– May end industry ability to expand – PSD increment– CASAC suggested urban/rural distinction– Future reviews will tighten standard– Must be counter to anticipated environmental attacks

● Speciation study – Health Effects Institute

● NCBA appealed final rule– Lack of basis for regulation of dust

• Health • Concentration level



● Speciation study – Health Effects Institute

Fine PM Implementation RuleFine PM Implementation Rule

● 1997 EPA separated “fine” PM (PM2.5) from “coarse” PM (PM10)– Differences in adverse health effects

● PM2.5 is combustion or gaseous-related materials– Many studies show PM2.5 causes adverse health effects

● PM10 is formed by mechanical processes consisting of minerals, crustal material, and organic debris

● After publish the NAAQS, the implementation rule– SIP

● EPA decided to regulate “crustal” under fine PM standard of 35ug/m3 – more stringent than PM10 – Administrative convenience– Treats dust same as cigarette smoke– No scientific evidence this is true

● 1997 EPA separated “fine” PM (PM2.5) from “coarse” PM (PM10)– Differences in adverse health effects

● PM2.5 is combustion or gaseous-related materials– Many studies show PM2.5 causes adverse health effects

● PM10 is formed by mechanical processes consisting of minerals, crustal material, and organic debris

● After publish the NAAQS, the implementation rule– SIP

● EPA decided to regulate “crustal” under fine PM standard of 35ug/m3 – more stringent than PM10 – Administrative convenience– Treats dust same as cigarette smoke– No scientific evidence this is true

Fine PM Implementation RuleFine PM Implementation Rule

● 80 percent of feedyard dust can be PM2.5● Petition for reconsideration to EPA● Appealed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals - Stayed

– Lack of basis for regulation of dust• Health • Concentration level



● 80 percent of feedyard dust can be PM2.5● Petition for reconsideration to EPA● Appealed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals - Stayed

– Lack of basis for regulation of dust• Health • Concentration level



Fine PM Implementation Rule and Ammonia


● Studies show fine PM causes adverse health effects● Ammonia as precursor to the formation of fine PM

– Ammonia, VOCs, SO2, NOx react in atmosphere

● EPA - not required to regulate all precursors the same if basis to distinguish– Ammonia – issues complex

• Inventories uncertain – natural and manmade sources• Neutralizes acid in clouds, precipitation, particles• Neutralizes sulfuric & nitric acid – acid rain components• Problems – cause eutrophication, PM2.5

– SO2, NOx – urban areas

● Studies show fine PM causes adverse health effects● Ammonia as precursor to the formation of fine PM

– Ammonia, VOCs, SO2, NOx react in atmosphere

● EPA - not required to regulate all precursors the same if basis to distinguish– Ammonia – issues complex

• Inventories uncertain – natural and manmade sources• Neutralizes acid in clouds, precipitation, particles• Neutralizes sulfuric & nitric acid – acid rain components• Problems – cause eutrophication, PM2.5

– SO2, NOx – urban areas



● Final Rule– Ammonia presumed NOT to be attainment plan precursor– States not required to address ammonia in SIPs– Presumption can be reversed by States

• Case-by-case basis• Must consider potential for increasing atmospheric and

particle acidity

● June 2007, Earthjustice appeal– “This is a big giveaway to big agriculture, pure and simple.”

● NCBA intervened in support of EPA– Oral argument date has not been set

● Final Rule– Ammonia presumed NOT to be attainment plan precursor– States not required to address ammonia in SIPs– Presumption can be reversed by States

• Case-by-case basis• Must consider potential for increasing atmospheric and

particle acidity

● June 2007, Earthjustice appeal– “This is a big giveaway to big agriculture, pure and simple.”

● NCBA intervened in support of EPA– Oral argument date has not been set

SuperfundSuperfund

● Effort by environmentalists and active state and local officials to subject manure to Superfund law

● If successful, manure considered hazardous waste and pollutant– Subject to huge penalties and cleanup costs

● Created to cleanup Love Canal and Times Beach● Lawsuits

– City of Waco, Texas v 14 dairy operations• Nonpoint affecting Lake Waco• Six dairies went out of business• Six settled out of court - $5 million attorney’s fees• Two separately settled

– Attorney General of State of Oklahoma v Tyson, Cargill• Nonpoint affecting Illinois River Watershed• Hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties/cleanup costs• Case still pending• Petition to disallow use of chicken litter, RCRA, waste disposal

● Effort by environmentalists and active state and local officials to subject manure to Superfund law

● If successful, manure considered hazardous waste and pollutant– Subject to huge penalties and cleanup costs

● Created to cleanup Love Canal and Times Beach● Lawsuits

– City of Waco, Texas v 14 dairy operations• Nonpoint affecting Lake Waco• Six dairies went out of business• Six settled out of court - $5 million attorney’s fees• Two separately settled

– Attorney General of State of Oklahoma v Tyson, Cargill• Nonpoint affecting Illinois River Watershed• Hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties/cleanup costs• Case still pending• Petition to disallow use of chicken litter, RCRA, waste disposal

● If successful, similar suits throughout U.S.● Effect may effectively outlaw use of manure as

fertilizer -- liability ● Legislation last Congress

– 191 cosponsors in the House• Discharged from the Energy and Commerce Committee

– 36 cosponsors in the Senate

● Reintroduced this Congress– Senator Lincoln, House Ag Chairman Peterson– 26 Senate cosponsors, 126 House Cosponsors– Energy Bill, had majority but not 60

• EPW Chair Boxer objected

● NCBA continues to push for passage

● If successful, similar suits throughout U.S.● Effect may effectively outlaw use of manure as

fertilizer -- liability ● Legislation last Congress

– 191 cosponsors in the House• Discharged from the Energy and Commerce Committee

– 36 cosponsors in the Senate

● Reintroduced this Congress– Senator Lincoln, House Ag Chairman Peterson– 26 Senate cosponsors, 126 House Cosponsors– Energy Bill, had majority but not 60

• EPW Chair Boxer objected

● NCBA continues to push for passage

SuperfundSuperfund

Superfund and EPCRA Superfund and EPCRA

● Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Law– Emergency Release Reporting Requirements• Purpose to monitor “hazardous substances”

that present substantial threat to public health– ammonia/hydrogen sulfide» 100 pounds per 24 hour period

• Enable immediate response by state and local emergency response officials

– NCBA tasked to determine application to cattle– Legal analysis, White Paper to EPA 12/03, tour

● Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Law– Emergency Release Reporting Requirements• Purpose to monitor “hazardous substances”

that present substantial threat to public health– ammonia/hydrogen sulfide» 100 pounds per 24 hour period

• Enable immediate response by state and local emergency response officials

– NCBA tasked to determine application to cattle– Legal analysis, White Paper to EPA 12/03, tour

Superfund and EPCRASuperfund and EPCRA

– Administrative exemption• Naturally-occurring substance• Four criteria

– Continuous, low level emissions over large area– Rapid dispersion in environment– Acceptable exposure risk– Infeasibility/inappropriateness of response

• State responders do not expect to respond to animal ag reports– Reports burdensome/hindrance to respond to real

emergencies – Proposed rule to exempt 12/28/07– Final rule expected in 2008– Likely Earthjustice Appeal

– Administrative exemption• Naturally-occurring substance• Four criteria

– Continuous, low level emissions over large area– Rapid dispersion in environment– Acceptable exposure risk– Infeasibility/inappropriateness of response

• State responders do not expect to respond to animal ag reports– Reports burdensome/hindrance to respond to real

emergencies – Proposed rule to exempt 12/28/07– Final rule expected in 2008– Likely Earthjustice Appeal

Ozone NAAQSOzone NAAQS

● NOx + VOC + Sunlight = Ozone● NOx typically product of combustion processes● VOCs emitted from CAFOs, vegetation burning, animal waste handling

and storage● In California, nonattainment areas, CAFOs must have mitigation plan

for feed, solid waste, liquid waste● Current eight hour standard .084 ppm

– Proposed rule range .070 - .075 ppm – est. cost $68-130b/yr● Secondary standard to protect plants during growing season

– Proposed cumulative weighted total of daily 12 hour exposures over three month period – from 21 ppm hours to 7 pp. hours

● NCBA opposes tightening the ozone NAAQS– Scientific studies reinterpreted– Crop yields increasing over past decade

● Reactivity of VOCs – methane, ethylene● Final rule due March 12, 2008

● NOx + VOC + Sunlight = Ozone● NOx typically product of combustion processes● VOCs emitted from CAFOs, vegetation burning, animal waste handling

and storage● In California, nonattainment areas, CAFOs must have mitigation plan

for feed, solid waste, liquid waste● Current eight hour standard .084 ppm

– Proposed rule range .070 - .075 ppm – est. cost $68-130b/yr● Secondary standard to protect plants during growing season

– Proposed cumulative weighted total of daily 12 hour exposures over three month period – from 21 ppm hours to 7 pp. hours

● NCBA opposes tightening the ozone NAAQS– Scientific studies reinterpreted– Crop yields increasing over past decade

● Reactivity of VOCs – methane, ethylene● Final rule due March 12, 2008

Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule

Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule

● CWA requires regulations to prevent discharge of oil from facilities including farms and feedlots

● Applies to operations that– Store, transfer, use or consume oil or oil products– Could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to WOUS– If operation’s above ground capacity is greater than 1320

gallons● Proposed rule for ag facilities issued Oct. 15, 2007

– Facility Response Plan required to be certified by a professional engineer, unless• Aggregate oil storage capacity is 10,000 gallons or less

– NCBA commented -- 20,000 gallons more appropriate• No single discharge of oil to WOUS exceeding 1000 gal

for 3 yrs prior to certification• No two discharges of oil to WOUS exceeding 42 gallons

within any 12 month period

● CWA requires regulations to prevent discharge of oil from facilities including farms and feedlots

● Applies to operations that– Store, transfer, use or consume oil or oil products– Could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to WOUS– If operation’s above ground capacity is greater than 1320

gallons● Proposed rule for ag facilities issued Oct. 15, 2007

– Facility Response Plan required to be certified by a professional engineer, unless• Aggregate oil storage capacity is 10,000 gallons or less

– NCBA commented -- 20,000 gallons more appropriate• No single discharge of oil to WOUS exceeding 1000 gal

for 3 yrs prior to certification• No two discharges of oil to WOUS exceeding 42 gallons

within any 12 month period

Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure (SPCC) RuleSpill Prevention, Control &

Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule– Whether facility that qualifies for self certification

and has no oil storage containers greater than 5000 gallons should be able to use self- certification template• NCBA -- capacity should be 10,000 gallons

– Definition of “facility” for “farms”• Contiguous or noncontiguous buildings,

properties, parcels, leases structures, installations, pipes, or pipelines may be considered separate facilities.

– EPA will issue a compliance deadline date when the final rule is issued in 2008

– Whether facility that qualifies for self certification and has no oil storage containers greater than 5000 gallons should be able to use self- certification template• NCBA -- capacity should be 10,000 gallons

– Definition of “facility” for “farms”• Contiguous or noncontiguous buildings,

properties, parcels, leases structures, installations, pipes, or pipelines may be considered separate facilities.

– EPA will issue a compliance deadline date when the final rule is issued in 2008

Oberstar and the Clean Water Act


● “Waivers, Loopholes, and Rollbacks: The Republican Contract on Clean Water”

● Federal government must renew its commitment to have all waters meet the fishable, swimmable standard

● Nonpoint– One approach is HR 550 introduced in 1997

• Increased federal funding for nonpoint programs• Required states to create and implement plans to control

nonpoint sources• Allowed EPA to step in to implement plans where states

fail

● “Waivers, Loopholes, and Rollbacks: The Republican Contract on Clean Water”

● Federal government must renew its commitment to have all waters meet the fishable, swimmable standard

● Nonpoint– One approach is HR 550 introduced in 1997

• Increased federal funding for nonpoint programs• Required states to create and implement plans to control

nonpoint sources• Allowed EPA to step in to implement plans where states

fail



● Wetlands– Current definitions of waters of the United States

is “navigable waters”– Ambiguous– SWANCC• Supreme Court ruled on jurisdiction over

isolated waters• Court held that intrastate, isolated, non-

navigable waters are not covered by the Clean Water Act based on use by migratory birds

● Wetlands– Current definitions of waters of the United States

is “navigable waters”– Ambiguous– SWANCC• Supreme Court ruled on jurisdiction over

isolated waters• Court held that intrastate, isolated, non-

navigable waters are not covered by the Clean Water Act based on use by migratory birds

● Rapanos– Scalia’s limited scope of the CWA to only those waters that

are relative permanent, standing or continuously flowing and that form geographic features

– Wetlands would have to be physically connected to permanent waters to be covered

– Kennedy said waters would be covered if they have a “significant nexus” with traditional navigable waters• “wetlands possess the required nexus, and thus become

navigable waters, if the wetlands…significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as navigable.”

● Rapanos– Scalia’s limited scope of the CWA to only those waters that

are relative permanent, standing or continuously flowing and that form geographic features

– Wetlands would have to be physically connected to permanent waters to be covered

– Kennedy said waters would be covered if they have a “significant nexus” with traditional navigable waters• “wetlands possess the required nexus, and thus become

navigable waters, if the wetlands…significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as navigable.”



● June 5, 2007, EPA and Army Corps of Engineers issued guidance– Will impact when permits are needed– Traditional navigable waters are in – Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable are in– Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable

waters that are relatively permanent (continuous flow at least three months) are in

– Wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent tributaries

– Others that have fact specific “significant nexus” (defined)

● June 5, 2007, EPA and Army Corps of Engineers issued guidance– Will impact when permits are needed– Traditional navigable waters are in – Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable are in– Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable

waters that are relatively permanent (continuous flow at least three months) are in

– Wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent tributaries

– Others that have fact specific “significant nexus” (defined)



● Waters not covered– Swales or erosional features (e.g. gullies, small washes with

low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)– Ditches (including roadside ditches) that do not carry flow

three months of the year– Water flows generated from rainfall events and snowmelt

● Oberstar legislation would eliminate the use of the term “navigable waters” throughout the CWA and replace it with “waters of the United States” to give the CWA the broadest possible constitutional interpretation

● Would regulate “activities affecting these waters”● NCBA working to defeat Oberstar– success so far

– Oberstar arm-twisting with WRDA 2008 project request process

● Waters not covered– Swales or erosional features (e.g. gullies, small washes with

low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)– Ditches (including roadside ditches) that do not carry flow

three months of the year– Water flows generated from rainfall events and snowmelt

● Oberstar legislation would eliminate the use of the term “navigable waters” throughout the CWA and replace it with “waters of the United States” to give the CWA the broadest possible constitutional interpretation

● Would regulate “activities affecting these waters”● NCBA working to defeat Oberstar– success so far

– Oberstar arm-twisting with WRDA 2008 project request process



Global Climate ChangeGlobal Climate Change

● Studies show GHGs increasing in Earth’s atmosphere every year– CO2, methane, nitrous oxide

● Debate: manmade v natural causes ● New effort in Congress to address global warming

– Wide support from business community for cap-and-trade system

– December 5, 2007, EPW reported Lieberman-Warner bill• Establishes national economy-wide cap

– Reduce GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020

– Reduce by 1.8% per year to 70% below 2005 levels by 2050

● Studies show GHGs increasing in Earth’s atmosphere every year– CO2, methane, nitrous oxide

● Debate: manmade v natural causes ● New effort in Congress to address global warming

– Wide support from business community for cap-and-trade system

– December 5, 2007, EPW reported Lieberman-Warner bill• Establishes national economy-wide cap

– Reduce GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020

– Reduce by 1.8% per year to 70% below 2005 levels by 2050


• “Covered facilities” (Electric utility, transportation, and manufacturing industries that emit GHG from coal, petroleum fuel and natural gas) allocated emission allowances–An emission allowance is authorization to

emit one CO2 equivalent of GHG per year• Early years, allowances given free, auctioned

– Other sectors also given allowances, including ag• USDA would get 5% of Emission Allowance

Account to reduce ag emissions, and increasing GHG sequestration– 0.5% for reducing nitrous oxide and

methane

• “Covered facilities” (Electric utility, transportation, and manufacturing industries that emit GHG from coal, petroleum fuel and natural gas) allocated emission allowances–An emission allowance is authorization to

emit one CO2 equivalent of GHG per year• Early years, allowances given free, auctioned

– Other sectors also given allowances, including ag• USDA would get 5% of Emission Allowance

Account to reduce ag emissions, and increasing GHG sequestration– 0.5% for reducing nitrous oxide and

methane


● Establishes formal carbon sequestration program– No till or reduced till systems– Increase crop rotation intensity by eliminating

summer fallow– Buffer strips– Conservation measures to reduce soil erosion– Use high residue crops like corn, sorghum, wheat– Improve forage quality on grazing lands– Reduce overgrazing

● Establishes formal carbon sequestration program– No till or reduced till systems– Increase crop rotation intensity by eliminating

summer fallow– Buffer strips– Conservation measures to reduce soil erosion– Use high residue crops like corn, sorghum, wheat– Improve forage quality on grazing lands– Reduce overgrazing


● Estimate that producers could receive $2/acre for one or more of these practices

● Media attention on U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released report titles “Livestock Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options”– Claimed on a worldwide level, livestock rearing

generated more GHG emissions than the transportation industry – 18%

– EPA data shows U.S. livestock operations superior to other countries

● Estimate that producers could receive $2/acre for one or more of these practices

● Media attention on U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released report titles “Livestock Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options”– Claimed on a worldwide level, livestock rearing

generated more GHG emissions than the transportation industry – 18%

– EPA data shows U.S. livestock operations superior to other countries


● EPA’s April 15, 2007 report, “Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005”– EPA does not list livestock as a concern for CO2– Largest emitter of methane is solid waste landfills – 24%– Methane from enteric fermentation does not exceed .05% of

total GHG emissions• Have declined by 3% during 1990-2005 due to decreasing

cattle pop. and high feed quality• Pew Commission

– Nitrous oxide emitted from fertilizer, incl manure• EPA partially attributes increase in soil carbon

sequestration to increase in use of organic fertilizer– Polar bears and penguins

● EPA’s April 15, 2007 report, “Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005”– EPA does not list livestock as a concern for CO2– Largest emitter of methane is solid waste landfills – 24%– Methane from enteric fermentation does not exceed .05% of

total GHG emissions• Have declined by 3% during 1990-2005 due to decreasing

cattle pop. and high feed quality• Pew Commission

– Nitrous oxide emitted from fertilizer, incl manure• EPA partially attributes increase in soil carbon

sequestration to increase in use of organic fertilizer– Polar bears and penguins

Questions?Questions?

beef industry issues forums understanding the business and consumer climate

Documents

final cafo rule

sip rule

yearsrelease rule

public review

final decision

release of final rulecafos

agriculture dust

dust subject