CASE STUDY — Project Development Document

GHG Management Institute SSS Case Study 1 of 35

CASE STUDY

Project Design Document Innovative Management of Swine and Swine Manure in the

Summerland Swine Syndicate Revised February 2009

Introduction This case study presents a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction project called the Summerland Swine Syndicate, a fictional swine production cooperative with member farms across Alberta, Canada. The GHG project was developed to fulfill the requirements of the Alberta Offset System, a regulatory system designed to offer an alternative option for compliance to facilities required to reduce GHG emissions under the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulations. This project design document1 is based on the requirements set forth by the ISO 14064-2 standard, section 5: Requirements for GHG Projects. 5.2 a) Project title, purpose and objectives The title of the project is the Summerland Swine Syndicate (“S3” or “SSS”). The purpose of this project is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with the production and processing of swine and swine manure, and to capitalize on the co-benefits associated with the project’s implementation (e.g., reduced particulate air pollution, reduced odor, greater financial profitability for project participants, etc.).

5.2 b) Type of GHG project The S3 Project quantifies emission reductions achieved through three kinds of innovative practices on member farms:

1. Changed feeding practices of member farms: new practices substitute ingredients in the feed to reduce excretion of volatile solids (VS) by increasing energy digestibility and to reduce excretion of nitrogen (N) by optimizing amino acid balance.

2. Changed manure handling practices at member farms: these practices substitute the season and frequency of manure spreading to decrease the conversion of volatile solids (VS) to CH4 in storage and to decrease emissions of N2O after spreading.

3. Improved genetics: The improvement of swine genetics through the introduction of uniform breeding stock reduces manure excretion by decreasing the feed requirements of the pigs, and/or by decreasing the time needed to raise the pigs under project conditions.

1 Other types of project design documents can be viewed at the UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism website: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/index.html

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/index.html


5.2 c) Project Location The membership in the S3 cooperative includes 100 farms in Alberta, Canada. These farms represent four types of swine production enterprises:

Types of SSS Member Farms Farrow to Finish farms where adult pigs are kept for procreation, and the resulting offspring

are reared to a market weight of about 115 kg; Farrow to Wean farms where adult pigs are kept for procreation, and the resulting offspring

are sold at 5 kg (farrow to early wean enterprise) or 25 kg (farrow to 25 kg enterprise) for further feeding at another barn

Nursery farms that purchase 5 kg piglets and rear them to 25 kg for sale to other farms for further feeding

Finisher farms that purchase 25 kg pigs and rear them to a market weight of about 115 kg

The boundary of the S3 Project encompasses the barn where the pigs are raised, the facility where liquid manure is stored, and the land where the liquid manure is spread (Figure 1). The S3 Project includes many sites and a variety of enterprises. 5.2 d) Conditions prior to project initiation The Summerland Swine Syndicate (S3) was established in 1999, following several years of disastrously low pork prices, in an effort to organize independent farms into a cooperative of sufficient production capacity to negotiate long-term and price-supported contracts with processors in Canada. The negotiated contracts proved profitable for members, but it was evident that processors would pay more if carcasses from all S3 members were more uniform. So, all members began using breeding stock from a single source. Currently member farms feed their swine a diet that has a much lower nutrient density than that proposed in the emission reduction project. The farms also store manure for long periods of time in lagoons and spread it throughout the year. During the warmer months, multiple greenhouse gases, primarily methane, are released in to the atmosphere as the anaerobic digestion process is stimulated by increased temperatures. 5.2 e) Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions Figure 1 illustrates how the project will achieve emission reductions.


Figure 1. Scope of Summerland Swine Syndicate GHG reduction project

Feeding

Practices: ↓ Crude Protein or ↓ Volatile Solids (by re‐formulating diet) ↓ Feed Used (by a range of swine management practices).

Storing

Practice: Empty storage to remove volatile solids before warm season, and to decrease amount available for methanogens.

Spreading

Practices: Spread close to time crop needs N to minimize opportunity to convert mineral N to N2O.

[N] VS

[N] VS

↓ CH4

↓ N2O

Improvements in genetics and nutrition, which increases the growth rate and feed efficiency of the member herds, will result in decreased use of feed per unit weight of pigs raised. Changes to the swine diets increased the energy digestibility and decreased the crude protein content, corresponding to decreased excretion of volatile solids (VS) and nitrogen (N) per unit feed used. With less feed used, and therefore less volatile solids excreted per unit weight of pigs raised, less methane (with a Global Warming Potential = 21) will be emitted from stored manure. With less feed protein used and therefore less nitrogen excreted per unit weight of pigs raised, less nitrous oxide (with a Global Warming Potential = 310) will also be emitted from land receiving manure.

5.2 f) Project technologies, products and services The S3 Project has three components representing innovations in management:

1. Purchasing breeding stock of advanced genetics to use feed more efficiently. As a result: a) the maternal line (the sow genetics) is more prolific, resulting in larger numbers

of live births per pregnancy, and larger piglets at weaning; b) the terminal line (the boar genetics) is more productive, resulting in faster growth

rate and greater lean tissue deposition per unit of feed intake. 2. Formulating feed to minimize excretion of volatile solids and nitrogen per unit feed used.

a) Diets with higher energy digestibility optimize growth rate and minimize excretion of volatile solids;

b) Diets with balanced amino acid composition optimize lean deposition and minimize excretion of nitrogen.

3. Emptying manure storage in spring or summer. a) Methane production increases as ambient temperature increases, so minimizing

volatile solids in the storage during the summer decreases annual methane emissions;


b) Nitrous oxide evolves from nitrate in saturated soils, so spreading manure in time with crop needs for nitrogen prevents the build up of nitrate and minimizes nitrous oxide emissions.

In total, the member farms of the S3 cooperative raise currently about 450,000 market hogs per year. The typical inventory in all member farms for pigs of various classes is distributed as follows: Sows — 20,000 head; Starters (5 - 25 kg) — 50,000 head; Growers (25 – 60 kg) — 100,000 head; and Finishers (60 – 115 kg) — 100,000 head Over the years, with increasing productivity and efficiency, the numbers of market hogs sold by S3 has increased. All emissions and reductions, however, are quantified on the basis of one kg of pig raised. This normalizes the level of activity of the member farms into a unit that is independent of the numbers of pigs raised, thereby maintaining the functional equivalence of the project with the baseline scenario. The reductions per kg pig raised are multiplied by the total mass of pigs sold to determine the S3 Project reductions. The S3 Project involves improvement in management of existing facilities, so no manufacture or installation is involved.

5.2 g) Aggregate GHG emission reductions likely to occur from the project The S3 Project is registered in AOS for six years (2006 to 2012). Annual reduction assertions of about 25,000 tCO2-equivalents are expected. The total expected reductions over the six years of the project are 150,000 tCO2-equivalents.

5.2 h) Identification of risks that may affect the project’s GHG emission reductions The potential risks affecting the GHG reductions of the S3 Project can be addressed as environmental, economic, and production risks. Environmental risks pertain to the possibility of more stringent regulatory controls on the output of manure and manure nutrients from the member farms. Such regulations could undermine the additionality of the S3 Project reductions. Since agricultural activity is traditionally exempt from most environmental legislation in Canada, this risk is minimal. Economic risks are associated with potential that some member farms will close, thereby decreasing the number of reductions achieved in the S3 Project. Factors contributing to the closure of farms include: (1) loss of financial viability, (2) lack of labor, (3) encroachment of urban areas, and (4) retirement of owner/operators. However, the S3 cooperative was formed in large part to mitigate such economic risks, and works continually to address the factors detrimental to the economic health of the member farms. The S3 Project therefore is protected from economic risks as well as is possible for an agricultural business.


Production risks relate to possible interruptions to the flow of pigs to market, again representing a potential decrease in the number of reductions achieved in the S3 Project. The outbreak of disease can cause such an interruption of production. Disease can compromise the efficiency of the farm by decreasing the fertility of sows, increasing death losses in the growing pigs, and decreasing the feed efficiency of the surviving pigs — decreased efficiency means increased GHG emissions per mass of pigs raised, and therefore fewer reductions. The S3 cooperative, however, is organized to guard against disease outbreak. Stringent biosecurity measures are required of all members, and the introduction of breeding stock (the primary carrier of disease) is rigidly controlled. The S3 Project therefore actively addresses production risks.

5.2 i) Roles and responsibilities of various GHG emission reduction parties Project Developers: Summerland Swine Syndicate 1234 Duroc Drive Red Deer, Alberta (403) 123-5555 A list of member farms with contact information is available on the S3 website (www.highflyingpig.ca). Verifier: LFE Energy Inc. 5678 Rainbow Road Edmonton, Alberta (780) 123-5555

5.2 j) Information relevant for the eligibility of a GHG project under a GHG program The S3 Environmental Management Division determined that the most suitable program to register an agriculture-based GHG reduction project was the Alberta Offset System (AOS), as defined in the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulations. The S3 GHG reduction project quantifies and reports GHG emission reductions as prescribed by the Alberta Offset System (AOS) Pork Protocol. Two key issues factored in this decision. First, the AOS Pork Protocol definition of additionality is achievable on the S3 member farms. The concept of additionality is defined differently by different regulatory and voluntary programs. The AOS determines that GHG project reductions are additional if they are not required by regulations, or if the innovations are not supported by specific government incentives. Second, the AOS Pork Protocol allows member farms to capture emission reductions from innovations in management of both swine and swine manure. Thus, the AOS Pork Protocol includes in its scope both the emission reductions stemming from increased efficiency of feed use, and from the increased timeliness of manure spreading. The S3 Project thus quantifies GHG reductions associated with innovations that are not required by law, and associated with both swine management and manure spreading. Points of contrast between the


AOS Pork Protocol and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) AM0016Ver02 methodology and the CCAR Livestock Reporting Protocol are examined in greater detail in subsequent lessons. The quantification and reporting scheme in the AOS Pork Protocol is designed to meet the requirements of the ISO 14064-2:2006 standard. Because the AOS Pork Protocol is designed for the Canadian context, the methods and coefficients for quantifying emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are obtained from Canada's National Soil Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Verification System (NCGAVS) project. NCGAVS helps to report the amount of agricultural carbon sinks and GHG emissions as required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. In developing the GHG reduction project, the Environmental Management Division considered two main alternatives to the AOS protocol. First, the S3 Environmental Management Division examined the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier I approach to GHG reduction quantification and reporting, as used in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) process of the UNFCCC. Such an approach is registered by AgCert for GHG mitigation projects involving swine waste management systems in Mexico and South America (AM0016Ver02). This approach was rejected in favor of the NCGAVS-based AOS quantification protocol, because the CDM-based quantification approach was insufficiently site-specific to estimate methane emissions from swine manure in Canada2. Second, the S3 Environmental Management Division examined the CCAR Livestock Reporting Protocol. This approach was rejected in favor of the AOS quantification protocol, because the CCAR tool was too stringent in additionality definition and did not cover the GHG reduction activities in the SSS. The S3 Environmental Management Division discovered that, in Canada, there are no regulations limiting the emission of GHG from swine farms, but some regulations to standardize manure storage and to restrict manure spreading have implications for emissions of CH4 and N2O. The regulations are intended to minimize the loss of manure nutrients into the environment by restricting spreading of manure in seasons of the year (1) when nutrients could be lost by run off or leaching, or (2) when plants are not actively growing. To enable spreading of manure to synchronize with plant needs for nutrients, most provinces require that storage facilities have sufficient capacity to store manure from fall through spring — at least six months. Since the regulations focus on manure nutrients, most provinces require formal nutrient management plans that calculate manure nutrient concentrations and estimate crop nutrient needs, and then adjust manure spreading rates accordingly. It is possible to comply with these existing, and foreseeable, regulations for manure management without minimizing GHG emissions. Therefore, the innovative practices included in the S3 2 For GHG measurements in Canada see: Massé, D. 2006. Demonstration Project on a commercial farm of a technology that captures and oxidizes methane from manure storage facilities. Final Report. Canadian Pork Council Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Program. Park,K-H. Thompson, A.G., Marinier, M., Clark, K., and Wagner-Riddle, C. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from stored liquid swine manure in a cold climate. Atmos. Environ. 40:618-627.


Project achieve reductions in GHG emissions in addition to what would have been achieved as a result of regulations.

5.2 k) Summary environmental impact statement (when required by law or regulation) Because the S3 Project requires no alteration to existing facilities, no environmental impact assessment is required. It is worthy of note, however, that innovative practices that decrease GHG emissions typically result in environmental co-benefits. These include smaller volume of manure (because less feed is required as feed efficiency is increased) possibly with less odor (because of lower concentration of nitrogen in manure, and because liquid manure storage are now emptied before the warmer season).

5.2 l) Relevant outcomes from stakeholder consultation and mechanisms for ongoing communication The Environmental Management Division of S3 regularly communicates with neighbors of all member farms, to gather concerns and to distribute information regarding significant changes to farm practices.

5.2 m) Chronological plan for the date of initiating project activities, date of termination, frequency of monitoring and reporting for the project crediting period… Project Initiation Date: January 2006. Project Termination Date: January 2012. Total Project Crediting Period: This project has a 6 year project crediting period. Frequency of Monitoring and Verification Reporting: The Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) requires that the CO2 offsets generated by the Project be quantified and verified by an independent, third party auditor every 12 months for the 6 year term of the ERPA. Within 60 days of the end of each 12 month period the project proponent will submit an annual M&V Report to the third party auditor for verification. Table 2. Project Activity Timeline Task Date Status Introduction of superior breeding stock. April 2002 Complete Initiation of sophisticated feed formulation.

August 2003 Complete

Implementation of spring emptying of liquid manure storage facilities.

April 2004 Complete

Documentation of baseline GHG emissions (using 2001 records of feed use/composition and pig performance).

July 2005 Complete

Start of Project January 2006 On-going Review of operation and monitoring Every three months from On-going


procedure and collected data project start date. GHG report on yearly emission reductions Every year in early January. On-going

Verification of emission reduction quantified in GHG report

Every year in late January. On-going

Sale of GHG emission reductions to buyer

Every year February 02nd. On-going

5.3 Identifying sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSR’s) relevant to the project

5.3.1. Selection and Establishment of Criteria and Procedures The method used to identify SSRs for the SSS Project followed closely the strategy used to develop the AOS Pork Protocol. The AOS followed a process intended to apply the ISO 14064 standard to GHG projects in Canada. The project developers conducted extensive consultation with researchers, technical experts, and practitioners to inform this decision-making process. The most contentious issue addressed in the consultations concerned up-stream and down-stream SSRs. Because farms are such complex entities, and because they individually have so little control over up-stream and down-stream entities that supply or receive energy and material from them, the boundary of the GHG reduction project was limited to on-site SSRs. The SSS Environmental Management Division also sought applicable good practice guidance for criteria and procedures to identify SSRs relevant to the project by examining the GHG Protocol for Project Accounting (WRI/WBCSD, December 2005), a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) GHG mitigation project concerning animal waste management systems (AM0016Ver02), and a number of voluntary carbon standards (CCAR, GE-AES).

5.3.2. Application of Procedures The application of the procedures developed in the AOS process resulted in a schematic of relevant SSRs for innovative management of swine and liquid swine manure (Figure 2). The SSRs color-coded in green are controlled SSRs. The SSRs color-coded in blue are related SSRs. No affected SSRs were identified. The on-site SSRs, those within the SSS Project boundary, are shown in the green areas that have dotted lines around them. Further, the SSRs are tabulated to provide a more detailed description (Error! Reference source not found.). The yellow ovals are outputs and inputs.


Spreading D3.2 Feeding

Feed UseC1.1

Barn (Pig Husbandry)

C1.2

Feed Transportation

B2.1

Feedstuffs Transportation Processing

B1.2

Feedstuffs Production

B1.1

Electricity

Electricity Transmission & Distribution

B2.5

Electricity Generation

B1.6

Natural Gas

Natural Gas Distribution

B2.6

Natural Gas Production &

Fugitive Emissions

B1.7

Outdoor Storage

In‐Barn Storage

Barn Construction & Commissioning

A3.1

Barn Materials Manufacture &Distribution

A2.1

Storing D3.1

Application of Manure

Fertilizer

Fertilizer Transportation

B2.4

Fertilizer Manufacture

B1.5

Fuel

Fuel Transportation& Distribution

B2.3

Fuel Production

B1.4

Crop Growing & Harvesting

D2.4

Maintenance C2.1

Decommissioning E1.1

Transportation & Management of

Rubble E2.1

Pig Transportation

D1.1

Pork Processor

D2.1

Pork Sales and Consumption D2.2, D2.3

Pigs

Other Barns (Pig Production)

B1.3

Pigs

Pigs

Resource Production & Transportation

A1.1

Storage Material

Manufacture & Distribution

A2.2

Manure Storage Construction & Commissioning

A3.2

Spreading Equipment Fabricating &

Delivery A3.3

Spreading Materials

Manufacture & Distribution

A2.3

ManureManure

Pig Transportation

B2.2

Pigs

Related SSR

Controlled SSR

Input / Output

Figure 2. Controlled, Related and Affected SSR’s in the SSS Project


Table 3. Identification of controlled, affected, or related SSRs for the project

B.1.1Feedstuffs Production (Crop Growing & Harvesting)

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the seed production, tillage, fertilizer and pesticide application, crop residue management, irrigation, harvesting.

Related

B.1.2Feedstuffs Transportation & Feed Processing

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the transportation to the mill (by rail or by truck), and processing into feed at the mill (store, convey, grind, mix, weigh, load).

Related

B.1.3Pig Production All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the raising of pigs, including semen, that are an input to the enterprise.

Related

B.1.4.Fuel Production All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the production of diesel fuel.

Related

B.1.5Fertilizer Manufacture

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the production of fertilizer.

Related

B.1.6Electricity All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the Related

1. SSR 2. Description 3. Controlled, Related or Affected

Category A — Upstream SSRs A.1 Production and Transportation of Resources & Energy A.1.1Resource Production & Transportation

Refers to aggregated source representing all activities (inputs of materials and energy) for production of all resources to manufacture basic materials (cement, wood, steel, plastic, fiberglass, etc) and to transport these to manufacturing facilities.

Related

A.2. Manufacture and Distribution of Materials for Protocol Components A.2.1Barn Materials Manufacture & Distribution

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) needed to manufacture and distribute materials to construct and equip a swine barn.

Related

A.2.2Storage Materials Manufacture & Distribution

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) needed to manufacture and distribute materials to construct and equip a facility to store swine manure.

Related

A.2.3Spreading Materials Manufacture & Distribution

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) needed to manufacture and distribute materials to fabricate and deliver equipment to spread swine manure as a fertilizer on land.

Related

A.3. Installation and Commissioning A.3.1Barn Construction & Commissioning

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the construction and commissioning of the swine barn.

Related

A.3.2Manure Storage Construction & Commissioning

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the construction and commissioning of the facility for storage of swine manure.

Related

A.3.3Spreading Equipment Fabrication & Delivery

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the fabrication o manure spreading equipment and the delivery to end user.

Related

Category B - Upstream SSRs During Project Operation B.1 Production of Project Inputs


Generation generation of electricity. B.1.7Natural Gas Production, Fugitive Emissions

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the discovery and production of natural gas. Because natural gas is a GHG (CH4), fugitive emissions during production are included in this element.

Related

B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B.2.1Feed Transportation

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the transport of feed from the feed mill to the protocol farm.

Related

B.2.2 Pig Transportation

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the transport of pigs, including semen, that are an input to the enterprise.

Related

B.2.3 Fuel Transportation

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the transportation of diesel fuel to the protocol farm.

Related

B.2.4 Fertilizer Transportation

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the transportation of fertilizer to the protocol farm.

Related

B.2.5 Electricity Transmission & Distribution

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the transmission and distribution of electricity to the protocol farm.

Related

B.2.6 Natural Gas Distribution, Fugitive Emissions

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the distribution of natural gas. Because natural gas is a GHG (CH4), fugitive emissions during distribution are included in this SSR.

Related

Category C - Onsite SSRs C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) C.1.1Feed Use All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the use

of feed. Also, refers to practices to manage feed composition to decrease N and VS excreted to reduce GHG emissions from manure per unit of pig marketed.

Controlled

C.1.2Pig Husbandry All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the operation of a swine barn. Also, refers to practices to manage pigs to decrease N and VS excreted to reduce GHG emissions per unit of pig marketed.

Controlled

C.1.3Fuel Use Fuel used to spread manure. Controlled C.1.F4Fertilizer Use Fertilizer used to supplement manure nutrients to support crop

growth. Controlled

C.1.5Electricity Use Electricity used to operate a swine barn and manure storage facility.

Controlled

C.1.6Natural Gas Use. Natural gas used to operate a swine barn and manure storage facility.

Controlled

C.2 Maintenance C.2.1 Maintenance All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the

maintenance of a swine barn and manure storage facility. Controlled

Category D — Downstream SSRs D.1 Transportation of Product(s) D.1.1Transport of Pigs All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the

transport of pigs that are an output of the project farm (cull breeding stock, market hogs for slaughter, OR breeding stock, weaners, feeders to other barns).

Related

D.2 Use of Product(s)/Service(s)


Slaughter of Pigs, Processing & Distribution of Pork

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the operation of pork processing facility and distribution network.

Related

D.2.2Retail Sale of Pork

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the operation of a meat department or store.

Related

D.2.3 Consumption of Pork

All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the purchase and preparation of pork for food.

Related

D.3 Waste Management D.3.1Manure Storage All activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the

operation of a manure storage facility. Also, refers to practices to reduce emissions of GHG from the stored manure.

Controlled

D.3.2Manure Spreading

Refers to all activities (inputs of materials and energy) involved in the spreading of manure onto land, with the exception of the fuel used to spread manure (see C.1.5). Also, refers to practices to reduce emissions of GHG from the spread manure.

Controlled

Category E – Downstream SSRs after Project Termination E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration E.1.1Decommissioning

All activities to shut down the swine ban and manure storage facility.

Related

E.2.1Transport Waste Transportation of waste to recycling and landfilling for the protocol components and structures

Related

5.4 Determining the baseline scenario

5.4.1. Identification of Baseline Scenario Candidates The method used to identify baseline scenario candidates for the SSS Project followed closely the strategy used to develop the AOS Pork Protocol. The AOS Pork Protocol followed a process designed to apply the ISO 14064 standard to GHG projects in Canada. The AOS used extension consultation with scientific researchers, technical experts, and practitioners to inform this decision-making process. Because the nature of this swine management project (livestock managed in a highly specialized facility that has no alternative use), the field of baseline scenario candidates is limited. That is, the baseline candidates represent variations of methods to estimate the emission of methane and nitrous oxides on the project farms in the absence of the innovations in genetics, nutrition, and manure management.

5.4.2. Justification of Baseline Scenario It is critical that the reductions achieved in the SSS Project are additional to the baseline, meaning that they would not be achieved under business-as-usual conditions. If the project were to be determined non-additional, then the reductions from the SSS Project would not be certifiable as offsets, because they follow from innovations pursued for reasons of economic


advantage, as described in the Introduction. The S3 Projects are designed to fulfill the additionality requirements of the AOS, which establishes as its additionally standard that projects not be required by law. The barriers test points out that the business-as-usual practice, in comparison to the GHG reduction practices proposed by the SSS Project, is a more likely choice for farmers, because there are few if any barriers to its implementation (Error! Reference source not found.). Several alternative methods for management of liquid swine manure are not included in the Barriers test. The SSS Environmental Management Division, in consultation with various Canadian researchers, evaluated alternatives such as composting, covering/capturing/combusting, and anaerobic digestion. This evaluation supported the conclusion that these capital-intensive alternatives are not cost-effective for the SSS members. Thus, an economic barrier exists to the use of alternatives other than innovative management to decrease the flow of VS and N to manure storage. Therefore, only the innovations of the SSS Project and business-as-usual practices are considered in the Barriers test. By this assessment, GHG reductions achieved by innovations in management practices are additional to business-as-usual, as required by the AOS Pork Protocol. Table 1: Barriers assessment of the business-as-usual and innovative practice options for baseline scenarios for quantification of GHG emission reduction by innovative feeding of swine, and storing & spreading of manure

BARRIER Business‐As‐Usual Innovative Practice Legal No barrier Lack of established rules and precedents.

Feed mills may risk liability when manufacturing diets that decrease CP or VS.

Financial No barrier Agricultural lenders often require business-as-usual. Innovative diets may be more costly.

Technology and Operation

No barrier Agri-business (equipment suppliers, feed mills, manure spreaders, nutritionists) set up for business as usual. Many pigs grown as part of systems where farmers have little control over technology or operations.

Market No barrier Existing market mechanisms offer small margins that lock farmers into business-as-usual. And, consumers may not pay more for products grown on farms using innovative, ‘green’, practice.

Resources No barrier Practices to decrease GHG emissions are not well understood by farmers or agri-business.

Institutional and No barrier Farmers reluctant to adopt new


Social technology and/or to modify operations. The results of the application of the procedures used in the AOS process are tabulated to allow detailed, but succinct description (Table 2).

Table 2: Possible Baseline Scenarios for Estimating GHG Emissions without Project Baseline Option

Project-specific Historic benchmark

• Description A site-specific scenario using feeding and storing & spreading records to determine baseline practices at the start of the project eligibility period.

• Static or Dynamic Static • Accept or Reject and

Justify Accept. The SSS Project is designed to measure and reward change in management that results in GHG reductions. Therefore, the SSS Project bases the without-project scenario on actual farm records of feeding swine (diet recipes, feed to gain ratios, rate of growth), and of storing and spreading manure (frequency and season of emptying). The with-project records of the farm demonstrate the change of practice compared to the without-project scenario. This approach assures that emission reductions are associated with real practice change, and optimizes the accuracy of reduction assertions.

Sector-level Standard Performance

• Description Proponents of the AOS Pork Protocol, who lack site-specific data needed for the historic benchmark scenario, have the flexibility to use the performance standard scenario. This approach assumes the typical emissions profile for the regional pork sector is a reasonable representation of the baseline scenario.


Justify Reject. Performance standards are developed by the AOS to represent feeding efficiencies, rate of growth, etc. on standard Canadian pork farms. Regional diet formulations for VS content are based on The Livestock Feed Requirements Study (2001). These performance standards are the result of the consultation and evaluation process, derived in the expert workshops and vetted by leading industry practitioners. The development of performance standards focuses on “standards”, not “averages”. This means that the standards were vetted against the level of efficiency achieved on leading farms. For the storing and spreading components of the AOS Pork Protocol, the proponents lacking evidence to establish regional baseline storing and spreading practice may provide a statement (affidavit) of practice.


This approach is rejected in the S3 Project for two reasons. First, the S3 member farms are required to keep detailed records of feed use, pig performance, and manure management. Using the farm records enhances the accuracy of GHG reduction quantification as compared to those achieved using Canadian standards. Second, many of the S3 member farms achieved pre-project efficiency lower than that of the ‘leading’ farms from which the Canadian standards were derived. The actual farm records thus provide a baseline that allows larger GHG reductions than would be calculated using a standard reference. However, in the validation process, it is necessary to demonstrate that the with-project emissions are lower than those associated with the sector-level baseline to ensure that the GHG reductions are ‘real’ (additional and accurate).

Comparison • Description Involves use of direct measurement data from the project farm

and from a ‘controlled’ swine farm that uses business-as-usual practice.

• Static or Dynamic Dynamic • Accept or Reject and

Justify Reject. This option is not feasible for the S3 Project, because all member farms implemented the innovations. And, because the technical difficulty and expense of direct measurement using micro-metering techniques.

Projection-based • Description Involves use of time-series data or models to describe GHG

emission reductions associated with innovative swine feeding and manure storage and spreading practice in the regions of Canada.


Justify Reject. At present, no GHG assessment databases or models exist that are sufficiently rigorous and robust to provide the level of precision and assurance required in the AOS.

5.4.3. Identifying GHG Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs for the Baseline Scenario The S3 Project achieves GHG reductions by decreasing the GHG emissions per unit weight of pigs raised through innovations in breeding stock genetics, feed composition, and timing of manure spreading. Therefore, the SSRs of the baseline scenario and project are the same.

5.4.4. Criteria and Procedure

Figure 1 and Figure 4 illustrate the criteria and procedures selected to Identify GHG SSRs for the baseline scenario.


Figure 1: Decision Tree for Selection of Relevant SSRs

#1 ‐ Identify all GHG Sources, Sinks or

Reservoirs (SSR) for your project

#i ‐ Is the GHG SSR controlled by the Proponent?

#ii ‐ Is the GHG SSR related by energy or material flows into

or out of the project?

#iii ‐Is the GHG SSR affected the market?

No

Yes

No

No

#2 – Ignore the GHG SSR, it is not

part of the project.

Yes

Yes

Yes

#3 ‐ Identify all GHG Sources, Sinks or

Reservoirs (SSR) for the baseline

No

#v ‐ Are there other controlled, related or affect GHG SSRs that should be included in

the baseline?

#4 ‐ Assume the GHG emissions from this

SSR are zero (0) in the baseline – go to question #v

No

Go to step #7

Yes

#7 ‐ Tabulate and compare all identified SSRs in the project and baseline and apply the relevance test (below)

#6 ‐ Assume the GHG emissions from this SSR are zero (0)

in the project

#5 – Justify why this SSR should be part of the baseline

#iv ‐ Is the controlled, related or affected GHG SSR also included in the baseline?

#8 – Sum all differences in

emissions between baseline and project

#9 – Record the

emission reduction or removal calculation

Source: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset System, March 2006


Identify SSRs for the Project and determine if each SSR is controlled related or affected

Identify the baseline scenario

Identify SSRs for the baseline and determine if each SSR is controlled related or affected

No

Is the SSR a source of emissions associated with the manufacturing of materials (e.g. steel, concrete, etc.) used to manufacture equipment used in the project or baseline?

No

Yes

Is the SSR not eligible to generate offset credits (such as they are covered by another federal greenhouse gas regulation, do not satisfy the incremental eligibility criterion or is not within the scope of the Offset System program);

Yes

No

The SSR is relevant and must be quantified

The SSR is not relevant and may be excluded from quantification


Is the SSR unchanged between the baseline and the project?


Yes

Figure 2: Test for Relevance

rSource: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset System, March 2006


Application of Criteria and Procedures continued As a result of the types of innovative practices used and of the efficiency objective of the S3

Project, GHG emissions from a number of project SSRs are expected to decrease as compared to the baseline scenario. The GHG emissions from some of these SSRs are quantified as they correspond to the feeding, storing and spreading components of the S3 Project. Other SSRs are excluded from quantification by the S3 Project. Category B SSRs refer to the inputs of materials and energy associated with manufacturing project inputs and transporting these to the project site. As a result of the efficiency approach incorporated in the P3 Project, with-project Category B SSRs are similar or decreased compared to the baseline. To quantify these reductions, however, requires calculation of complex processes out of the control of the project proponent. The following Category B SSRs are therefore excluded from quantification.

Category B - Upstream SSRs During Project Operation B.1 Production of Project Inputs B.1.1. Feedstuffs Production This SSR includes inputs of materials and energy involved in the seed production, tillage, fertilizer and pesticide application, crop residue management, irrigation, and harvesting. The objective of the S3 Project is to implement practices that decrease GHG emissions per unit pork sold. It is expected, therefore, that project pigs will use less feed than the baseline scenario, resulting in decreased expenditure of energy and materials for growing and harvesting of feedstuffs. To quantify these reductions, however, requires detailed information of complex processes occurring on non-S3 farms. The S3 Project will therefore exclude these potential reductions. B.1.2. Feed Processing This SSR includes inputs of materials and energy involved in the transportation of feed stuffs to the mill (by rail or by truck), and processing into feed at the mill (store, convey, grind, mix, weigh, load). It is expected that project pigs will use less feed than the baseline scenario, resulting in decreased expenditure of energy and materials for transporting of feedstuffs and transporting and processing of feeds. To quantify these reductions, however, requires detailed information of complex processes occurring on farms and feed-mills not controlled by S3. The S3 Project will therefore exclude these potential reductions. B.1.3. Pig Production


This SSR includes materials and energy used to raise pigs (feeder pigs for feeder barns, replacement stock and/or semen for farrowing barns) purchased in the project. Owing to the efficiency objective of the S3 Project, it is expected that the project will require decreased expenditure of energy and materials for raising the pigs and/or semen. To quantify these reductions, however, requires detailed information of complex processes not controlled by the proponent. The S3 Project will therefore exclude these potential reductions. B.1.4. Fuel Production This SSR includes inputs of materials and energy involved in the production of diesel fuel. A possible consequence of the S3 Project practices is the need for increased manufacture of diesel fuel to spread manure. Further analysis as described in Section C.1.3 provides a rationale to counter this possibility. B.1.5 Fertilizer Manufacture This SSR addresses inputs of materials and energy involved in the production of N fertilizer. A possible consequence of the S3 Project practices is the need for increased manufacture of N as fertilizer to replace the decreased excretion of N as manure. Further analysis as described in Section C.1.4 provides a rationale to counter this possibility. B.1.6 Electricity Generation This SSR includes materials and energy involved in the generation of electricity. The S3 Project implements practices to decrease the materials and energy, and therefore GHG emissions associated with them, used to raise pigs. These practices are expected to decrease the time pigs spend in the barn, therefore decreasing the need for electricity to provide feed, water, light, heat, and ventilation per pig weight sold. This could result in fewer emissions to generate electricity, but quantifying these reductions requires detailed information of complex processes not controlled by the proponent. The S3 Project will therefore exclude these potential reductions. B.1.7 Natural Gas Production, Fugitive Emissions This SSR includes materials and energy involved in the involved in the discovery and production of natural gas. The S3 Project promotes practices to decrease the materials and energy, and therefore GHG emissions associated with them, used to raise pigs. These practices are expected to decrease the time pigs spend in the barn, therefore decreasing the need for natural gas to provide heat per pig weight sold. This could result in fewer emissions to generate electricity, but quantifying these reductions requires detailed information of complex processes not controlled by the proponent. The S3 Project will therefore exclude these potential reductions. B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site


The justification to exclude the SSRs in section B.2 follows the logic described for corresponding SSRs in section B.1. The excluded SSRs are: B.2.1 Feed Transportation B.2.2 Pig Transportation B.2.3 Fuel Transportation B.2.4 Fertilizer Transportation B.2.5 Electricity Transmission & Distribution B.2.6 Natural Gas Distribution, Fugitive Emissions Category C - Onsite Protocol Elements C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) C.1.3 Fuel Use A possible consequence of the S3 Project practices is the need for increased diesel fuel to spread manure. Further analysis, however, provides evidence that the S3 Project practices are unlikely to increase the need for diesel fuel. First, farms switching to spring or to fall-and-spring emptying the storage and spreading manure change the timing but not the quantity of fuel used. Consider the example of farm that sells 12,000 market pigs per year. In the baseline scenario, these pigs excrete about 502 Mg of VS. Estimating that liquid manure consists of about 7.5% VS on a dry matter basis (the water in the manure comes from urine, spillage from drinkers, wash water, etc.), this translates into about 6700 Mg of liquid manure. This manure needs to be agitated and pumped into tankers that spread the manure on the land. Using an example of manure tankers carrying 15 Mg, about 450 loads would be needed to spread the manure on the example farm. If, for example, a team comprised of one agitator pump (one 160-HP tractor) and five tankers (five 160-HP tractors) can spread 15 loads per hour, a total of 180 machine-hours are required (450 loads / 15 loads per hour * 6 machines). A 160-HP tractor consumes 30 L/hour of diesel fuel with a GHG coefficient of 3.1 tCO2e/1000 L (Nagy 1999). Thus, the estimated fuel use, expressed as GHG emission, to empty the storage and to spread the manure in this example is 16.7 tCO2e (180 hours * 30 L per hour * 3.1 tCO2e / 1000 L). The same total number of machine-hours, and corresponding GHG emission, would be required irrespective of season or frequency of emptying and spreading. Second, the purpose of the P3 Project is to implement practices that increase feed efficiency (decrease the amount of feed needed to market the number and weight of pigs as compared to the baseline scenario). So, if on the example farm of 12,000 pigs the feed:gain in the finisher pig class is decreased to 3.00 from the baseline performance standard of 3.25, the VS excretion would decrease about 22 Mg (from 502 to 480 Mg) and the mass of liquid manure would decrease correspondingly (about 300 Mg). This decrease by 4.5% of manure mass results in a proportional decrease in GHG emissions from emptying and spreading, about 0.75 tCO2e. It is therefore reasonable to assert that, on this example farm, implementation of S3 Project practices would decrease the emission of GHG from diesel fuel.


The S3 Project will monitor fuel use in the project to verify that this is lower than in the baseline scenario. C.1.4 Fertilizer Use A possible consequence of the S3 Project practices is the need for increased use of N as fertilizer to replace the decreased excretion of N as manure. Further analysis, however, provides two lines of reasoning to dispute that decreased N excretion leads to increased GHG emissions from manufacture of N fertilizer. First, the assertion that decreased manure N creates a need for more fertilizer N assumes that the manure N in the baseline scenario was spread to meet crop nutrient needs precisely. Consider the example of farm that sells 12,000 market pigs per year. If this farm implemented innovative practices to decrease the protein content of the feed by one percentage point and to decrease feed to gain ratio by 0.1, the manure N available for spreading would decrease to 29,700 kg from 33,900 kg in the baseline scenario — a decrease of about 12.5 %. Without the detailed analyses and records required by the S3 Project, it is likely that such a change in manure N content would remain undetected. It is therefore reasonable to assert that this example farm would not increase use of fertilizer N as a result of implementing the practices of the Pork Protocol, because the farmer would not realize that less manure N was available for spreading. Second, the assertion that decreased manure N increases net GHG emissions because of manufacture of more fertilizer N assumes that the manure N in the baseline scenario was obtained without GHG emissions. The decreased N excretion is achieved, however, by implementing practices to minimize waste of N from grains and soya meal in the feed, so the full life-cycle comparison must compare the energy cost of manufacturing fertilizer N with growing, harvesting, and processing feedstuff N. The manufacture of a tonne of N as anhydrous ammonia fertilizer emits about 2.6 tCO2e (Nagy 1999). So, to replace the decreased manure N in the above example (33,900 - 29,700 = 4,200 kg N) with anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, about 11 tCO2e would be emitted during manufacturing. The N in grain is derived from fertilizer, so the GHG emissions associated with manure N from grain includes the emissions from manufacturing fertilizer in addition to the 0.2 tCO2e ha-1 from growing and harvesting the grain (Nagy 1999). The N in soya meal is derived from biological fixation in the soybean root nodules, so the GHG emissions associated with manure N from soya meal includes the emissions of 0.4 tCO2e ha-1 from growing and harvesting the grain (Nagy 1999) and the emissions from processing the beans into meal. According to a Canadian Grain Commission (http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/Quality /Soybean/2000/soy2000-e.PDF), soybeans in Ontario typically yield 2.7 t ha-1 with 42% protein (6.7 % N). This means that emissions of 9.3 tCO2e are associated with growing the soy beans to provide 4,200 kg N. Additional emissions are associated with crushing, processing and drying the soya meal. It is therefore reasonable to assert that on this example farm, even if the decreased manure N were replaced with fertilizer N, the net life-cycle emissions would not be increased as a result of implementing the practices of the S3 Project. The S3 Project will monitor fertilizer N use in the project to verify that this is lower than in the baseline scenario.


C.1.5 Electricity Use and C.1.6 Natural Gas Use The logic for excluding C.1.5 and C.1.6 follows as for the Category B SSRs; namely, the efficiency emphasis of the P3 Project supports the likelihood that GHG emissions from these SSRs will be lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario. The S3 Project will monitor electricity and natural gas use in the project to verify that these do not increase relative to the baseline scenario. It is conceivable, however, that some member farms would fail to achieve the efficiency objective of the S3 Project (e.g. because of an farm-specific disease outbreak). Failure of the efficiency objective of the S3 Project is defined as use of more feed in the project than in the baseline. Because farms must quantify emissions from all components of the S3 Project, use of extra feed increases excretions of VS and N and thereby decreases the net project GHG reductions. But, exclusion of some Category B & C SSRs is justified according to increased efficiency, so the extra emissions from these SSRs would be missed. To account for these emissions in the event of increased feed use in the project, the S3 Project gives member farms two options:

1) Quantify emissions from all Category B and C SSRs; or 2) Calculate the increase in with-project emissions associated with VS and N excretions in

excess of baseline, and then double the decrease in reductions resulting from these increased excretions to account for increased emissions from related SSRs.

Table 3: Compare controlled, affected or related baseline and project SSRs

1. Identified SSR 2. Baseline & Project (C,R,A)

3. Include or Exclude

from Quantificat

ion

4. Justification for Exclusion

Upstream SSRs during Operation B.1 Production of Project Inputs B.1.1Feedstuffs Production (Crop Growing & Harvesting)

Related Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario.

B.1.2Feedstuffs Transportation & Feed Processing


B.1.3Pig Production Related Exclude The project and baseline are based on the same number and weight of pigs.

B.1.4.Fuel Production


B.1.5Fertilizer Manufacture



B.1.6Electricity Generation


B.1.7Natural Gas Production, Fugitive Emissions

Related Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario

B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B.2.1Feed Transportation


B.2.2 Pig Transportation

Related Exclude The project and baseline are based on the same number and weight of pigs.

B.2.3 Fuel Transportation

Related Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario

B.2.4 Fertilizer Transportation


B.2.5 Electricity Transmission & Distribution


B.2.6 Natural Gas Distribution, Fugitive Emissions


Category C — On-site SSRs during Operation C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) C.1.1Feed Use Controlled Include This element comprises some of the

practices for GHG reduction included in the protocol.

C.1.2Pig Husbandry Controlled Include This element comprises some of the practices for GHG reduction included in the protocol.

C.1.3Fuel Use Controlled Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario.

C.1.4Fertilizer Use Controlled Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario.

C.1.5Electricity Use Controlled Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario.

C.1.6Natural Gas Use.

Controlled Exclude The emissions from this element are expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario.


C.2 Maintenance C.2.1 Maintenance Controlled Exclude The emissions from this element are

expected to be equal or lower in the project as compared to the baseline scenario.

Downstream SSRs during Operation D.1 Transportation of Product(s) D.1.1Transport of Pigs


D.2 Use of Product(s)/Service(s) D.2.1Slaughter of Pigs, Processing & Distribution of Pork


D.2.2Retail Sale of Pork


D.2.3 Consumption of Pork


D.3 Waste Management D.3.1Manure Storage

Controlled Include This element comprises some of the practices for GHG reduction included in the protocol.

D.3.2Manure Spreading

Controlled Include This element comprises some of the practices for GHG reduction included in the protocol.


6.1. Quantifying GHG Emissions

Table 4: Procedures for Measuring/Estimating Parameters for Calculating GHG Emissions from each Identified SSR.

Description Variable Unit Measured /

Estimated Method Frequency Justify measurement or

estimation and frequency

METHANE

FEEDING — VS EXCRETED

BASELINE & PROJECT

VSi = FIi x (%DMi - %Ashi)/100 x (1-ED/100)

This equation was derived during the protocol development process by the PTWG. Total feed intake for pig class “i”.

FIi Mg Documented Recorded by the project proponent.

Monthly The total mass of feed, as fed basis, purchased for pig class “i” each month.

Dry matter content of the feed for pig class “i”.

DMi Percent Measured Analyzed by the project proponent.

Monthly The results of laboratory analysis of dry matter of representative samples of the feed purchased for pig class “i”.

Ash content of the feed for pig class “i”.

Ashi Percent Measured Analyzed by the project proponent.

Monthly The results of laboratory analysis of ash content of representative samples of the feed purchased for pig class “i”.

Energy digestibility of the feed for pig class “i”.

EDi Percent Estimated Calculated for diet ingredients using the Noblet database, Annex 1.

Monthly Estimated because monthly direct measurement is technically and economically unfeasible.


STORING — CH4 EMITTED

BASELINE & PROJECT

Monthly Climate Factor ( )

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡ −=

21

12expTRT

TTEf

This is the classic Arrhenius equation, which quantifies the relationship between temperature and the rate a reaction proceeds — in this case the relationship between manure slurry temperature and the rate of CH4 production. The monthly climate factor thus represents the fraction of CH4 produced at the farm site temperature as compared to that produced under ideal temperature. In the case of indoor manure storage, a temperature of 15 °C is used for all months (See Annex 14). Activation energy constant.

E cal mol-1 Physical constant

15,175 Constant This calculation is used in the NCGAVS process.

Ideal gas constant.

R cal K mol-1

Physical constant

1.987 Constant This calculation is used in the NCGAVS process.

Standard temperature.

T1 °K Physical constant

303.16 Constant This calculation is used in the NCGAVS process.

Average temperature for month “i” for project farm

T2i °K Measured Monthly average (°K) from Environment Canada (2003). — minimum of 1 °C. For indoor storage, T2 is set at 15 °C. See Annex 14.

Monthly average The proponent must determine the monthly average temperature (30 year basis) using data from the nearest Environment Canada weather reporting station.

VSLOADm = VSm * 0.45

Total Volatile Solids from all pig classes in month “m”.

VSm Mg Estimated This is calculated by summing the VS from all pig classes on the farm for each month.

Monthly Calculating CH4 emission from storage based on monthly VS excretions.

Management Design and Practices (MDP) factor.

0.45 Factor Reported factor

The fraction of VS that is not converted to methane because of low temperature (i.e. 1-f) that is carried over

Constant Method from NCGAVS process.


until monthly temperature increases.

VSAVAILm = VSLOADm + [VSAVAILm-1 – VSCONSm-1]

Volatile Solids accumulated in storage.

VSAVAILm-1 Mg Estimated This represents accumulated VS at the end of the previous month. After emptying, the accumulated VS = 0. . Thus, this value will differ in Baseline and Project if season of emptying changes

Monthly This calculation is used in the NCGAVS process.

Volatile Solids converted to CH4 in the previous month.

VSCONS Mg Estimated The amount of VS converted to CH4 in the previous month is calculated by multiplying the amount of VS available by the climate factor f.

Monthly This calculation is used in the NCGAVS process.

CH4Annual = ∑i,m [VSAVAILi,m * f m* B0 * 0.67]

Volatile solids available for conversion to CH4 from pig class “i” in month “m”.

VSAVAIL i Mg Estimated See above equation. Monthly See above equation.

Climate factor for month “m”.

fi Factor Estimated See above equation. Monthly See above equation.

Maximum methane producing capacity.

B0 Factor Reported factor

Empirical factor for liquid swine manure = 0.45.

Constant This default factor is used in the NCGAVS process.

Conversion factor.

0.67 kg per m3

Conversion Factor

This factor represents the density of CH4.

Constant This factor is used in the NCGAVS process.

NITROUS OXIDE


FEEDING — N EXCRETED

BASELINE & PROJECT

NEi = [(NFi / 100) * MFi] − [(0.025 * MPSi) − (0.025 * MPPi)]

Concentration of N in Feed for pig class “i”.

NFi Percent Measured Analyzed by member farm. Monthly The results of laboratory analysis of N content of representative samples of the feed purchased for pig class “i”.

Mass of feed purchased for pig class “i”.

MFi Mg Documented Feed purchase records for Baseline or Project.

Monthly Feed purchase records are a necessary part of the monitoring of the P3 Project. These records are typically collated on a monthly basis.

Mass of pigs flowed into class “i”, either moved within-site or purchased off-site.

MPPi Mg Documented Pig inventory records for Baseline or Project.

Monthly Pig inventory, or pig flow, records are a necessary part of the monitoring of the P3 Project. These records are typically collated on a monthly basis.

Mass of pigs flowed out class “i”, either moved within-site or sold off-site.

MPSi Mg Documented Pig inventory records for Baseline or Project.

Monthly Pig inventory, or pig flow, records are a necessary part of the monitoring of the P3 Project. These records are typically collated on a monthly basis.

Concentration of N in pigs of all pig classes

0.025 Estimated

STORING — N VOLATILIZED

BASELINE & PROJECT


NMAN = ∑i [NEi * (1-0.48)]

Fraction of manure N lost by volatilization in the form of NH3, N2O and N2 during storage in a liquid manure storage facility.

0.48 Factor Reported Factor

Default value. Constant This value is reported by the IPCC, and is used by NCGAVS in the Canadian inventory reporting process.

SPREADING — N2O EMITTED

BASELINE & PROJECT

Direct N2OMAN = NMAN, * EFCI * RFTHAW * RFSEASON

Emission Factor adjusted according to ratio of Potential evaporation to Precipitation for the project farm.

EFCI Factor Reported Factor adjusted for location of Farm.

For Ontario, the factor is 0.012. For the Prairie provinces the factor changes with soils zone. For Black Chernozems and Grey Luvisols, the factor is 0.008. For Brown and Dark Brown Chernozems, the factor is 0.0016.

Constant for Project Farm

This value is used by NCGAVS in the Canadian inventory reporting.

Ratio factor to correct for emissions during snow-covered periods in Ontario and Quebec.

RFTHAW Factor Reported Factor adjusted for location of Farm.

For Ontario, the factor is 1.4. For the Prairie provinces, the factor is 1.0.



Ratio factor to account for season of manure

RFSEASON Factor Reported Factor adjusted for

The default ratio factor for application of manure after August (fall) = 1.20, while


This ratio factor was derived at the Manure Application Workshop hosted by the Pork


application. location of Farm.

that for application before August (spring) = 1.00.

Technical Working Group in Ottawa (January 2005).

Indirect N2Ovolatilization = ∑i [NEi *0.48 * EFVOLAT]

Fraction of liquid manure N lost by volatilization and re-deposition of NH3 and NOx during storage.

0.48 Factor Reported Factor.

Default value. Constant This value is used by NCGAVS in the Canadian inventory reporting.

Default IPCC factor for emission of N2O from N re-deposited after volatilization.

EFVOLAT Factor Reported Factor.

Default value is 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg N.

Constant This value is used by NCGAVS in the Canadian inventory reporting.

Indirect N2OLEACH+RUN = NMAN * FracLEACH * EFLEACH

Fraction of N lost by leaching and run-off estimated at the actual P/PE3 of the project farm.

FracLEACH Factor Reported Factor adjusted for location of project farm.

Calculated using the relationship, FracLEACH = 0.3165 * P/PE – 0.0165

Constant for project farm.


Emission factor for leaching and run-off

EFLEACH Factor Reported Factor.

Default value of 0.0125 kg N2O-N/kg N.

Constant This value is reported by IPCC, and used by NCGAVS in the Canadian inventory reporting.

3 P/PE is the ratio of precipitation to potential evaporation. This value varies by ecodistrict.


7.1. Managing Data Quality To fulfill the AOS requirements, the S3 Environmental Management Division must establish and apply quality management procedures to manage data and information. Written procedures need to be established for each record keeping task, outlining (1) the person responsible, (2) when the task is to be performed, and (3) where the records are to be kept. The S3 Environmental Management Division must ensure data quality management complies with all requirements of the AOS rules. The primary principle is that all procedures must be designed, and records maintained, to meet the ‘verifiable’ requirement. At several critical points in the data collection process (e.g. diet ingredient records, or animal inventory records), AOS requires declaration of accuracy by a consulting nutritionist or veterinarian. The S3 Environmental Management Division must implement a system that meets the following criteria:

• All records must be kept in areas that are easily located; • All records must be legible, dated and revised as needed; • All records should be maintained in an orderly manner; • All documents must be retained for the life of the project; • Electronic and paper documentation are both satisfactory; and • Copies of records should be stored in two locations to prevent loss of data.

The following list represents what the S3 Project needs to report: Table 8. Reporting Requirements for SSS Project Item Description Components of Protocol Used 1. Which practices were undertaken to reduce N and

VS excretion 2. Include necessary information to show the practices

were carried out according to the protocol requirements.

3. Show calculations for reductions of N and Vs excretion in the Project Farm.

Monthly Feed Records 1. Ingredient recipes for diets of each pig class — with declaration of accuracy by nutritionist.

2. Crude protein contents of diets of each pig class, by analysis or formulation — with declaration of accuracy by nutritionist.

3. Feed mill documentation (invoices and delivery scale tickets) of feed sales.

Monthly Pig Performance 1. Inventories of swine in all pig classes — with declaration of accuracy by nutritionist.

2. Weight gain of swine in all pig classes — with declaration of accuracy by nutritionist.


3. Processing plant documentation (settlement receipts) of pig sales.

Manure Management 1. Documentation of storage emptying and manure spreading events (date, photographs, contractor receipts).

2. Show both date and degree (indicate whether all or some portion of manure removed) of emptying of storage.

Amounts of Nitrous Oxide Reduced

1. Detailed explanation showing step by step calculations for baseline emissions estimates.

2. Detailed explanation showing step by step calculations for project emissions estimates

3. Show calculations for N20 emissions reductions. Amounts of Methane Reduced 1. Detailed explanation showing step by step

calculations for baseline emissions estimates. 2. Detailed explanation showing step by step

calculations for project emissions estimates 3. Show calculations for N20 emissions reductions.

GHG Reduction Assertion 1. Detailed explanation showing step by step calculations to tCO2e.

Unexpected Events 1. Include any disruptions or unplanned events that may have caused deviation from the project plan.


Monitoring the GHG Project Table 9: Monitoring Plan

Data Parameter Directly Monitored/ Estimated Data Unit Sources

Monitoring Frequency Methodology Data Storage

FEED (For each pig class) Diet Ingredients Documented Kg/Mg feed Nutritionist Monthly Nutritionist declaration Electronic FRACVS Calculated % Database Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic Diet Crude Protein Calculated % Database Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic Feed Purchase Documented Mg Feed mill Monthly Feedmill invoices Electronic Month-start Feed Inventory Monitored Mg Monthly Observation by farm manager Electronic Month-end Feed Inventory Monitored Mg Monthly Observation by farm manager Electronic

VS Excretion Calculated Kg/kg pig raised Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic

N Excretion Calculated Kg/kg pig raised Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic

Methane Emission Calculated

Kg/kg pig raised Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic

Nitrous Oxide Emission Calculated

Kg/kg pig raised Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic

SWINE (For each pig class) Pig numbers Monitored head Monthly Observation by farm manager Electronic Pig Weights Monitored kg Monthly Observation by farm manager Electronic

Feed Efficiency Calculated Kg feed/kg pig raised Monthly Spreadsheet calculation Electronic

STORAGE

Location Documented Once Description by Project Manager Electronic


Photo Documented Once Description by Project Manager Electronic

Scaled Drawing Documented Once Description by Project Manager Electronic

Temperature Data Documented ° C Once

From Environment Canada website Electronic

Season of Emptying Documented

Every emptying Observation by farm manager Electronic

Degree of Emptying Documented % removed

Every emptying Observation by farm manager Electronic

SPREADING

Location Documented Once Description by Project Manager Electronic

Photo Documented Once Description by Project Manager Electronic

Season Documented Every spreading Observation by farm manager Electronic

CASE STUDY — Project Development Document

Documents

Transcript of CASE STUDY — Project Development Document