Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T05:13:14.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Participation in a Central Anerobic Digester and Cogeneration Facility: Economic and Environmental Analysis for Farm Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Ralph E. Heimlich
Ralph E. Heimlich*
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ithaca, New York
Get access

Abstract

Farmer participation in a proposed 5,600 cow central digester facility is a function of herd size, present manure handling system, income tax effects and expectations about future changes in contract terms. The present value of net benefits from participation ranges from $6,000 to $6,400 for large herds and $3,200 for medium herds with manure storage. No net benefits accrue to medium sized herds not currently storing manure. Environmental impacts of the proposal will likely be positive for air and water quality but could reduce soil quality unless organic matter is returned to cropland.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Fall 1983 , pp. 59 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gilbertson, C.B., Norstadt, F.A., Mathers, A.C., Holt, R.F., Barnett, A.P., McCalla, T.M., Onstad, C.A. and Young, R.W. “Animal Waste Utilization on Cropland and Pastureland: A Manual for Evaluating Agronomic and Environmental Effects.” USDA Science and Education Administration/U.S.E.P.A., Office of Research and Development, USDA URR No. 6, October 1979.Google Scholar
Heimlich, R.E. “Economics and Environmental Effects of Manure Handling Systems for Northeastern Dairy Farms.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 11 (l): 45–56, Spring 1982.Google Scholar
Jewell, W.J. and others. “Bioconversion of Agricultural Wastes for Pollution Control and Energy Conservation.” TID-27164, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, September 1976.Google Scholar
Klausner, S.D. “Manure Management – Facts and Figures.” Unpublished material from the 1980 Production Agriculture Training School, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
Klausner, S.D. and Guest, R.W. “Influence of NH3 Conservation from Dairy Manure on the Yield of Corn.” Agronomy Journal, 73: 720–723, July-August 1981.Google Scholar
McCalla, T.M. “Influence of Biological Products on Soil Structure and Infiltration.” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 7: 209–214, 1942.Google Scholar
Midwest Plan Service. Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. MWPS-18, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, July 1975.Google Scholar
New England River Basin Commission. Shaping the Future of Lake Champlain: The Final Report of the Lake Champlain Basin Study. NERBC, Burlington, Vermont, 1979.Google Scholar
Persson, S.P.E. and Bartlett, H.D. “Agricultural Anerobic Digesters: Design and Operation.” Agr. Exp. Station Bull. 827, College of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1979.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Runoff in Selected Vermont Watersheds. Main report draft, Soil Conservation Service, Burlington, Vermont, November 1982.Google Scholar
Wishinski, P.R. Unpublished memorandum on visit to Foster Bros, digester, Middlebury, Vermont. Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, October, 1982.Google Scholar