By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Last Friday, Congress heard from several speakers on the urgency of clamping down on methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas that primarily comes from agriculture. Atmospheric methane levels have jumped 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution, largely due to human activities. The main solution proposed at the Congressional briefing was anaerobic digesters, otherwise known as dairy digesters, which convert organic or animal waste into natural gas and are increasingly gaining interest from both the agricultural and energy industry.

California Congressman, Jim Costa, among others, hailed the technology as economically sound and a “win” for reducing methane. While these digesters somewhat address the problem of emissions from animal manure specifically, they don’t address the largest issue of enteric methane –– a natural byproduct of cow digestion which is responsible for over 70 percent of agricultural methane emissions.

Researchers at World Resources Institute say the average American can cut their environmental footprint in half by reducing their dairy and meat consumption, thus reducing their diet-related land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

What Is a Dairy Digester and How Does It Combat Methane Emissions?

Dairy digesters work by breaking down animal waste and manure into biogas to be used for energy. In a sealed environment free of oxygen, bacteria degrade organic matter in the manure, producing various compounds and gasses that can be converted to natural gas. Livestock manure is responsible for roughly 14 percent of agriculture’s total greenhouse emissions in the U.S.

“Reducing methane is the single fastest way to slow down [global] warming,” Ilissa Ocko, Senior Advisor for the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, told the audience at the briefing. Ocko called the methane problem “largely solvable” with the use of various emission-cutting technologies such as dairy digesters, but added that agriculture is a “large” and “very complicated piece of the puzzle.”

The Global Methane Pledge launched in 2021 by the U.S. and European Union — which now has 158 participating countries — plans to cut methane 30 percent by 2030 globally, relative to 2020. To do this, Ocko and other speakers urged for timely investment and implementation of policy and technology into methane abatement solutions.

Energy Vision, a New York-based environmental research group, hosted the briefing and spoke about the large-scale financial investment needed to curb methane emissions. Based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, the group found “opportunity to deploy close to 5000 new digester systems across the country” which would “get us about 14 percent of the way to the 30 percent of the 2030 goal,” said Matt Tomich, President of Energy Vision. That would require close to $75 billion in capital, which Tomich says the private sector is “lining up to deploy.”

A Focus on California

California is the leading dairy producer in the United States with approximately 1.7 million cows and over 1,300 dairy farms that contribute up to $10.4 billion to the state’s economy. This production is responsible for over half of California’s methane emissions.

At the hearing, Jim Costa, Congressman for California’s 21st district, hailed dairy digesters as a solution, with 238 digester facilities planned, and 129 facilities currently in operation in California. “[Many] dairies now in California have some form of digesters and sometimes dairies that are adjacent to one another partner in digester facilities because it makes sense. And it’s good economics and it helps reduce your waste stream, besides controlling the methane. So it’s a win, win, win,” Costa said.

He also mentioned a bipartisan bill introduced in 2023 called the Converting our Waste Sustainability Act (COWS), which will grant funding to alternative manure management systems for dairy and livestock producers to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air and water quality.” By investing federal tax credits, Costa said “methane digesters” can be adopted around the country to convert animal waste into natural gas and support the conversion of biogas into energy, adding that digesters can be linked up to gas fuel cells for further “efficiency.”

However, in California, CalBio, a biodigester company, has linked up with Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company that has had significant financial trouble in the past, such as blowing through billions for technology that has been challenged over the efficacy of their “clean” fuel cells.

The energy harnessed from cow manure is already used in a very real way, Kevin Abernathy, general manager of the Milk Producers Council, said. He spoke about his involvement in California’s first hydrogen fueling station from “cow power,” or manure, and his plans for developing a “cow powered hydrogen highway.” Abernathy added that so far, 2.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent had been collected from California dairy farms, powering 15,000 vehicles a day.

Why Dairy Digesters Ignore the Industry’s Biggest Methane Problem

While dairy digesters and manure management appear to be an effective methane reduction pathway, they contribute nothing to dairy’s biggest methane problem: cow belches, otherwise known as enteric methane.

When asked by Sentient, Ocko agreed these technologies do little to prevent the bulk of livestock methane emissions coming from enteric fermentation. She noted that more research is needed, citing “exciting” solutions such as selective breeding and adding supplements to cows’ diet to reduce their methane output.

Other concerns with dairy digesters that were briefly mentioned at the hearing were pipeline transport and accessibility. Ocko noted that this natural gas is still methane which can escape into the atmosphere if pipeline transport and scaling isn’t carefully planned. “[With pipelines] it’s always better to use it close to where you’ve made it because that limits the opportunity for it to escape into the atmosphere,” she said.

Production and transport of this natural gas can be expensive and dangerous, as dairy digesters can explode or leak. A recent case study in Wisconsin found all five Kewaunee County Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) with digesters had at least one spill since digester installation, including one farm that had 23 spills since installation in 2009. Further, Kewaunee County does not have a pipeline injection site, so these dairies truck the methane gas instead, which can create air pollution.

Dairy digesters are not the only solution to combat agriculture’s methane problem. Research says that decreasing herd sizes, and creating financial incentives for farmers to do so, can significantly reduce methane emissions in comparison with dairy digesters. This move could be supplemented with a larger conversation about transitioning our diets to eat less meat and dairy and opting for plant-based foods to reduce dependency on the high-emitting animal industry. And while there are beneficial uses to utilizing organic waste to power our cars or our homes, it’s clear that the larger chunk of agricultural methane –– specifically enteric methane from cow burps –– needs to be addressed if we’re serious about meeting the 2030 goal.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Rural communities across Massachusetts are benefiting from state grants aimed at strengthening the local food supply and building climate resilience.

State officials have awarded nearly $4 million to help farmers improve soil health, upgrade irrigation systems and prepare for extreme weather events, including the current critical drought conditions.

Ashley Randle, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, said farms are helping the state meet its ambitious climate goals.

"They're a mitigation and resilience strategy so that farms can be best positioned to withstand the changing weather conditions that they are facing," Randle explained.

Randle pointed out grants will help farms improve efficiency and environmental controls and reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

From cranberries to oysters, the majority of farms in Massachusetts are smaller, family-owned operations. Randle noted grants will help farmers purchase high tunnels and other equipment needed to extend their production season. She emphasized it helps secure jobs and provides income to local economies during the winter months.

"All of these grants are really helping to ensure that we have a stable food supply," Randle stressed. "And to continue to grow and adapt should there be climate change impacts like we saw last year that devastated the sector."

Last year, a deep freeze in February spoiled the peach crop while a late frost in May damaged most tree fruits. Significant flooding last summer severely damaged 13,000 acres, resulting in more than $65 million in losses. Randle added farms often face unpredictable factors but grant programs can help them adapt and thrive in the face of uncertainty.


get more stories like this via email

A Missouri-based farm group is fighting to keep the proposed "FARM Act" from becoming law, warning it would benefit large corporate farms at the expense of smaller ones.

The Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan advocacy group, contended the proposed legislation in Congress, which is an extension of the five-year Farm Bill, would funnel more money to big corporate farms, giving them an unfair advantage and making it harder for small and mid-sized farms to survive.

Joe Maxwell, president of the Farm Action Fund, believes the legislation is making history but not in a good way.

"As far as I know, and I've been doing this for about 40 years, it's the first time there's been policy that would discriminate among the commodity crop growers in the United States, saying that the largest ones get more money," Maxwell explained. "Oftentimes, they're the ones that need the least money."

The National Farm Coalition reported 20% of farms control nearly 70% of U.S. farmland, which it said shows significant consolidation. If passed, The FARM Act would allocate around $21 billion in aid.

Nearly 90% of Missouri farms are smaller, family-owned operations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, small farms are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. They make up 88% of all farms, controlling nearly half of the nation's farmland. Maxwell pointed out his organization is urging them to take a stand on the FARM Act, because the competition is formidable.

"I think it's the power of the dollar expressing itself in the halls of our United States Capitol," Maxwell contended. "The largest farmers have brought in the lobbyists and the trade organizations, to give them an upper hand."

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., are cosponsors of the FARM Act.


get more stories like this via email

As President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in next month, the farming community wonders if he'll follow through on tariff threats. One expert says for top soybean states such as North Dakota, farmers aren't in a great position to withstand any fallout.

The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture farm income forecast paints a gloomy picture, with declines in commodity prices dragging things down. And the incoming administration appears poised to enact more tariffs - as it did during Trump's first term.

Ben Palen, who runs the consulting firm Ag Management Partners, said this time around, there's increased political instability on the global front and greater export competition.

"I just don't think that you can have a coherent and consistent policy for agriculture if you go from one crisis to another," he said.

Trump regained strong support from agricultural counties in this election, but Palen said his fellow producers need to be prepared for what happens now that the votes have been counted. In Trump's first term, emergency aid was sent to farmers affected by the initial trade war. But Palen noted there's a strong push for the new administration to pursue budget cuts, so financial relief could be harder to come by.

Even though many farmers still back Trump, Palen said he feels this sector doesn't want to get swept up in trade rhetoric and have to be bailed out.

"I think farmers are very good at production," he said. "It's just part of our DNA; we want to produce, produce, produce."

He argued that it's up to policymakers to find new markets for farmers to sell their crops, as opposed to simply focusing on trade disputes.

Other voices, such as the Texas agriculture commissioner, have welcomed the idea of new tariffs, saying the U.S. needs to hold firm against countries such as China.

In the first trade war, U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion.


get more stories like this via email