DOCSLIB.ORG

Default Emissions from Biofuels

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Definition of input data to assess GHG default emissions from biofuels in EU legislation Version 1c - July 2017 Edwards, R. Padella, M. Giuntoli, J. Koeble, R. O’Connell, A. Bulgheroni, C. Marelli, L. 2017 EUR 28349 EN This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC104483 EUR 28349 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-79-64617-1 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2790/658143 Print ISBN 978-92-79-64616-4 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2790/22354 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 © European Union, 2017 The reuse of the document is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the original meaning or message of the texts are not distorted. The European Commission shall not be held liable for any consequences stemming from the reuse. How to cite this report: Edwards, R., Padella, M., Giuntoli, J., Koeble, R., O’Connell, A., Bulgheroni, C., Marelli, L., Definition of input data to assess GHG default emissions from biofuels in EU legislation, Version 1c – July 2017 , EUR28349 EN, doi: 10.2790/658143 All images © European Union 2017 Title Definition of input data to assess GHG default emissions from biofuels in EU legislation, Version 1c – July 2017 Abstract The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (2009/28/EC) and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) (2009/30/EC), amended in 2015 by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 (so called ‘ILUC Directive’), fix a minimum requirement for greenhouse gas (GHG) savings for biofuels and bioliquids for the period until 2020, and set the rules for calculating the greenhouse impact of biofuels, bioliquids and their fossil fuels comparators. To help economic operators to declare the GHG emission savings of their products, default and typical values for a number of spefic pathways are listed in the annexes of the RED and FQD. The EC Joint Research Center (JRC) is in charge of defining input values to be used for the calculation of default GHG emissions for biofuels, bioliquids, solid and gaseous biomass pathways. An update of the GHG emissions in Annex V has been carried out for the new Proposal of a Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (COM(2016)767 - RED-2), for the post-2020 framework. This report describes the assumptions made by the JRC when compiling the new updated data set used to calculate default and typical GHG emissions for the different biofuels pathways as proposed in the new RED-2 document. Table of contents Executive summary .................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Structure of the report .................................................................................. 3 Part One — General input data and common processes ................................................. 5 2. General input data for pathways ......................................................................... 6 2.1 Fossil fuels provision .................................................................................... 6 2.2 Supply of process chemicals and pesticides ................................................... 11 2.3 N fertilizer manufacturing emissions calculation ............................................. 33 2.4 Summary of emission factors for the supply of main products .......................... 41 2.5 Diesel, drying and plant protection use in cultivation ...................................... 43 3. Soil emissions from biofuel crop cultivation ........................................................ 47 3.1 Background ............................................................................................... 47 3.2 Pathways of N2O emission from managed soils .............................................. 47 3.3 General approach to estimate soil N2O emissions from cultivation of potential biofuel crops ................................................................................................... 48 3.4 Determining crop- and site-specific fertilizer-induced emissions (EF1ij) ............. 53 3.5 The Global crop- and site-specific Nitrous Oxide emission Calculator (GNOC) ..... 55 3.6 The GNOC online tool ................................................................................. 59 3.7 GNOC results ............................................................................................. 60 3.8 Manure calculation ..................................................................................... 66 3.9 Correction of IPCC method for estimating N2O emissions from leguminous crops 67 3.10 Emissions from acidification and liming methodology .................................... 74 3.11 Global crop-specific calculation of CO2 emissions from agricultural lime application and fertilizer acidification .................................................................. 79 3.12 Lime application in the United Kingdom and Germany: survey data vs disaggregated country total lime consumption ..................................................... 87 4. Utilities and auxiliary processes ........................................................................ 93 5. Transport processes ....................................................................................... 100 5.1 Road transportation................................................................................... 100 5.2 Maritime transportation ............................................................................. 104 5.3 Inland water transportation ........................................................................ 107 5.4 Rail transportation .................................................................................... 108 5.5 Pipeline transportation ............................................................................... 109 i References for common input data .......................................................................... 110 Part Two — Liquid biofuels processes and input data ................................................. 117 6. Biofuels processes and input data .................................................................... 118 6.1 Wheat grain to ethanol ................................................................................. 125 6.2 Maize to ethanol .......................................................................................... 136 6.3 Barley to ethanol ......................................................................................... 146 6.4 Rye to ethanol ............................................................................................. 153 6.5 Triticale to ethanol ....................................................................................... 160 6.6 Sugar beet to ethanol ................................................................................... 167 6.7 Sugar cane to ethanol .................................................................................. 174 6.8 Rapeseed to biodiesel ................................................................................... 182 6.9 Sunflower to biodiesel .................................................................................. 193 6.10 Soybean to biodiesel .................................................................................. 200 6.10.1 National soy data ................................................................................. 210 6.11 Palm oil to biodiesel.................................................................................... 223 6.13 Waste cooking oil ....................................................................................... 235 6.14 Animal fat ................................................................................................. 238 6.15 HVO ......................................................................................................... 244 6.16 Black liquor ............................................................................................... 249 6.17 Wood to Liquid Hydrocarbons ...................................................................... 253 6.18 Wood to methanol ...................................................................................... 256 6.19 Wood to DME ............................................................................................. 259 6.20 Straw to ethanol ........................................................................................ 262 References for pathways ........................................................................................ 264 Part Three — Review process ................................................................................. 272 7. Consultation with experts and stakeholders .......................................................... 273 7.1 Expert Consultation (November 2011) ............................................................ 273 7.1.1 Main outcomes of the discussion .............................................................. 274
Recommended publications
  • Choosing Effective Liming Materials ► Acidic Soils Require Lime to Maintain the Proper Ph for Growing Crops and Forage

    Choosing Effective Liming Materials ► Acidic Soils Require Lime to Maintain the Proper Ph for Growing Crops and Forage

    AGRICULTURE Choosing Effective Liming Materials ► Acidic soils require lime to maintain the proper pH for growing crops and forage. Learn how to test and maintain your soil for optimal production. Most Alabama soils are naturally low in pH and must How Lime Recommendations be limed to create soil conditions that increase plant Are Determined nutrient availability and decrease aluminum toxicity. The ideal pH for most Alabama crops is in the range The amount of liming material needed to reach a target of 6.0 to 6.5. When the pH of a soil falls below a value soil pH depends on the soil’s current pH and the soil’s of 6.0, the availability of most macronutrients (such buffer pH. Soil pH is a measurement of the acidity or as nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium) needed for alkalinity of a soil, while buffer pH is used to measure crop and forage production begins to decrease. When the soil’s resistance to change in pH. pH increases above 6.5, the availability of most plant Soils that are high in organic matter and clay content micronutrients (such as zinc, manganese, copper, and have a higher buffering capacity. More lime is therefore iron) tends to decrease. required to raise the pH in these soils than in soils that Maintaining pH according to soil testing laboratory are sandy and low in organic matter. For example, a recommendations will ensure that the availability of sandy soil at pH 5.0 may require only 1 ton of ground all plant nutrients is maximized and that any fertilizers limestone to raise the pH to 6.5, while a clay soil at the applied to the soil will not go to waste.
  • Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality E.L

    Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality E.L

    University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and Environment ID-163 Cooperative Extension Service Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality E.L. Ritchey, L.W. Murdock, D. Ditsch, and J.M. McGrath, Plant and Soil Sciences; F.J. Sikora, Division of Regulatory Services oil acidity is one of the most important soil factors affect- Figure 1. Liming acid soils increases exchangeable Ca and Mg. Sing crop growth and ultimately, yield and profitability. It is determined by measuring the soil pH, which is a measure Acid Soil Limed Soil Ca2+ H+ H+ Ca2+ Ca2+ of the amount of hydrogen ions in the soil solution. As soil Lime Applied H+ H+ H+ H+ Ca2+ acidity increases, the soil pH decreases. Soils tend to be + + + 2+ + naturally acidic in areas where rainfall is sufficient to cause H H H Mg H substantial leaching of basic ions (such as calcium and mag- nesium), which are replaced by hydrogen ions. Most soils in Kentucky are naturally acidic because of our abundant rainfall. Nitrogen fertilization can also contribute to soil acid- The majority of the hydrogen ions are actually held on ity as the nitrification of ammonium increases the hydrogen cation exchange sites. To effectively neutralize soil acidity, ion concentration in the soil through the following reaction: hydrogen ions must be removed from both the soil solution and the exchange sites. While soil pH only measures the solu- + - - + NH4 + 2O2 --> NO3 = H2O + 2H tion hydrogen, the buffer pH is an indication of exchangeable acidity and how much ag lime is actually needed. It is possible Periodically, agricultural limestone (ag lime) is needed to for two soils to have the same water pH but different lime neutralize soil acidity and maintain crop productivity.
  • IFC Carbon Neutrality Committment Factsheet

    IFC Carbon Neutrality Committment Factsheet

    Carbon Neutral Commitment for IFC’s Own Operations IFC, along with the World Bank, are committed to making our internal business operations carbon neutral by: IFC’s Carbon Neutrality 1. Calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from our operations Commitment is an integral 2. Reducing carbon emissions through both familiar and innovative conservation measures part of IFC's corporate 3. Purchasing carbon offsets to balance our remaining internal carbon footprint after our reduction efforts response to climate change. IFC’s carbon neutrality commitment encourages continual improvement towards more efficient business operations that help mitigate climate change. It is also consistent with IFC’s strategy of guiding our investment work to address climate change and ensure environmental and social sustainability of projects that IFC finances. This factsheet focuses on the carbon footprint of our internal operations rather than the footprint of IFC’s portfolio. IFC uses the ‘operational control approach’ for setting its CALCULATING OUR GHG EMISSIONS organizational boundaries for its GHG inventory. Emissions are included from all locations for which IFC has direct control over IFC has calculated the annual GHG emissions for its internal business operations, and where it can influence decisions that impact GHG operations for headquarters in Washington, D.C. since 2006, and for emissions. IFC’s global operations since 2008 including global business travel. IFC’s annual GHG inventory includes the following sources of The methodology IFC formally used is based on the Greenhouse Gas GHG emissions from IFC’s leased and owned facilities and air Protocol Initiative (GHG Protocol), an internationally recognized GHG travel: accounting and reporting standard.
  • Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset

    Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset

    energies Editorial Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset Wen-Hsien Tsai Department of Business Administration, National Central University, Jhongli, Taoyuan 32001, Taiwan; [email protected]; Tel.: +886-3-426-7247 Received: 29 October 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 23 November 2020 1. Introduction The Paris Agreement was signed by 195 nations in December 2015 to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change following the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. In Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, the increase in the global average temperature is anticipated to be held to well below 2 ◦C above pre-industrial levels, and efforts are being employed to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ◦C. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on emissions of the main greenhouse gases. It shows that about 81% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases were carbon dioxide (CO2), 10% methane, and 7% nitrous oxide in 2018. Therefore, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (or carbon emissions) are the most important cause of global warming. The United Nations has made efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate their effect. In Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, three cooperative approaches that countries can take in attaining the goal of their carbon emission reduction are described, including direct bilateral cooperation, new sustainable development mechanisms, and non-market-based approaches. The World Bank stated that there are some incentives that have been created to encourage carbon emission reduction, such as the removal of fossil fuels subsidies, the introduction of carbon pricing, the increase of energy efficiency standards, and the implementation of auctions for the lowest-cost renewable energy.
  • The Carbon Footprint of Global Trade Tackling Emissions from International Freight Transport

    The Carbon Footprint of Global Trade Tackling Emissions from International Freight Transport

    The Carbon Footprint of Global Trade Tackling Emissions from International Freight Transport 1 International Transport Forum: Global dialogue for better transport Growing concern Projected increase of CO2 emissions from trade-related international freight CO2 emissions om eight = 30% 7% of all transport-related of global CO2 emissions from fuel CO2 emissions combustion The issue CO2 emissions from global freight transport are set to increase fourfold Growth in international trade has been more empty runs and increased demand for rapid, characterised by globalisation and the associated energy-intensive transport such as air freight. As geographical fragmentation of international freight transport — whether by air, land or sea — production processes. Supply chains have become relies heavily on fossil fuel for propulsion and is longer and more complex, as logistics networks link still a long way from being able to switch to cleaner more and more economic centres across oceans energy sources, it is one of the hardest sectors to and continents. Changing consumer preferences decarbonise. and new manufacturing requirements also affect international trade and thus shape freight patterns. The long-term impact of global trade on carbon This has led to more frequent and smaller freight dioxide (CO2) emissions has been largely ignored. shipments and, as a result, to less full containers, International trade contributes to global CO2 2 8132 Mt CO2 emissions 2108 Mt om eight = 30% 7% of all transport-related of global CO2 emissions from fuel CO2 emissions combustion Freight Freight 2010 2050 The issue CO2 emissions from global freight transport are set to increase fourfold emissions mainly through freight transport.
  • Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality Greg Schwab University of Kentucky, Gjschw2@Uky.Edu

    Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality Greg Schwab University of Kentucky, [email protected]

    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Agriculture and Natural Resources Publications Cooperative Extension Service 3-2007 Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality Greg Schwab University of Kentucky, [email protected] Lloyd W. Murdock University of Kentucky, [email protected] David C. Ditsch University of Kentucky, [email protected] Monroe Rasnake University of Kentucky, [email protected] Frank J. Sikora University of Kentucky, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/anr_reports Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Environmental Sciences Commons Repository Citation Schwab, Greg; Murdock, Lloyd W.; Ditsch, David C.; Rasnake, Monroe; Sikora, Frank J.; and Frye, Wilbur, "Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality" (2007). Agriculture and Natural Resources Publications. 76. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/anr_reports/76 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Cooperative Extension Service at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agriculture and Natural Resources Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Greg Schwab, Lloyd W. Murdock, David C. Ditsch, Monroe Rasnake, Frank J. Sikora, and Wilbur Frye This report is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/anr_reports/76 ID-163 Agricultural Lime Recommendations Based on Lime Quality G.J. Schwab, L.W. Murdock, D. Ditsch, and M. Rasnake, UK Department of Plant and Soil Sciences; F.J. Sikora, UK Division of Regulatory Services; W.
  • The Carbon Footprint of Domestic Water Use in the Huron River Watershed

    The Carbon Footprint of Domestic Water Use in the Huron River Watershed

    The Carbon Footprint of Domestic Water Use in the Huron River Watershed Introduction A significant amount of energy enables our daily use of water. Whenever water is moved uphill, treated, heated, cooled, or pressurized, energy is needed. Most energy production emits carbon dioxide (CO2), which contributes to global warming. Therefore, water use is another, often overlooked, contributor to our individual and collective carbon footprint. Better decisions related to water treatment and use can help reduce the amount of energy used throughout the water use cycle. By focusing on water conservation, efficiency, and reuse, we can minimize energy use, reduce the associated carbon footprint, and protect our freshwater resources. The Huron River Watershed As more people move to cities, the demand on municipal water supplies will grow. In some cities the cost of energy The watershed of the Huron River encompasses over to pump, treat, and deliver water to consumers already 900 square miles of Southeast Michigan. The river itself is around 60% of a city’s energy bill.v Fifty percent of the flows more than 125 miles from its source near Big Lake in total energy consumed by the City of Ann Arbor goes to Springfield Township, to its outlet at Pointe Mouillee in Lake drinking water and wastewater treatment. Both the costs Erie. The watershed contains all or parts of seven counties: Oakland, Livingston, Ingham, Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne, and and energy required to provide clean and reliable water Monroe, and is home to more than a half million residents. will continue to increase as demand grows. Also, higher The communities of the watershed have access to an abun- regulatory standards are expected for both drinking water dance of freshwater.
  • C H a P T E R Iv

    C H a P T E R Iv

    CHAPTER IV Moving forward: youth taking action and making a difference The combined acumen and involvement of all individuals, from regular citizens to scientific experts, will be needed as the world moves forward in implementing climate change miti- gation and adaptation measures and promot- ing sustainable development. Young people must be prepared to play a key role within this context, as they are the ones who will live to R IV experience the long-term impact of today’s crucial decisions. TE The present chapter focuses on the partici- pation of young people in addressing climate change. It begins with a review of the various mechanisms for youth involvement in environ- HAP mental advocacy within the United Nations C system. A framework comprising progressive levels of participation is then presented, and concrete examples are provided of youth in- volvement in climate change efforts around the globe at each of these levels. The role of youth organizations and obstacles to partici- pation are also examined. PROMOTING YOUTH ture. In addition to their intellectual contribution and their ability to mobilize support, they bring parTICipaTION WITHIN unique perspectives that need to be taken into account” (United Nations, 1995, para. 104). THE UNITED NATIONS The United Nations has long recognized the Box IV.1 importance of youth participation in decision- making and global policy development. Envi- The World Programme of ronmental issues have been assigned priority in Action for Youth on the recent decades, and a number of mechanisms importance of participation have been established within the system that The World Programme of Action for enables youth representatives to contribute to Youth recognizes that the active en- climate change deliberations.
  • Climate Change: a Real Threat to Our Future

    Climate Change: a Real Threat to Our Future

    Appendix 1 Climate Change: a real threat to our future MEDWAY YOUTH COUNCIL ANNUAL YOUTH CONFERENCE REPORT 2019 TEL: 01634 338748 WEB: medwayyouthcouncil.co.uk MAY 22 TWITTER: @MYC_Medway FACEBOOK: Medway Youth Council COMPANY NAME INSTAGRAM: Authored by: Your Name medway_youth_council YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE VOTE, BUT YOU DO HAVE A VOICE Appendix 1 This report aims to outline the findings and recommendations of Medway Youth Council’s Annual Conference 2019 ‘Climate Change: A Real Threat to Our Future’ Opening from Anna McGovern Medway Youth Council Chair. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues we face as a global populace, with this particularly being more profound to young people being the future generation of adults in society. This was what ignited the inspiration behind our Annual Conference for 2019. Young people from across Medway, representing their schools, were invited to attend our Annual Conference, which ran from 9:00 to 15:00 at MidKent College, Gillingham. The day was segmented into three workshops, each tackling an issue within climate change on a local and national scale, followed by a Q&A panel delivered by climate change professionals in the afternoon. The aim of the Conference was to educate young people on the key topics within climate change, and to show them how even small changes in their everyday lifestyle could make a massive difference towards this cause. Following the Conference, myself and our Workshop Leads have developed this Conference report which is to highlight the key findings of our Conference, to publicise young people’s views towards climate change, and to set out our action points based on the findings on our Conference for us to deliver upon.
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cultivation of Plants Used for Biofuel Production in Poland

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cultivation of Plants Used for Biofuel Production in Poland

    atmosphere Article Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cultivation of Plants Used for Biofuel Production in Poland Paweł Wi´sniewski* and Mariusz Kistowski Department of Landscape Research and Environmental Management, Faculty of Oceanography and Geography, University of Gdansk, Ba˙zy´nskiego4, 80309 Gda´nsk,Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 29 February 2020; Accepted: 14 April 2020; Published: 16 April 2020 Abstract: A reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as an increase in the share of renewable energy are the main objectives of EU energy policy. In Poland, biofuels play an important role in the structure of obtaining energy from renewable sources. In the case of biofuels obtained from agricultural raw materials, one of the significant components of emissions generated in their full life cycle is emissions from the cultivation stage. The aim of the study is to estimate and recognize the structure of GHG emission from biomass production in selected farms in Poland. For this purpose, the methodology that was recommended by the Polish certification system of sustainable biofuels and bioliquids production, as approved by the European Commission, was used. The calculated emission values vary between 41.5 kg CO2eq/t and 147.2 kg CO2eq/t dry matter. The highest average emissions were obtained for wheat (103.6 kg CO2eq/t), followed by maize (100.5 kg CO2eq/t), triticale (95.4 kg CO2eq/t), and rye (72.5 kg CO2eq/t). The greatest impact on the total GHG emissions from biomass production is caused by field emissions of nitrous oxide and emissions from the production and transport of fertilizers and agrochemicals.
  • The European Green Deal: Bring Back the New », OFCE Policy Brief 63, January 28

    The European Green Deal: Bring Back the New », OFCE Policy Brief 63, January 28

    policy brief 63 28 January 2020 THE EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL Bring back the new Éloi Laurent Sciences Po, OFCE On December 11 2019, the European Commission released a communication outlining a blueprint for a “European Green Deal”. To clarify its scope and limits, this Policy brief offers a critical examination of the main concepts that underpin and frame it: carbon neutrality, decoupling, resource efficiency, inclu- sive growth and just transition. This review leads to five recommendations for European authorities with a view to improving the relevance and consistency of the “Green Deal”: ■ Begin now a review of the complementarity and the adequacy to current objectives of EU's climate mitigation instruments (regulations, EU ETS, carbon taxation), revise them if necessary and then set the new EU climate targets; ■ Aim for a net decoupling (taking greenhouse gas consumption emissions, not production emissions, as a reference) and promote on this basis and other equity criteria a new global collective climate justice strategy – under- stood as the fair distribution of mitigation efforts – with a view to giving substance to the Paris Agreement (2015) when it is revised at COP 26 in Glasgow in November 2020; ■ Aim for a reduction in the consumption of natural resources taking into account the global material footprint of the European Union and begin now a reflection on the compatibility of this reduction in volumes consumed and extracted and the acceleration of the digital transition on the continent; ■ Define as a benchmark for the decoupling
  • Lime Guidelines for Field Crops in New York

    Lime Guidelines for Field Crops in New York

    Lime Guidelines for Field Crops in New York. First Release. CSS E06-2. June 2006. LIME GUIDELINES FOR FIELD CROPS IN NEW YORK Quirine M. Ketterings, W. Shaw Reid, and Karl J. Czymmek Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Extension Series E06-2 Cornell University June 9, 2006 Quirine M. Ketterings is Associate Professor of Nutrient Management in Agricultural Systems, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University. W. Shaw Reid is Emeritus Professor of Soil Fertility, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University. Karl J. Czymmek is Senior Extension Associate in Field Crops and Nutrient Management with PRO-DAIRY, Cornell University. Lime Guidelines for Field Crops in New York. First Release. CSS E06-2. June 2006. Acknowledgments: We thank Carl Albers, Area Field Crops Extension Educator, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Steuben, Chemung, and Schuyler Counties, for his review of an earlier draft of this extension bulletin. Correct citation: Ketterings, Q.M., W.S. Reid, and K.J. Czymmek (2006). Lime guidelines for field crops in New York. First Release. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Extension Series E06-2. Cornell University, Ithaca NY. 35 pages. Downloadable from: http://nmsp.css.cornell.edu/nutrient_guidelines/ For more information: For more information contact Quirine Ketterings at the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, 817 Bradfield Hall, Ithaca NY 14583, or e- mail: [email protected]. Nutrient Management Spear Program Collaboration among the Cornell University Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, PRODAIRY and Cornell Cooperative Extension http://nmsp.css.cornell.edu/ Lime Guidelines for Field Crops in New York. First Release.