DOCSLIB.ORG

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production Within the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production Within the United States Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States ICF International February 2013 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States Prepared by: ICF International 1725 I St NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 For: U.S. Department of Agriculture Climate Change Program Office Washington, DC February 2013 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States Preparation of this report was done under USDA Contract No. AG-3142-P-10-0214 in support of the project: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States. This draft report was provided to USDA under contract by ICF International and is presented in the form in which it was received from the contractor. Any views presented are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of or endorsed by USDA. For more information, contact the USDA Climate Change Program Office by email at [email protected], fax (202) 401-1176, or phone (202) 720-6699. Cover Photo Credit: (Middle Photo) California Bioenergy LLC, Dairy Biogas Project, Bakersfield, CA. How to Obtain Copies: You may electronically download this document from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Web site at: http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/mitigation_technologies/GHGMitigationProduction_Cost.htm For Further Information Contact: Jan Lewandrowski, USDA Project Manager ([email protected]) Bill Hohenstein, Director, USDA Climate Change Program Office ([email protected]) Acknowledgements: The Department of Agriculture would like to acknowledge these contributors to this report: Sarah Biggar, ICF International Derina Man, ICF International Katrin Moffroid, ICF International Diana Pape, ICF International Marybeth Riley-Gilbert, ICF International Rachel Steele, ICF International Victoria Thompson, ICF International Additional Contributors Shawn Archibeque, Colorado State University Shannon Gomes, Cedar Basin Crop Consulting Kristen Johnson, Washington State University Stephen Ogle, Colorado State University Doug Williams, Williams Engineering Associates David Wittry, Ag Management Systems Reviewers Brent Auvermann, Texas A&M University Steve Crutchfield, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Steve Del Grosso, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Justin Derner, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Ron Follett, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Alan Franzleubbers, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Ardel Halvorson, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Patrick Hunt, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Michele Laur, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service Bill Lazarus, University of Minnesota April Leytem, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Mark Liebig, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Deanne Meyer, University of California- Davis Dan Miller, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Lydia Olander, Nicholas Institute Carolyn Olson, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service Fred Petok, US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Robert (Howard) Skinner, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Luis Tupas, US Department of Agriculture, Division of Global Climate Change Charlie Walthall, US Department of Agriculture Mark Xu, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service i Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 GHG Profile of U.S. Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 1.4 1.2 GHG Emissions from Crop Production Systems ........................................................................................ 1.5 1.3 GHG Emissions from Animal Production Systems ..................................................................................... 1.9 1.4 Overview of Crop Production ...................................................................................................................... .1.12 1.5 Overview of Beef, Dairy, and Swine Operations ....................................................................................... 1.15 1.5.1 Beef Cattle Operations ............................................................................................................................ 1.17 1.5.2 Dairy Operations ...................................................................................................................................... 1.19 1.5.3 Swine Operations ...................................................................................................................................... 1.20 1.5.4 Characterization of U.S. Grazing Lands ............................................................................................... 1.21 1.6 Regulatory Issues Affecting the Adoption of GHG Mitigation Technologies and Practices ............ 1.22 1.7 Organization of this Report ............................................................................................................................ 1.25 Appendix 1-A: Consumer Price Index Inflation Scalar ........................................................................................ 1.26 Appendix 1-B: USDA Production Regions ............................................................................................................. 1.27 Appendix 1-C: State Regulations for Controlling Animal Manure .................................................................... 1.28 Chapter 1: References ................................................................................................................................................. 1.29 2 Crop Production Systems ......................................................................................................................................... 2.1 2.1 Field Management Operations ......................................................................................................................... 2.1 2.1.1 Reducing Tillage Intensity .......................................................................................................................... 2.1 2.1.1.1 Technology Characterization ........................................................................................................ 2.2 2.1.1.2 GHG Impacts..................................................................................................................................... 2.6 2.1.1.3 Cost Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 2.8 2.1.1.4 Break-Even Prices ........................................................................................................................... 2.13 2.1.2 Qualitative Assessment of Other Potential Mitigation Strategies ................................................ 2.16 2.1.2.1 Crop Rotation Changes ................................................................................................................ 2.16 2.1.2.2 Field Burning Elimination .............................................................................................................. 2.18 2.1.2.3 Reduced Lime Application ............................................................................................................ 2.18 2.1.2.4 Changes in Rice Cultivation Practices ....................................................................................... 2.19 2.2 Nutrient Management ...................................................................................................................................... 2.19 2.2.1 Reduce Fertilizer Application Rate ....................................................................................................... 2.23 2.2.1.1 Technology Characterization ...................................................................................................... 2.23 2.2.1.2 GHG Impacts................................................................................................................................... 2.25 2.2.1.3 Cost Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 2.26 2.2.1.4 Break-Even Prices ........................................................................................................................... 2.29 2.2.2 Shift Nitrogen Application from Fall to Spring (Single Application) .............................................. 2.30 2.2.2.1 Technology Characterization ...................................................................................................... 2.30 2.2.2.2 GHG Impacts................................................................................................................................... 2.32 2.2.2.3 Cost Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 2.33 2.2.2.4 Break-Even Prices ........................................................................................................................... 2.35 2.2.3 Inhibitor Application ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods
    Wageningen Academic Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods, 2016; 8 (1): 21-31 Publishers Effect of ratooning process on the engineering properties of NERICA rice varieties O.V.I. Itabiyi1, A.A. Adebowale1*, T.A. Shittu1, S.O. Adigbo2 and L.O. Sanni1 1Department of Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Agriculture, P.M. Box 2240, Abeokuta, Nigeria; 2Department of Plant Physiology and Crop Production, Federal University of Agriculture, P.M. Box 2240, Abeokuta, Nigeria; [email protected] Received: 6 May 2014 / Accepted: 21 October 2014 © 2015 Wageningen Academic Publishers RESEARCH ARTICLE Abstract Rice ratooning is the practice of harvesting grain from tillers originating from the stubble of previously harvested crop. Comparative assessment of the engineering properties of main and ratooned NERICA rice varieties was investigated in this study. The length, width, thickness, arithmetic mean diameter, geometric mean diameter, equivalent diameter and surface area ranged from 8.21 to 10.62 mm, 2.31 to 3.60 mm, 1.67 to 2.28 mm, 13.10 to 22.67 mm, 3.26 to 3.87 mm, 6.35 to 9.98 mm, 23.15 to 42.02%, 34.20 to 51.31 mm and from 0.35 to 0.48 mm2, respectively. Bulk density, true density, porosity, thousand grain weight and volume ranged from 0.63 to 1.14 g/cm3, 0.55 to 0.67 g/cm3, 1.48 to 45.91%, 21.66 to 27.41 g and from 0.023 to 0.031 mm3, respectively. Coefficient of static friction on polished wood, plywood, metal and glass ranged from 0.35 to 0.47, 0.34 to 0.44, 0.26 to 0.34 and 0.14 to 0.21, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant Supply Chains – a Global
    5. Discussion This section discusses the key drivers of variation in emissions from major process- es in the ruminant supply chain that contribute significantly to the carbon footprint of ruminant species, highlighting differences among species and world regions. The section also discusses some of the parameters and assumptions that could strongly influence the results. 5.1 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC FERMENTATION Regardless of the species, the largest source of GHG emissions in ruminant produc- tion is CH4, with more than 90 percent originating from enteric fermentation and the rest from manure. Globally, enteric fermentation from cattle, buffalo, and small ruminants contributes 2 448 million tonnes CO2-eq, of which 76 percent is emitted by cattle and 14 percent and 10 percent by buffalo and small ruminants, respec- tively. The production of enteric CH4 from ruminants is mainly affected by feed intake and feed quality which, in turn, defines the total energy and nutrient intake and consequently animal performance. Many of these factors are interrelated, some of which affect net emissions and others emission intensity. At animal level, net emissions are influenced by feed intake and digestibility, while emission intensity is a function of net emissions, yield per animal, health and genetics. At herd level, factors affecting net emissions are similar to those cited above, while emission intensity is determined by issues such as reproductive and mortality rates, herd structure, management, etc. The following sections discuss some of the important factors that drive the variation in enteric CH4. Productivity. Productivity is an important factor in explaining the variation of emissions among different production typologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Inventory a Community-Wide and Municipal Operations Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2015
    Greenhouse Gas Inventory A community-wide and municipal operations greenhouse gas inventory for 2015 City of Lancaster Department of Public Works – Douglas Smith October 2017 Acknowledgement Thank you to all of the City Staff who helped compile data for both the greenhouse gas inventories included herein, including Charlotte Katzenmoyer (City Director of Public Works), Donna Jessup (City operations), Dave Schaffhauser (City Facilities Manager), Bryan Harner (City Wastewater), John Holden (City Water), Tim Erb (City Fire), and Maria Luciano (City Operations). Thank you to the Stormwater Bureau’s 2016-2017 F&M intern, JT Paganelli, who completed the vehicle emissions inventory, and the 2017 F&M intern, Grant Salley, for assisting with editing and research. Thank you to Barbara Baker from the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority for providing data on solid waste. Additional thanks to customer service representatives at PPL and UGI, Scott Koch and Lori Pepper, respectively, for assisting with data. Recognition also goes to Warwick Township and Tony Robalik AICP who conducted the first municipal carbon audit in Lancaster County, which provided a model and helpful background information for this document. 2 Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................5 1.1 Global Context .............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2004-2005 Update
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository The Sustainability Institute Research Institutes, Centers and Programs 2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2004-2005 Update UNH Sustainability Institute Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/sustainability Recommended Citation UNH Sustainability Institute, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2004-2005 Update" (2006). The Sustainability Institute. 61. https://scholars.unh.edu/sustainability/61 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Institutes, Centers and Programs at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Sustainability Institute by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Produced through the collaborative efforts of the UNH Office of Sustainability, the UNH Climate Education Initiative, and Clean Air - Cool Planet, this 2004 - 2005 update to UNH’s 1990 - 2003 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory serves as a tool for measuring the University’s impact on regional and global climate change. The 2004-2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2 004-2005 UPDATE Inventory Update summarizes UNH’s greenhouse gas emissions from all major sources, including the production of energy, transportation, and agriculture, among others. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY A COLL ABORATIVE PROJECT BY: Since 1991, UNH’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) have continued to increase with increases in the University’s population UNH OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY and improvements in infrastructure. Despite a reduction in emissions between 2003 and 2005, there has been a net increase UNH CLIMATE EDUCATION INITIATIVE of 25% in GHGE from 1990 to 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW JERSEY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY MID-CYCLE UPDATE REPORT February 2021
    NEW JERSEY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY MID-CYCLE UPDATE REPORT February 2021 Introduction New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act (GWRA) (P.L. 2007, c.112, as amended 2019) calls for an annual compilation of statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data. This data is used to monitor and track progress towards New Jersey’s goal of reducing GHG emissions 80% from their 2006 levels by 2050 (known as the 80x50 goal).1 Since 2008, the New Jersey Department of Environmental New Jersey’s Greenhouse Gas Protection (DEP) has released a comprehensive statewide Reporting Framework GHG inventory report approximately every two years. Following the 2019 amendments to the GWRA, the DEP is also Emissions Inventory Report committed to releasing updated data annually to help inform • Full report released every two years the state’s climate mitigation planning and implementation • Includes the latest emissions estimates and projections efforts. • Includes a detailed discussion on: The DEP will therefore continue to release a full Emissions o Statewide Greenhouse Gas trends Federal and International trends Inventory Report every other year and will also provide a o and policy “Mid-Cycle Update” during the intervening years. The o Changes in methodologies Emissions Inventory Reports2 contain detailed analysis, o Adjustment of Baselines including updated emissions calculations, review of GHG trends, adjustments to baselines (when necessary), and Mid-Cycle Update • Brief summary released between discussion of any changes in emission calculation Emissions Inventory Reports methodologies. In contrast, the Mid-Cycle Update is a brief • Includes the latest emissions summary of the latest emissions data, with concise estimates and projections complementary analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists ASSCT
    JOURNAL American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Volume 2 Florida and Louisiana Divisions June 1983 ASSCT OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1981 General Officers and Committees General Secretary-Treasurer Editors of Journal Managing Editor Program Chairman Lowell L. McCormick Fred A. Martin Technical Editors Guillermo Aleman Agriculture Bryan Allain 1 Fred A. Martin H. J. Andreis Antonio Arvesu Manufacturing Jan Bergeron Harold Birkett Joseph A. Polack Patrick Cancienne Joseph Clayton Alfonso L. Fors Gerardo Fundora Dalton Landry Ben L. Legendre Irving Legendre, Jr. Denver I. Loupe Lowell L. McCormick Divisional Officers Florida Office Louisiana Joe E. Clayton President Irving Legendre, Jr. Guillermo Aleman 1st Vice President Ben L. Legendre Robert Stacy 2nd Vice President Jan Bergeron H. J. Andreis Chairman, Agricultural Section Bryan Allain Cerardo Fundora Chairman, Manufacturing Section Harold Birkett Alfonso L. Fors Chairman at Large Patrick Cancienne Antonio Arvesu Past President Dalton Landry J. R. Orsenigo Secretary-Treasurer Lowell L. McCormick i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 President's Message - Florida Division Joe E. Clayton 3 President's Message - Louisiana Division Irving E. Legendre, Jr. Agricultural Papers 5 Sugarcane Evapotranspiration Estimated By Penman Method S. F. Shin 12 The Ratooning Abilities of Four New CP Sugarcane Cultivars Compared to CP 63-588 Barry Glaz and J. D. Miller 17 Late-Season Weed Control in Sugarcane With Herbicides Applied at Lay-by R. W. Millhollon 22 The Effects of Selected Elements in Fertilizers on the Uptake of These Elements by Sugarcane Laron E. Golden 29 Influence of Smut on Production in Highly Susceptible Varieties of Sugarcane D. G. Holder 32 The Frequency of Smut Resistant Clones in the Canal Point Sugarcane Breeding Program J.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Methane Emissions and Dietary Interventions for Mitigation
    sustainability Review Towards Sustainable Livestock Production: Estimation of Methane Emissions and Dietary Interventions for Mitigation Pragna Prathap 1 , Surinder Singh Chauhan 1 , Brian Joseph Leury 1, Jeremy James Cottrell 1 and Frank Rowland Dunshea 1,2,* 1 Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (S.S.C.); [email protected] (B.J.L.); [email protected] (J.J.C.) 2 Faculty of Biological Sciences, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The increasing need for sustainable livestock production demands more research in the field of greenhouse gas (GHG), particularly methane (CH4), measurement and mitigation. Dietary interventions, management, and biotechnological strategies to reduce the environmental impacts and economic implications of enteric CH4 emissions are needed. While the use of biotechnological interventions and management strategies can be challenging on a routine basis, feed additive supple- mentation appears to be the most researched, developed, and ready to use strategy to mitigate enteric CH4 emissions. This paper discusses various recently developed feeding strategies to reduce enteric CH4 emissions in livestock. Additionally, the manuscript reviews various technologies developed for CH4 estimation since the accurate and reliable estimation of CH4 emissions can be a limiting step Citation: Prathap, P.; Chauhan, S.S.; in the development and adoption of any mitigation strategy. Leury, B.J.; Cottrell, J.J.; Dunshea, F.R. Towards Sustainable Livestock Keywords: climate change; livestock production; methane estimation; nutritional strategies; in vitro Production: Estimation of Methane fermentation; gas chambers Emissions and Dietary Interventions for Mitigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheep and Goat Production: Basic Differences, Impact on Climate and Molecular Tools for Rumen Microbiome Study
    Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(1): 684-706 ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 3 Number 1 (2014) pp. 684-706 http://www.ijcmas.com Review Article Sheep and goat production: basic differences, impact on climate and molecular tools for rumen microbiome study A.R.Agrawal1, S. A. Karim2, Rajiv Kumar2, A.Sahoo2 and P. J. John1 1Department of Zoology, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India 2Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Tonk, Rajasthan, India *Corresponding author e-mail: A B S T R A C T Small ruminants are able to utilize the lingo-cellulosic materials and convert them to animal products of high nutritional value viz. meat, milk, wool/fur, hide and manure. However ruminants are also contributing towards green house gas emission. Like large ruminants, these fore gut fermenters also harbor a dense and diverse microbial population belonging to different group of flora and fauna. The mammalian system is K e y w o r d s devoid of enzymes cellulase to degrade structural carbohydrate while ruminants are able to degrade them by the enzymes elaborated by symbiotic microbes inhabiting in Sheep; the rumen. Importance of small ruminants in Indian economy lies in their smaller size, Goats; Rumen which is easy to graze and manage. Sheep and goat production is an integral microbiome; component of rural economy of India and serves as major source of economic Green House sustenance for weaker segments of the society in the hot semiarid and arid region. gas; Sheep and goats are closely related since both belong to subfamily Caprinae whereas Differences they are separate species.
    [Show full text]
  • Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-Containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-Based Production Systems
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2019 Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-Containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-Based Production Systems Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Ballesteros, Raúl David Guevara, "Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-Containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-Based Production Systems" (2019). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7666. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7666 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENTERIC METHANE AND NITROGEN EMISSIONS IN BEEF CATTLE GRAZING A TANNIN-CONTAINING LEGUME RELATIVE TO FEEDLOT AND TRADITIONAL PASTURE-BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS by Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Range Science Approved: _________________________ _________________________ Juan J. Villalba, Ph.D. Jennifer W. MacAdam, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member _________________________ _________________________ Eric Thacker, Ph.D. Richard S. Inouye, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice Provost for Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2019 ii Copyright © Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros 2019 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Enteric Methane and Nitrogen Emissions in Beef Cattle Grazing a Tannin-containing Legume Relative to Feedlot and Traditional Pasture-based Production Systems by Raúl David Guevara Ballesteros, Master of Science Utah State University, 2019 Major Professor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance of New Sugarcane Varieties in the Southern Irrigated Coastal Plains of Puerto Rico 1
    Performance of New Sugarcane Varieties in the Southern Irrigated Coastal Plains of Puerto Rico 1 Victor C. Godreau, Carlos L. Gonzalez Molina and Angel Vidal Mendez2 ABSTRACT Sixty sugarcane varieties, sorted in five experiments, were grown in the South Coastal plains for performance evaluation. Experiments were located at Guayanilla farm, at Union and Cintrona farms in Ponce, and at Florida and Centro farms in the Salinas-Santa Isabel area. Experiments were planted and cultivated following the standard practice of the sugarcane industry. Data on rendiments and tons of cane and of sugar per acre were recorded for the plant cane and two ratoon crops of each experiment. Other agronomic characteristics such as growth habits, stooling and ratooning ability, and fiber content were also recorded. Data of the three crops were statistically ana­ lyzed for rendiments, TCA and TSA. PR 63-488, CP 52-43 and PR 63-525 were the most promising varieties in the Guayanilla area. Although they did not produce significantly more sugar than the checks, they are better suited to mechanized harvesting. PR 6 1-632, PR 63-525 and PR 64-1791 were the most promising in the Ponce area (Centro and Cintrona farms) because of their higher sugar yields and their harvestability characteristics. PR 61-632, PR 1152, PR 63-525, PR 64-1791 and PR 1124 were promising in the Salinas-Santa Isabel area. With these new varieties, cost of sugar production is lower than with the old commercial varieties, which are unsuited to mechanized harvesting and have poor juice quality. INTRODUCTION Cane sugar production in Puerto Rico has sharply declined during the past 20 years from a record of 1,359,841 tons in 1952 to 287,269 tons in 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance Council on Environmental Quality January 17, 2016
    Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance Council on Environmental Quality January 17, 2016 i Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose of This Guidance ............................................................................................... 2 1.2. Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Under Executive Order 13693 ................. 2 1.2.1. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Applied to Greenhouse Gases .......................................... 3 1.2.2. Federal Reporting Requirements .................................................................................. 4 1.2.3. Distinguishing Between GHG Reporting and Reduction ............................................. 5 1.2.4. Opportunities, Limitations, and Exemptions under Executive Order 13693 ................ 5 1.2.5. Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Workgroup ................................ 6 1.2.6. Electronic Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Capability (Annual Greenhouse Gas Data Report Workbook) .................................................................................................. 6 1.2.7. Relationship of the Guidance to Other Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements and Protocols ................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2.8. The Public Sector Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Protocol ..................... 8 2.0 Setting
    [Show full text]
  • AGR/ N0207 Prepare Land for Sugarcane Cultivation 2
    EYE ON IT Current Industry QUALIFICATIONS PACK - OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE AND ALLIED Trends INDUSTRY Suscipit, vicis praesent erat Contents feugait epulae, validus indoles 1. Introduction and Contacts.…….P1 duis enim consequat genitus at. 2. Qualifications Pack……….….......P2 Sed, conventio, aliquip accumsan adipiscing augue 3. OS Units……………..…..…….……….P3 What are blandit minim abbas oppeto Occupational 4. Glossary of Key Terms ……….…P49 commov. Standards(OS)? Aptent nulla aliquip camur ut Enim neo velit adsum odio, OS describe what consequat aptent nisl in voco multo, in commoveo quibus individuals need consequat. Adipsdiscing magna premo tamen erat huic. Occuro to do, know and jumentum velit iriure obruo. damnum uxor dolore, ut at praemitto opto pneum. Aptent nulla aliquip camur ut understand in Introduction si sudo, opes feugiat iriure order to carry out consequat lorem aptent nisl magna validus. Sino lenis vulputate, a particular job Qualifications Pack- Sugarcane Cultivator jumentum velitan en iriure. Loquor, valetudo ille abbas cogo saluto role or function vulputate meus indoles iaceo, ne quod, esse illum, letatio lorem SECTOR: AGRICULTURE AND ALLIED secundum, dolus demoveo conventio. Letalis nibh iustum OS are interddfico proprius. In consequat os transverbero bene, erat vulpu SUB-SECTOR: AGRICULTURE performance quadfse nudflla magna. Aptent nulla tate enim esse si sudo erat. OCCUPATION: FIELD CROP CULTIVATION standards that aliquip camur utan sdl as consequat individuals must REFERENCE ID: AGR/Q0203 aptent nisl in vocoloc consequat ispo achieve when facto delore ergo maska forgeuit ALIGNED TO: NCO-2004/6111.20 SOFTWARE carrying out masca pala ergo sacrum lamap Monthly Picks functions in the Sugarcane Cultivator: Sugarcane Cultivator is responsible for the allacum dergo ipso aliquip mia sermi cultivation and harvesting of sugarcane crop in a given piece of land.
    [Show full text]