Questions and Answers
California - Denmark - Netherlands Webinar:
Dairy Methane Reduction Technologies

Q1: Which year is the emission reduction related to?
A1: The methane reduction in 2030 is compared with the figures of 1990. (Leo Oprel)

Q2: Could there be any issues concerning emissions during the actual separation technology, GHG + ammonia? Is this technology well documented concerning the separation itself as well as the emissions from both end products, liquid as well as solid and the distribution of volatile solids in these fractions?
A2: One of the keys to a successful greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation project is the proper handling of all the waste streams to prevent anaerobic conditions and the formation of GHG. Once the components go anaerobic there will be fugitive emissions if the system is not designed to capture them. For GHG mitigation anaerobic digestion is well understood and proven, for ammonia recovery technologies are available to focus on capturing ammonia in more concentrated forms such as ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium sulfate and aqua ammonia but these are newer, less developed technologies. (Mark Stoermann)

Q3: No question, just a thank you to the speakers, for this informative webinar. I need to hop on to another meeting. Again, thank you and stay safe.

Q4: Have you considered pH reduction to reduce emissions and pathogens with safe minerals that immediately reduce pH rather than Sulfuric acid?
A4: This could be an interesting approach indeed. In the Netherlands we focus on identifying best options given the local circumstances, while also looking in the same time to sustainable solutions for the long run. (Kees de Koning)

In Denmark, approximately 20% of all animal slurry (fluid animal waste) is treated with sulfuric acid prior to amendment on arable soils. The acidification of slurry brings down the pH to 6.0 or lower, which reduces the potential for ammonia evaporation from the slurry. Using mineral instead of liquid acid has not been use in Denmark to my knowledge, but may be worth looking into if the price is competitive and the minerals can be used in the same machine setup that the farmers already have. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk)

Q5: Where does the difference between Netherland and California in enteric VS manure emissions come from? 
A5: The difference in enteric methane emissions between the Netherlands and California is most probably related with the different housing, manure treatment and feeding systems used in both countries (Kees de Koning)

Q6: Are GHG emissions from compost bedding pack barns, particularly from the bedding pack itself, being evaluated in the Netherlands or Denmark?
A6: Yes, this is part of ongoing research in the Netherlands and on the Dairy Campus innovation centre (www.dairycampus.nl) (Kees de Koning)

AgroTechnologyATLAS website gives an excellent overview of various environmental and economical benefits and issues using different manure management technologies. This also include methane production in anaerobic zones. See link to the report on composting of solid manure. (Claus) 

Q7: I am pretty sure that my local market does not sell milk at a loss. Why do dairy farmers loss money?
A7: Often milk is sold as a loss leader in markets and grocery stores as it brings in customers, but that is not really the issue here. The commodity nature of milk means that the dairy farm does not set the milk price, so the dairyman does not have the ability to raise his price to cover the added cost of technology to manage manure and technologies that benefit the environment. A car maker can raise the price of the car they sell when a regulation adds costs, in a market where the prices are set by federal milk orders this isn't possible. (Mark Stoermann)

As a dairy farmer you can’t control your milk volume as in other industries is done, so especially in times where milk prices drop due to overproduction /less consumer demand. The result will be that the dairy farmer is losing money when costs of production are higher than the milk payment (Kees de Koning)

Q8: Are chemical fertilizers really that much cheaper than a locally available "organic" fertilizer?                 
A8: Commercially available fertilizers are usually shipped into agricultural areas in bulk and are therefore marketed at prices that outcompete the more natural fertilizer value of manure because of the transportation cost. To compete by removing the water and create a more transportable product raises the price per pound of manure-based fertilizer by several times (4-5x) that of commercial products. Even with the water removed, the nutrient density of manure-based fertilizers is significantly less than commercial fertilizers thus requiring more energy to apply. There are soil health benefits gained from manure-based fertilizers; however, as an industry, we are still working to monetize these benefits. (Mark Stoermann)

If you are a Danish dairy or pig farmer, you own or lease farmland to produce feed. The “free” liquid livestock manure supplements the chemical fertilizer. Liquid manure is spread using slurry tankers (Samson Agro) while chemical fertilizer is spread using fertilizer spreaders. (Bogballe). There is a limit to how much N and P you are allowed to spread on a specific area – if you have too much livestock manure and not enough land, you have to make arrangements with neighboring farmers. In the majority of the biogas projects in Denmark farmers co-invest and supply’s the plant with livestock manure. There is typical no payment involved between the biogas plant and the farmer since the biogas plant get free biomass and the farmers get digestate, which is of an higher fertilizer value than not-digested manure. Read more about this in the publication Manure to Energy. See page ten: “Value of Plant Nutrients”. Proper manure management and utilization has resulted a 50% drop in the use of chemical N from 1985-2010, which have saves farmers $120 pr. acres on the chemical fertilizer (N) alone. (Claus Mortensen)

It is very difficult to generalize on the cost of traditional fossil-based fertilizer v. that being produced from on-farm sources (such as animal manure, agriculture residuals, etc.) as there are so many local, regional and national factors that play into that equation. However, the primary point may be that we need to place more value on these alternate sources, providing policies and market mechanisms that allow these to be utilized more fully as a local resource and generate additional revenue sources for farmers and biogas project developers. (Chris Voell)
In the Netherlands most of the cow manure is used on the dairy farm to fertilize the land to grow grass and fodder crops. By doing so, farmers have to buy less chemical fertilizers. In these farm situations in general transport costs are quite low. Moreover indeed there are also soil health benefits (organic matter) from manure application (Kees de Koning)

Q9: What are the pros and cons of the seaweed/bromoform solution to methane emissions?
A9: Promising data from a preliminary study conducted with several Holstein dairy cows at UC Davis in the spring of 2018 using red algae seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) as a ruminant feed supplement suggested a 50%+ reduction in enteric methane production. Bromoform and halogenated, compounds found in red algae seaweed, are known to provide persistent CH4 reduction and explain why feeding experiments using small quantities of red algae seaweed have exhibited encouraging results. However, these compounds are associated with animal health and environmental concerns leading to questions about diet and long-term impact. And, though future studies may show these compounds do not present health concerns in seaweed fed cattle, there may be human perception issues to overcome. A 6-month trial was conducted at UC Davis under the direction of Ermias Kebreab in 2019 with 21 steers.

Preliminary results support a significant CH4 reduction, consistent with the preliminary dairy trial in 2018. Tests to measure efficiency, product quality, taste as well as impacts on overall health implications are ongoing.

If seaweed proves to be an effective and safe tool for CH4 reduction, the next question relates to accessibility. Access to red algae seaweed is limited (Asparagopsis for research is currently imported from Australia, Asia and Europe) and is cost prohibitive. In addition, challenges associated with cultivating and growing red algae seaweed must be overcome to offer the potential for meaningful impact. Several other projects are ongoing around the world, and it is anticipated they will add to the body of knowledge relative to efficacy of seaweed for enteric CH4 reduction. If red algae seaweed can be shown safe and the challenges of wide-scale cultivation and production overcome, gaining approval for use will likely take in excess of four years. (Mark Stoermann from "Dairy Feed Additives to Reduce Enteric Emissions" )

At the moment several trials are done in the Netherlands on seaweed application in the feeding ratio of cows. Results are expected in summer/autumn  2020. Besides the effect on methane emissions, also other questions need to be answered like food safety and animal health and the way seaweed can be harvested, processed and added to the feed ratio (Kees de Koning)

Q10: Danish presentation of ministry: 40% of CO2 after biogasplants is CO2, which is not increasing the earth's temperature. Why use energy to make CH4 out of that? I mean 40% of biogas is CO2.....
A10: Typically, the CO2 is scrubbed from the biogas and not converted to CH4 although this is possible the process is not profitable at this time. (Mark Stoermann)

Biogas is roughly 35-45% CO2, 55-65% CH4 (methane) and some other gasses that typical needs to be removed before gas use. When you upgrade the biogas, your remove the CO2 and get natural gas grid ready methane. The CO2 is vented in the vast majority of the RNG plants. Only one plant is using the CO2 as gas for soft drink production. Denmark focus a lot on using this CO2 instead of venting it. (Claus Mortensen)

Denmark produces a lot of wind power. On very windy days, Denmark sells the excess power at a very low price to Germany or other countries - sometimes even give it away free of charge. The concept of power-2-methane (aka, Power-to-Gas, Power-to-X) is to use the excess (stranded) wind power to produce hydrogen and use the CO2 and the hydrogen to form CH4 for renewable natural gas (RNG) grid injection. This way, wind power can be stored as CH4 in the existing energy infrastructure to use it for renewable transport or high temperature industrial processes where you don’t have many options to convert into renewable energy. (Claus Moretensen/Chris Voell)

Q11: Californian presentation: Did you measure N2O emissions during composting? This might be pollution swapping? 
A11: The CDFA Alternative Manure Management Program is driven by quantifiable reduction in methane emissions. The GHG emission reduction Quantification Methodology currently does not include N2O emissions. However, the benefit for reduction in nitrogenis recognized by CDFA in the program. Projects may propose to include nutrient management technologies in conjunction with methane reduction technologies and can be reimbursed for equipment and implementation costs of the nutrient management technology through the grant. Projects achieving enhanced nutrient management benefits are also eligible for additional points during review and scoring of grant applications. (Geetika Joshi, CDFA)

Q12: To Denmark; What do you do with the end product of co-fermentation and how does this fit in with your manure legislation?
A12: Farmers supply raw manure to the biogas plants and the digestate goes back to the farmers as a key input to their production (fertilizer). This allows the farmers to much more precisely and effectively apply nutrients to land for crop production. There is a limit to how much N and P we are allowed to spread on 1 hectare. One key trends is that the biogas plants are looking into making designer fertilizer with specific NPK amounts. Will be happy to share regulations on this. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk/Chris Voell)

Q13: Codigestion increases nutrient and salt loading on dairy farms.  How is this handled?
A13: Ideally, if the nutrients have enough value, the nutrients would be converted into a value added products that would account for the salts and be used at proper agronomic rates and applied in ways that would minimize the salt concentration in the upper layer of the soil that occurs with surface irrigation. This does not remove the need for irrigation in semi-arid climates and there may still be issues due to the salts that are present in the irrigation water, but this is the case with commercial fertilizers as well.  (Mark Stoermann)

In Denmark, the 40 centralized, large scale co-digestion biogas plants receive a mix of animal manure, deep litter (straw and manure), and a mix of food waste and other organic waste streams. These plants are not located on a single farm and the end product (digestate) is distributed appropriately back to the farms via truck to comply with regulations regarding salt and nutrient content. (Chris Voell)

In the Netherlands farmers and government focus on the minerals in their management. All dairy farmers are using (obligation) the so-called Annual Nutrient Cycle Assessment (ANCA) to keep track on minerals going in and out. Co-digestion is used on some farms, but quite limited. In recent years we have seen some developments and initiatives on farm-scale mono-digesters but the number of installations is limited (Kees de Koning)

Q14: How energy intensive and cost effective is manure cooling?
A14: Milk and manure leave a cow's body at 100° Fahrenheit and needs to be cooled quickly to less than 40° to stop bacterial activity. According to a University of Missouri presentation from 2012 milk cooling makes up about 20 percent of a Michigan dairy's total energy costs. A cow produces about twice as much manure as milk on average so the cost would be considerable and the storage for frozen manure, at least in the summer would be problematic as well. One other consideration is that manure, which contains a lot of fiber, does not perform well in most of the efficient heat exchanger systems which are designed for fluid products of low viscosity. (Mark Stoermann)

Not practiced in the field in NL yet, but will be part of the research on methane emissions initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture (Kees de Koning)

Q15: Is the cow toilet integrated with robotic milking?
A15: In fact robotic milking and the Cow Toilet are separate innovations and not integrated. The basic design of the cow toilet is constructed in a concentrate feeder and the objective is to collect and separate urine resulting in less ammonia emissions. Any integration of the Cow Toilet and a robotic milking system lies in the future however this will mainly depend on the behavioral aspects of cows (Kees de Koning).

Q16: Have local CHP systems declined or been supplanted by new approaches?
A16: In California some of the CHP systems are still operating but most of the systems that are being built now are for renewable natural gas (RNG) for the transportation sector because the return on investment is considerably higher. As the contracts for electricity expire many of the CHP systems are looking at converting to RNG. (Mark Stoermann

Three electricity projects funded by CDFA in 2015 included a CHP component. (Geetika Joshi, CDFA)

The CHP solutions used at Danish biogas plants are located at two types of plants: 1) Small and older farm based plants where biogas upgrading to RNG is not an economically viable solution. They will continue to be able to feed in to the power grid and use the heat for heating the digester process and possibly for district heating 2) Larger and older co-operative plants. Some of these have converted into RNG plants injecting RNG to the natural gas grid. However, if you can’t sell the heat, it is difficult to get a bankable project. It is difficult to sell the heat all year round. With RNG, you sell all the energy all year round. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park cm@agropark.dk/Chris Voell)

Q17: Why move manure instead of the biogas?
A17: In many locations the natural gas infrastructure is not located near all the farms that could produce biogas. Additionally, the interconnects into the pipeline can be quite expensive and sharing it between several projects can be a benefit. Because biogas has to be cleaned and should be odorized before transporting it sometimes makes more sense to move manure or a concentrate to improve the economics of the overall project. (Mark Stoermann)

Danish numbers tells us that if you move manure more than 20-25 kilometers (15 miles) you use more energy than you transport. Straw/deep litter, food waste, etc. can be transported much longer. The large majority of the manure is not moved from farther away than 10-15 km due to the high livestock density we have in the western part of Denmark. Transport costs in Denmark is around $3 per ton going to and from the plant (the farmers need the "upgraded" fertilizer). Info: Our gas prices are 1.5 times that in the US. Danish plants are continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) digesters with between 8-12% dry matter (DM), so we need the manure to be able to utilize the energy-rich straw, food waste, deep litter, etc. that gives the large majority of the energy. Economy of scale (both plant and the upgrading) is another reason why we prefer to move the manure instead of the gas: If you need to invest $2-3 million in a biogas upgrading facility, you need large scale plants. We have seen cluster projects in Denmark (just as in California, where 3-5 plants sharing 1 upgrading facility), but you still don’t get the economy of scale and effective biogas plants by going small. Piping manure has not been very successful. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk)

Q18: The manure must then be returned to the farm. Does this make energetic sense?
A18: There are projects in Ribe, Denmark and Tillamook, Oregon that haul manure to a community digester and return digestate to multiple farms as part of their project, the Dane County Digester in Waunakee WI is also a good example that utilizes this model. These types of projects usually involve many smaller dairies rather than larger ones and often there are credits to support the transport if it is for beneficial use. In an ideal situation where the was a value-added product made from the digestate the manure would not be returned but processed as part of a more comprehensive process. (Mark Stoermann)

Moving biomass with 4-5% dry matter (DM) more than 20-25 km may not make sense from a single standpoint, but may make sense from a nutrient point of view since the N value for a farmers perspective increases when the manure is being degassed. From an economy of scale and overall plant point of view it may make sense since manure is the process liquid that enables other types of more energy rich biomasses that you may get money to take in or get for free. Remember, no truck drives empty, and the whole route planning is optimized by software. A large 450.000-500.000 ton plant needs 4-5 trucks and drives 5 days/8 hours day. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk)

Q19: How efficient and how costly is electrolysis in practice?
A19: Electrolysis is a relatively efficient way of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. According to an online article by Carbon Commentary (Link Here) “…roughly, a new electrolysis plant today delivers energy efficiency of around 80%. That is, the energy value of the hydrogen produced is about 80% of the electricity used to split the water molecule.” This may be useful in the conversion of renewable electricity to a more storable and dispatchable fuel (hydrogen) but at this time does not have much application to dairy manure treatment. Some work is being done on electrocoagulation for removal of phosphorous after manure digestion, but this is not yet scaled up to commercial use. (Mark Stoermann)

There is a lengthy list of completed and ongoing P2X projects in Denmark. Denmark is currently working to make a webinar/round table that enables knowledge sharing between Danish/US industry and academia. There has been a number of technical and economic analysis completed in Denmark relative to the use of on-farm and wastewater biogas in power-to-gas applications. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk/Chris Voell)

Q20: Why use trucks when pipeline transmission is relatively cheap?  That would parasitize energy production from the methane to power the trucks.
A20: In most cases where trucks are used for moving manure, manure concentrates or even gas it is because the distance of the pipeline run is too long, there would be problems getting permission or right of way for a pipeline or there are physical conditions that prevent a pipeline. Typically, RNG needs to get into a pipeline that has the capacity to take a lot of gas, so it generally has to go into larger higher pressure “transportation pipelines” not the smaller local “distribution pipelines”. These pipelines are often interstate pipelines operated at high pressures that make construction very expensive. In addition, when the dairies use sand for bedding or are located in areas where a lot of sand blows into the area where the manure is collected there are also issues with long pipelines and maintaining proper velocity in the pipe to prevent clogging. (Mark Stoermann)

Q21: Is California thinking to promote / support with grants manure ammonia reduction strategies?
A21: CDFA’s incentives programs are driven by the State’s targets for reduction of methane emissions. Since ammonia is not a greenhouse gas, the GHG emission reduction Quantification Methodology currently does not include ammonia emissions. However, the benefit for reduction in nitrogen is recognized by CDFA in the program. Projects may propose to include nutrient management technologies in conjunction with methane reduction technologies and can be reimbursed for equipment and implementation costs of the nutrient management technology through the grant. Projects achieving enhanced nutrient management benefits resulting in improved water or air quality are also eligible for additional points during review and scoring of grant applications. (Geetika Joshi, CDFA).

Q22: Mark-- Do you see space requirements as being a constraint on wider use of composting and manure drying?
A22: There are technologies available that can reduce the footprint of composting and direct drying can be done on a fairy small footprint as well. Typically, these technologies have a higher capital cost than traditional windrow composting, but they are available. (Mark Stoermann)

Q23: What UF Technology stands for?
A23: Ultra-filtration, this is a membrane-based technology that uses pressure and a filter with a pore size around 0.01 micron. Other filtration systems utilize filters with larger (microfiltration) and smaller (nanofiltration and reverse osmosis) pore sizes. (Mark Stoermann)

Q24: How can we as CowSignals® Training Company be found by interested parties in California?
A24: You did already by raising this question and I am sure people can find you at your web-site (Kees de Koning)

Q25: Which is the most promising technology for mitigation of enteric methane while improving milk production of cow in smallholder farms?
A25: It would probably be in the form of a feed additive there is a good summary on the state of the various feed additives in this white paper by Dr. Jim Wallace of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. "Dairy Feed Additives to Reduce Enteric Emissions"  (Mark Stoermann)

I agree with the remarks made by Mark Stoermann on feed additives, all though under Dutch conditions we should not forget the measures breeding, feeding and manure management. Farmers can choose the measure or technology that fits them best in their local situation and operation (Kees de Koning)

Q26: Are there existing incentives in the US to encourage the expansion of biogas pipelines to farms with ADs? Can farmers petition to have pipelines built to their farms?
A26: Typically, RNG needs to get into a pipeline that has the capacity to take a lot of gas, so it generally has to go into larger, higher pressure “transportation pipelines” not the smaller local “distribution pipelines”. These pipelines are often interstate pipelines operated at high pressures that make construction very expensive. We are just seeing some states allow the gas utilities to rate base the interconnects to RNG facilities, most of the projects up to now have had to bear the cost of connecting to the pipeline on their own. (Mark Stoermann)

While not specifically targeted to the building of pipelines to farms, the RNG value created through the federal Renewable Fuels Standard and California Low Carbon Fuel Standard have allowed for the growth of farm-based digester and biogas plants. (Chris Voell)
Renewable energy/digester systems are supported by the USDA’s REAP (Rural Energy for America Program) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service EQIP ( Environmental Quality Incentives Program): Links:
REAP: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-energy-america-program-renewable-energy-systems-energy-efficiency
EQIP: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/ (Geetika Joshi, CDFA)

Q27:Have you considered using Animal Husbandry Char formulated from Biochar?
A27: Biochar is being extensively studied as part of rations and as bedding in locations across the country. (Mark Stoermann)

Q28: What is your definition of Biocoal? Is it Biochar or coal that has been thermally converted?
A28: As I used the term Biocoal, it was as the solids left after Hydrothermal Carbonization which had been processed under high temperature and pressure and then separated into a solid fuel product. I would define Biochar as the solids that are left over from Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction, which have been processed to produce energy and are therefore lower in BTU content. Biocoal is usually sold as a fuel, biochar is usually sold as a soil amendment, although the terms are often interchanged. (Mark Stoermann)

Q29: How are the farms compensated for the manure that they contribute?
A29: There are many different business models out there right now, but generally a land lease for the site of the project and a per cow manure supply contract is pretty common, some dairies receive an upfront payment and Newtrient encourages projects to have a provision that bring more return to the dairy once specified financial hurdles are met. (Mark Stoermann)

If you are a Danish dairy or pig farmer, you own or lease farmland to produce feed. The “free” liquid livestock manure supplements the chemical fertilizer. Liquid manure is spread using slurry tankers (Samson Agro) while chemical fertilizer is spread using fertilizer spreaders. (Bogballe). There is a limit to how much N and P you are allowed to spread on a specific area – if you have too much livestock manure and not enough land, you have to make arrangements with neighboring farmers. In the majority of the biogas projects in Denmark farmers co-invest and supply’s the plant with livestock manure. There is typical no payment involved between the biogas plant and the farmer since the biogas plant get free biomass and the farmers get digestate, which is of an higher fertilizer value than not-digested manure. Read more about this in the publication Manure to Energy. See page ten: “Value of Plant Nutrients”. Proper manure management and utilization has resulted a 50% drop in the use of chemical N from 1985-2010, which have saves farmers $120 pr. acres on the chemical fertilizer (N) alone. (Claus Mortensen)

In the Netherlands this depends strongly on the farms and the local situation. Unlike pig farmers, most dairy farmers are using the manure as a natural fertilizer for their grassland. Based on national legislation (minerals) the amount of manure to be applied is limited but most dairy farmers apply the manure they produce on their own farms. If farmers have a surplus in manure, they make contracts with other farmers (often arable land farmers) and in that case most farmers have even to pay for their manure to cover also transport costs.  (Kees de Koning)

Q30: Could Chris expand at all on how the RNG cooperatives organize in Denmark, both from a sales perspective and from a technology sharing perspective?
A30: At the newer biogas plants, the farmers go together and form a supplier association that invest in the biogas plant project. Nature Energy is an example of a design, build, own and operate company that co-invest with the farmers. Bigadan and E.ON do the same. In other cases, the farmers own the plants themselves. The owner invests in the plant, the manure trucks and sometimes also manure storage facilities on the farms. The farmer will be paid if he supplies energy crops, may be paid if the dry matter content of the livestock manure is high, and sometimes also get paid by delivering deep litter, etc.  But under normal circumstances, there is no payment for the manure. The farmer supplies the plant owner with feedstocks, and the plant supplies the farmer with digestate, which is of higher value than manure. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk)

Q31: What policy mechanisms or political alliances are in place to help ensure that RNG production, and especially its distribution/use, can scale across Denmark?
A31: Biogas Denmark is the main lobby organization in Denmark. A summary of the RNG policy and financial incentive development framework is available upon request. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk/Chris Voell)

Q32: I would like the Danish and Californian perspective with regards to cows out on pasture.  The Biogas options provided only work in a confined setting which is (in my opinion) not desirable from an animal welfare perspective.
A32: Depending on the type of corrals, the use of feed lanes and the milking system used there are some designs of biogas plants that can be adapted to cows on pasture. (Mark Stoermann

Q33: I 'only' see options in DK and USA around confined animals. Cows should be outside on pasture (animal welfare).  What are the thoughts one this? Should cows only be inside??
A33: The subject of animal welfare is one that is of utmost importance to Dairymen and the Dairy Industry nationwide and there is not one practice that is true for all dairies across the country or even across the state of California. In areas that are hot and arid the temperatures and the forage may not be as healthy for a milking cow as being in a properly designed freestall barn with cooling and carefully formulated rations. At the same time, even cows that are pasture may need to be confined during times of inclement weather or during the winter depending on the specific location and climate of the dairy. (Mark Stoermann

In the Netherlands we have a strong support by dairy industry and government to keep cows grazing (no legislation). A farmer even can get a bonus on his milk check when grazing is applied, but even in these conditions cows are quite some time inside the barns. Therefore we focus on both aspects grazing and confinement systems  (Kees de Koning)

Q34: For Kees: Could you please provide examples of 1) natural solutions (as opposed to technological solutions as Leo indicated in his presentation)? and 2) low methane feeds? Thanks
A34: In the Netherlands we focus on the whole set of measures to be taken on farm levels. Ranging from feeding, breeding, manure and grassland management. At the moment field research is performed on grassland/fodder production including harvesting and the effect on methane emissions. In general we can see that improved harvesting, better quality fodder, improved feeding management  will contribute to relatively lower emissions per kg DM. Other measures like harvesting time, different grass/corn-breeds, might also contribute to lower methane emissions (Kees de Koning) 

Q35: Comment: California Bioenergy is the other major player in California digesters
A35: Maas Energy Works is another company that has received Dairy Digester Projects Funds by CDFA since 2015. (Mark Stoermann from the Dairy Digester Research And Development Program - Report of Funded Projects (2015 – 2019)  CARB DDRDP Report - April 2020). Another company, ENV-TWO LLC has received a Dairy Digester Demonstration Project grant from CDFA in 2019. (Edited; Geetika Joshi, CDFA).

Q36: Is that the real price of milk in Denmark, $.82/lb?  Calif price is now $.16/lb
A36: Wrong calculation (metric/imperial issues…): the payment price from ARLA is around $0,16LB (2,50DKK/kg). Sorry for the confusion. (Claus Mortensen, Agro Business Park, cm@agropark.dk)

Q37: Mark: Why will Newtrient not accept acidification to your technology list?
A37: I have received your email and am working on adding your specific technology to the Newtrient catalog. In addition, Newtrient is currently working to integrate practices into its catalog, acidification as a general practice will be added when we incorporate practices. (Mark Stoermann)

Q38: Mark:  When acidification can solve the Dutch problem with ammonia emissions from agriculture - why don’t Dutch policies support this practice?
A38: One of the Dutch participants would be better able to speak to Dutch policies. (Mark Stoermann)

In general Dutch policy focuses on both Ammonia and Methane emissions, solutions need to fit in the specific Dutch conditions with land use, manure using a fertilizer for grassland with in the same time also focusing on practical applications. New technologies can be supported as long as they support policy goals, national legislation and fit in the management strategies of farmers producing fodder or arable land products. (Kees de Koning/Leo Oprel)