CONSIDERING CARBON MARKETS? LOOK BUT DON’T LEAP

Jaynie Norman • Sep 16, 2021

Farmers would be wise to look into, but not jump into any agreements with companies to be paid for conservation measures that remove carbon from the air.

That’s because the pay to farmers for those measures isn’t much right now, but it’s expected to increase in the next 10 years, said Brent Sohngen, a professor of natural resources and environmental economics at The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES).

Contracts to start no-till farming or plant cover crops pay $2 to $15 per acre annually, Sohngen said. And both measures come at a cost. Cover crops can be expensive, and no-till farming can reduce yields on a corn crop. So, the expenses or potential crop profit loss would have to be weighed against the carbon payments to farmers.

“Carbon is now a commodity, and there is great potential,” Sohngen said. “But at the current prices, I have trouble seeing a huge impact in the farming sector right now. The best option seems to be to get prepared.”

Carbon markets is the topic of a panel discussion Sept. 21 from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. during this year’s Farm Science Review at the Molly Caren Agricultural Center near London, Ohio. “Carbon Markets: From All Sides Now” will include Sohngen along with Peggy Hall, a CFAES agricultural and resource law field specialist; Luke Crumley, director of public policy and nutrient management for the Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association; and Jessica D’Ambrosio, Ohio agriculture project director for The Nature Conservancy.

“Farmers are always looking for ways to diversify their income, and carbon markets are one way of doing that,” said Ian Sheldon, a CFAES professor and the Andersons Chair of Agricultural Marketing, Trade, and Policy who will moderate the Sept. 21 discussion.

“Carbon markets will only work if it’s profitable for farmers to participate, and the prices they receive reflect the true benefits from companies offsetting their carbon emissions,” Sheldon said.

If farmers’ conservation measures lead to better water quality along with less carbon in the air, farmers should be fairly compensated for generating those environmental benefits as well as the carbon benefits, he said. Although farmers may want to wait before entering any carbon market contracts now, farmers can start figuring out how much carbon they can retain in their soil, what practices for carbon capture would work on their farm, and how much they’d have to spend, Sohngen said. That would help them evaluate future carbon contract options.

Planting trees, another conservation measure farmers can be paid for, will bring in more than cover crops or no-till farming, in the range of $55 to $110 per acre annually, Sohngen said.

Carbon markets have emerged in recent years as large international companies have vowed to offset the carbon dioxide they put out in emissions from producing and transporting products. That can be done by paying farmers and foresters to take measures that store more carbon in plants and soil. When plants grow, they take up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, and the carbon is stored in the plant. After the plant dies, it breaks down and the carbon from that plant goes into the soil, where it can enrich the soil.

Farms and forests across the United States already remove over 770 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, or about 10% of the country’s emissions, from the atmosphere, Sohngen said.

When carbon market prices rise, more farmers will sign on to agreements, he said.

“I think it’s something that’s emerging,” Sohngen said of carbon markets. “Within a decade, I wouldn’t be surprised to see 20% to 40% of Ohio farmers involved in a contract.”

The carbon markets panel discussion will be at 426 Friday Avenue at Farm Science Review. Hours for FSR are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sept. 21–22 and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sept. 23. Tickets are $7 online, at county offices of OSU Extension, and at participating agribusinesses, and $10 at the gate. Children ages 5 and under are admitted free. For more information, visit fsr.osu.edu.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

WRITER(S):

Alayna DeMartini

demartini.3@osu.edu

614-292-983Brent Sohngen
sohngen.1@osu.edu

614-688-4640

< Older Post Newer Post >

Jaynie Norman

Bill would label livestock rivals as ‘imitation’ or ‘lab-grown’ meat

By Jaynie Norman • 01 Feb, 2024

By Chuck Abbott Successful Farming With U.S. approval of cultivated chicken grown in fermentation vats, farm-state lawmakers filed companion bills in the House and Senate on Tuesday to require alternative proteins, such as plant-based foods, to carry the words “imitation” or “lab-grown” on their labels. Sponsors said they wanted to prevent confusion in the supermarket between “real farm-raised meat” and its rivals. Plant-based meats accounted for 2.5% of retail packaged meat sales in 2022, according to the Good Food Institute, a think tank and network of organizations “working to accelerate alternative protein innovation.” Only a trickle of cultivated chicken is on the U.S. market at present. Upside Foods said last September it would build a commercial-scale plant to produce cell-cultured meat products in suburban Chicago. The USDA is working on label regulations for cultivated meat. In the interim, it decided Upside Foods and Good Meat, which were cleared last summer by USDA to sell cultivated meat to consumers, would label their products as cell-cultivated chicken. “The American consumer deserves to know what they are eating and feeding their family,” said sponsor Rep. Mark Alford, Missouri Republican. “It’s only fair that all products are labeled fairly.” Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall said, “Distinguishing between a black-bean burger and an actual beef burger shouldn’t be hard.” Under the legislation, foods made with plant protein and that are sold with a name associated with products from a food-bearing animal or that are created to taste or look like them would be required to carry the word “imitation” on the label or a word to show the source of the protein. “Meatless chicken tenders” would be one possibility, according to a summary of the bill. Similarly, labels for cultivated meat would include “cell-cultured” or “lab-grown” immediately adjacent to the name of the food. The bill was backed by the largest groups speaking for cattle, hog, sheep, and chicken producers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Livestock producers have argued for years for restrictive labels to prevent alternative proteins from using names associated with animals. A one-page summary of the bill is available here . To read the text of the legislation, click here .

Prevention and Treatment of Tick Bites

By Jaynie Norman • 23 May, 2023

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Livestock and Animal Antibiotic Changes are Coming Soon

By Jaynie Norman • 12 Jan, 2023

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in June 2021 that all medically important antimicrobials for food-producing animals and pets will move from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx) effective June 2023 . A prescription is already required for most antibiotics delivered to livestock, and the remaining three categories of injectable antibiotics available over-the-counter will soon be joining the list of medically important antimicrobials that require a veterinarian’s prescription. To add to the stress of raising livestock, now things will change again which is going to influence the ag industry overall. I hope that this list of medications will give people a chance to read it and become familiar with the situation before the change comes in June of 2023. Changes Coming are as follow: In 2018, the FDA established a 5 year plan for supporting antimicrobial supervision by veterinarians. The plans purpose to address antimicrobial resistance using only medically necessary drugs as necessary to prevent, treat and control disease. It has to be determined by a licensed veterinarian if it is necessary, but you won’t have to order the prescriptions from the vet directly. You will, however, need to establish a Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR) if certain animals are not examined regularly. Popular Products Will Require Prescriptions Following a recent penicillin shortage, soon producers will get hit with this change that once again impacts access to antibiotic therapy for animals. When you’ve used them for so long as OTC meds to treat pneumonia or shipping fever in your livestock, Now, the change will be to establish the relationship with your veterinarian to get the prescriptions for these meds. Here is the list by active ingredients. The following are some products that will be seeing label changes to prescription-only status: Oxytetracyclines Injectables: Liquamycin LA-200, Noromycin 300 LA, Bio-Mycin 200, Agrimycin 200, etc. Boluses: Terramycin Scours Tablets, OXY 500 Calf Boluses Penicillins (Penicillin G procaine, penicillin G benzathine) Injectables: Penicillin Injectable, Dura-Pen, Pro-Pen-G, Combi-Pen 48, etc. Intramammary tubes: Masti-Clear, Go-dry, Albadry Plus Sulfa-based antibiotics (Sulfadimethoxine, sulfamethazine) Injectables: Di-Methox 40%, SulfMed 40% Boluses: Albon, Sustain III Cattle & Calf Boluses, Supra Sulfa III Cattle & Calf Boluses Tylosin Injectables: Tylan 50, Tylan 200 Cephapirin, cephapirin benzathine Intramammary tubes: ToDAY and ToMORROW Additionally, several swine medications fall under the new guidance: Lincomycin Injectables: Lincomix 100, Lincomix 300, LincoMed 100, LincoMed 300 Gentamicin Injectables: Garasol, Gentamicin Piglet Injection ToDay Mastitis Treatment for Lactating C ows