IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v20y2021i3p34-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost of Reducing Ammonia from Agriculture: Farm‐gate Estimates and Policy Considerations

Author

Listed:
  • Aurelia Samuel
  • Erin Sherry
  • Tom Misselbrook
  • John McIlroy

Abstract

Ammonia has been identified as one of the major air pollutants threatening human health and the natural environment, with agriculture being the dominant source of ammonia (NH3) emissions. To comply with international agreements and national targets to improve air quality, Northern Ireland (NI) needs to reduce ammonia emissions. Therefore, changes in management and investment in technology to improve the environmental sustainability of the food system will be necessary. More importantly, there is a need to reduce emissions in an economically efficient manner and prioritise measures that are cost‐effective to adopt. This article employs the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) approach to provide insights into decision‐making on the most cost‐effective strategy for reducing ammonia emissions in NI. This article presents five low‐cost measures for livestock production systems: diets, housing, manure storage, application of manure to the land, and the use of urease inhibitors with urea‐based fertilisers. Results of a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve analysis indicate that the adoption of all five measures gives an overall reduction of 6.5 kilotonnes (21 per cent) of ammonia, at a total cost of £6.6 million per annum compared to business‐as‐usual ammonia emissions and holding livestock numbers constant. L'ammoniac a été identifié comme l'un des principaux polluants atmosphériques menaçant la santé humaine et l'environnement naturel, l'agriculture étant la principale source d'émissions d'ammoniac (NH3). Pour se conformer aux accords internationaux et aux objectifs nationaux d'amélioration de la qualité de l'air, l'Irlande du Nord doit réduire ses émissions d'ammoniac. Par conséquent, il faudra modifier les pratiques et investir dans la technologie pour améliorer la durabilité environnementale du système alimentaire. Plus important encore, il faut réduire les émissions d'une manière économiquement efficace et de prioriser l’adoption des mesures à l’efficacité‐coût la plus élevée. Cet article utilise l'approche de la courbe des coûts marginaux de réduction (Marginal Abatement Cost Curve, MACC) pour fournir des informations d’aide à la prise de décision sur la stratégie la plus efficace par rapport au coût pour réduire les émissions d'ammoniac en Irlande du Nord. Cet article présente cinq mesures à faible coût pour les systèmes de production animale : les régimes alimentaires, le logement, le stockage des effluents d’élevage, l'épandage de ces effluents sur les sols et l'utilisation d'inhibiteurs d'uréase avec des engrais à base d'urée. Les résultats d'une analyse de la courbe des coûts marginaux de réduction indiquent que l'adoption des cinq mesures entraîne une réduction globale de 6.5 kilotonnes (21 pour cent) d'ammoniac, pour un coût total de 6.6 millions de livres sterling par an par rapport aux émissions d'ammoniac habituelles et ce en maintenant le cheptel constant. Ammoniak ist einer der zentralen Luftschadstoffe, der die menschliche Gesundheit und die natürliche Umwelt bedroht, wobei die Landwirtschaft die wichtigste Quelle für Ammoniakemissionen (NH3) ist. Um die internationalen Vereinbarungen und nationalen Ziele zur Verbesserung der Luftqualität erfüllen zu können, muss Nordirland (NI) die Ammoniakemissionen reduzieren. Aus diesem Grund sind Änderungen im Management und Investitionen in Technologien erforderlich, um die ökologische Nachhaltigkeit des Nahrungsmittelsektors zu verbessern. Wichtiger ist aber noch die Notwendigkeit, die Emissionen auf wirtschaftlich rentable Weise zu reduzieren und dabei kosteneffizienten Maßnahmen den Vorrang zu geben. In diesem Beitrag verwenden wir den Ansatz der Grenzkostenkurve der Emissionsminderung (Marginal Abatement Cost Curve, MACC), um Einblicke in die Entscheidungsfindung in Bezug auf die kosteneffizienteste Strategie zur Reduzierung der Ammoniakemissionen in NI zu geben. Darüber hinaus stellen wir fünf kostengünstige Maßnahmen im Bereich der Tierhaltung vor: Fütterung, Haltungssystem, Güllelagerung, Gülleausbringung und Einsatz von Ureasehemmern in Verbindung mit harnstoffbasierten Düngemitteln. Die Untersuchungsergebnisse zur Grenzkostenkurve der Emissionsminderung zeigen, dass die Einführung aller fünf Maßnahmen zu einer Gesamtreduzierung von 6,5 Kilotonnen (21 per cent) Ammoniak führen würde. Die Gesamtkosten hierfür würden 6,6 Millionen Pfund pro Jahr im Vergleich zu unveränderten Ammoniakemissionen und gleichbleibendem Nutztierbestand betragen.

Suggested Citation

  • Aurelia Samuel & Erin Sherry & Tom Misselbrook & John McIlroy, 2021. "The Cost of Reducing Ammonia from Agriculture: Farm‐gate Estimates and Policy Considerations," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 34-41, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:20:y:2021:i:3:p:34-41
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12331
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12331?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominic Moran & Michael Macleod & Eileen Wall & Vera Eory & Alistair McVittie & Andrew Barnes & Robert Rees & Cairistiona F. E. Topp & Andrew Moxey, 2011. "Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for UK Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 93-118, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Du, Limin & Hanley, Aoife & Wei, Chu, 2015. "Estimating the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of CO2 Emissions in China: Provincial Panel Data Analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 217-229.
    2. Minihan, Erin S. & Wu, Ziping, 2011. "The Potential Economic and Environmental Costs of GHG Mitigation Measures for Cattle Sectors in Northern Ireland," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108779, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Blandford, David & Gaasland, Ivar & Vardal, Erling, 2016. "Now that the party’s over: achieving GHG emission reduction commitments in Norwegian agriculture," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236330, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. B. Henderson & A. Golub & D. Pambudi & T. Hertel & C. Godde & M. Herrero & O. Cacho & P. Gerber, 2018. "The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 349-369, March.
    5. Wettemann, Patrick Johannes Christopher & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2017. "An efficiency-based concept to assess potential cost and greenhouse gas savings on German dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 27-37.
    6. Jeong, Kwangbok & Hong, Taehoon & Kim, Jimin & Cho, Kyuman, 2019. "Development of a multi-objective optimization model for determining the optimal CO2 emissions reduction strategies for a multi-family housing complex," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 118-131.
    7. Blandford, David & Gaasland, Ivar & Vårdal, Erling, 2014. "GHG abatement welfare cost curves for Norwegian agriculture," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169734, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Xing Zhao & Xin Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Evaluation and Regional Differences in Carbon Emissions Efficiency of Cultural and Related Manufacturing Industries in China’s Yangtze River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Isabel Teichmann, 2015. "An Economic Assessment of Soil Carbon Sequestration with Biochar in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1476, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Albert Ayorinde Abegunde, 2017. "Local communities’ belief in climate change in a rural region of Sub-Saharan Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1489-1522, August.
    11. Tang, Kai & He, Chuantian & Ma, Chunbo & Wang, Dong, 2019. "Does carbon farming provide a cost-effective option to mitigate GHG emissions? Evidence from China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(3), July.
    12. Benjamin Dequiedt & Vera Eory & Juliette Maire & Cairstiona F.E. Topp & Robert Rees & Peter Zander & Moritz Reckling & Nicole Schlaefke, 2015. "Mitigation costs through alternative crop rotations in agriculture: an assessment for 5 European regions," Working Papers 1502, Chaire Economie du climat.
    13. Kragt, M.E. & Pannell, D.J. & McVittie, A. & Stott, A.W. & Vosough Ahmadi, B. & Wilson, P., 2016. "Improving interdisciplinary collaboration in bio-economic modelling for agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 217-224.
    14. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    15. Oswald Marinoni & Martijn Grieken, 2016. "ABATE: A New Tool to Produce Marginal Abatement Cost Curves," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 48(2), pages 367-377, August.
    16. Laure Bamière & Pierre‐Alain Jayet & Salomé Kahindo & Elsa Martin, 2021. "Carbon sequestration in French agricultural soils: A spatial economic evaluation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 301-316, March.
    17. de Oliveira Silva, Rafael & Barioni, Luis G. & Albertini, Tiago Zanett & Eory, Vera & Topp, Cairistiona F.E. & Fernandes, Fernando A. & Moran, Dominic, 2015. "Developing a nationally appropriate mitigation measure from the greenhouse gas GHG abatement potential from livestock production in the Brazilian Cerrado," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 48-55.
    18. Lengers, Bernd & Britz, Wolfgang & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Trade-off of feasibility against accuracy and cost efficiency in choosing indicators for the abatement of GHG-emissions in dairy farming," Discussion Papers 162877, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Benjamin Dequiedt & Dominic Moran, 2014. "The cost of emissions mitigation by legume crops in French agriculture," Working Papers 1410, Chaire Economie du climat.
    20. Yong Zhu & Congjia Huo, 2022. "The Impact of Agricultural Production Efficiency on Agricultural Carbon Emissions in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:20:y:2021:i:3:p:34-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.