Showing posts with label Agriculture Forestry and Food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture Forestry and Food. Show all posts

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Benefit-cost analysis of spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) control: Incorporating market and non-market values

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479711003215
Abstract: This study employs a benefit-cost analysis framework to estimate market and non-market benefits and costs of controlling future spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) outbreaks on Crown forest lands in New Brunswick, Canada. We used: (i) an advanced timber supply model to project potential timber volume saved, timber value benefits, and costs of pest control efforts; and (ii) a recent contingent valuation method analysis that evaluated non-market benefits (i.e., changes in recreation opportunities and existence values) of controlling future spruce budworm outbreaks in the Province. A total of six alternative scenarios were evaluated, including two uncontrolled future budworm outbreak severities (moderate vs. severe) and, for each severity, three control program levels (protecting 10%, 20%, or 40% of the susceptible Crown land forest area). The economic criteria used to evaluate each scenario included benefit-cost ratios and net present values. Under severe outbreak conditions, results indicated that the highest benefit-cost ratio (4.04) occurred when protecting 10% (284,000 ha) of the susceptible area, and the highest net present value ($111 M) occurred when protecting 20% (568,000 ha) of the susceptible area. Under moderate outbreak conditions, the highest benefit-cost ratio (3.24) and net present value ($58.7 M) occurred when protecting 10% (284,000 ha) of the susceptible area. Inclusion of non-market values generally increased the benefit-cost ratios and net present values of the control programs, and in some cases, led to higher levels of control being supported. Results of this study highlight the importance of including non-market values into the decision making process of forest pest management.

Highlights
► We assess the benefits and costs of controlling spruce budworm outbreaks.
► A contingent valuation method and a wood supply model are used in the analysis.
► A number of outbreak severities and control program scenarios are considered.
► Net present values are highest when protecting 10–20% of the affected land base.
► Including non-market values can help justify larger control programs.

by Wei-Yew Chang, Van A. Lantz, Chris R. Hennigar, David A. MacLean; all of Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 5A3; Tel.: +1 506 458 7775; fax: +1 506 453 3538.
Journal of Environmental Management via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com;
Volume 93, Issue 1; January, 2012; Pages 104–112

Keywords: Contingent valuation; Timber supply model; Natural disturbances; Forest pest management; Forest protection; Benefit-cost ratio; Net present value; New Brunswick

Friday, January 20, 2012

On the Horizon, Planes Powered by Plant Fuel

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/on-the-horizon-planes-powered-by-plant-fuel
The use of jet fuel from renewable sources is now well demonstrated, but it costs more than double what fuel made from petroleum does, according to airlines, aircraft companies and suppliers. One way to cut the cost may be to tinker with the plants that biofuel is made from.

Take jatropha, for example. Lufthansa said last week that it had completed a series of more than 800 flights by an Airbus A321 that shuttled between Hamburg and Frankfurt while burning a 50 percent biofuel mix in one of its two engines. The biofuel was derived partly from jatropha, a tropical shrub with an oil-rich nut, and it cost about two and a half times what ordinary petroleum-based fuel does.

On Monday, the United States secretary of agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, speaking at Boeing’s headquarters in Chicago, identified a major impediment to the biofuels endeavor: the cost of harvesting and delivering the feedstock for biorefineries, the factories that make fuel from plant material.

Biologists and financiers are focusing on the problem. On Tuesday, a San Diego company, SG Biofuels, plans to announce $17 million in new financing from venture capital sources to continue its work on raising the yields from jatropha.

The company is trying to do for jatropha, whose fruit is inedible, what agronomists have done for food crops like wheat and corn, swapping genes among strains to produce varieties that are hardy and higher-yielding. The company said it had already raised yields of jatropha oil to 250 to 350 gallons per acre, double the normal output.
...
It was spread around the tropics by Portuguese sailors who believed it had medicinal properties.
...
Lufthansa used a mixture of jatropha and camelina, which is widely grown in the United States, and animal fats. After six months on the 50-50 blend, the engine appeared to be functioning normally, the airline said.
...
Carbon dioxide emissions declined about 60 percent, gallon for gallon, with the biofuel, Lufthansa said....

Some airlines have reported an even higher differential.

Of the cost, 80 to 85 percent involves the feedstock....

Lufthansa said it spent $8.4 million on the six-month test, with the European Union paying about one-third of the expense.

... Billy Glover, Boeing’s vice president for environment in its commercial airplane sector, said the company hoped to stabilize its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by using more efficient planes and more biofuels, while still allowing air travel to grow. By 2050, he said, the industry’s goal is to reduce emissions by 50 percent.

(In theory, the Obama administration’s goal is to cut American greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by that date, although the economy is not on track to accomplish that.)

Mr. Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, has been traveling the country preaching the virtues of fueling airplanes from farms. He said that his department would help establish eight to 10 biorefineries producing both vehicle fuel and aviation fuel.

The feedstocks will be specific to the region where the refineries were built — in some places, the nonfood parts of the corn plant, and in others, algae or switchgrass, he said. The department will subsidize the price of feedstocks to help bring the cost closer to competitive levels for the airlines, he said. The Navy has been lined up as a customer.
...
by Matthew Wald
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/on-the-horizon-planes-powered-by-plant-fuel
The New York Times Green Blog http://green.blogs.nytimes.com
January 17, 2012

Colony Collapse Disorder: The Market Response to Bee Disease

http://www.perc.org/files/ps50.pdf
Although the winter has barely begun and the spring thaw still feels a long way off for ... Northerners, beekeepers are busily preparing for the beginning of the pollination cycle in California and other Southern states. With more than 2.5 million hives of bees on the road each year, honey bee pollination makes our diet more nutritious and tasty. Yet, in 2007 the popular press wrote that Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, was a threat to the honey bee and its valuable pollination services. Headlines such as "Bee Colony Collapses Could Threaten U.S. Food Supply," (Associated Press, May 3, 2007) caught the attention of readers, but in reality, Colony Collapse Disorder has had little impact on American consumers.

... Randy Rucker and Wally Thurman [claim] in the most recent installment of the PERC Policy Series, a market response provided a solution to a real problem. Despite early predictions that CCD would cause billions of dollars of direct loss in crop production, people in the beekeeping industry reacted so swiftly that no changes were detected by the consumers. Fruit farmers and beekeepers took into account the effects they have on each other and settled the difference through pollination fees and other contract terms. While overcoming the difficulties of CCD has been no easy matter, beekeepers have proven themselves adept at navigating changing market conditions.

"The state of the honey bee population - numbers, vitality, and economic output - are the products of not just the impact of disease but also the economic decisions made by beekeepers and farmers," writes Rucker and Thurman.
...
The full report is available free of charge at http://www.perc.org/files/ps50.pdf.

In 2007, then-Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns warned that “if left unchecked, CCD has the potential to cause a $15 billion direct loss of crop production and $75 billion in indirect losses.”

Three methods are commonly employed by beekeepers to maintain and rebuild hive numbers. Understanding them is key to knowing how the beekeeping industry responds to disease. The first method used to replace weak hives or hives lost over the winter involves a beekeeper splitting a healthy, full-strength hive into two parts.

The second method used to build or replenish hive numbers is to buy packaged bees. There are companies that sell packaged bees for this purpose... The current average price of a three-pound package of bees, which includes roughly 12,000 worker bees and a fertilized queen, is about $55. If an empty hive is stocked with a package of bees, it might be productive immediately. Soon, however, there will be a drop-off in production due to the time lag between the placement of the package of workers in the hive and the time that a new generation of worker bees is hatched and matured to the point of leaving the hive to collect nectar, pollen, and water. Even if the new queen begins laying fertilized eggs immediately upon her placement in the empty hive, it will take 21–25 days before worker bees hatch. If a hive in Oregon or Washington is stocked with packaged bees in mid-April, it probably will not produce surplus honey until the following year.
...
The average annual rate of winter mortality over 2007–2011 was 33 percent. A reasonable assessment derived from beekeeper surveys is that since the appearance of CCD, mortality rates have at least doubled. Mortality represents an outflow from the population of bees, while the re-queening and splitting of hives and the creation of new colonies represents an inflow. The net result is the observed change in colony numbers.

Estimates of honey bee colony numbers can be obtained from annual surveys of beekeepers conducted by the USDA. Data from these surveys are generally available back to 1939. A prominent feature of the estimates of colony numbers ... is their substantial decline since the mid-20th century. Particularly notable is the gap and abrupt drop in the early- to mid-1980s.... The abrupt drop is the result of a change in 1986 in the data collection procedures used by the USDA....

... Between 2006 and 2007 ... CCD might have had its first impacts. Colony numbers reveal no notable decrease in the years since the onset of CCD. In fact, there were more colonies in 2009 than there were in 2006 (or any other year since 1999). Given that an average of one-third of the honey bee colonies in the United States have died in each of the four winters since the onset of CCD, how can this be? Perhaps it is because beekeepers have always lost hives during the winter. Sustainable and profitable commercial beekeeping requires them to replace dead and weak colonies using the methods described above.

Since the onset of CCD, beekeepers have had to replace more hives to maintain their colony numbers, and the evidence suggests they have done exactly that.
...
Beekeepers supply the services of bees for two commercial purposes: to provide pollination for farmers and to produce honey. Bee disease that increases the costs of beekeeping should increase the price of the industry’s outputs. Honey is traded internationally; and domestic honey price effects seem less likely than do price effects on pollination services. To look for evidence of increased pollination fees due to Colony Collapse Disorder, consider data from a survey [of almond and apple pollination fees] administered by Michael Burgett of Oregon State University.
...
Almond fees rose from $59 to $89 between 2004 and 2005, and increased again to nearly $140 in inflation-adjusted terms for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is tempting to attribute these fees to Colony Collapse Disorder—and CCD may be partly to blame—but the timing is not right. The first reported instance of CCD was during the winter of 2006–2007, which could only have affected fees beginning in spring 2007.
...
Surveys of California beekeepers conducted by the California State Beekeepers’ Association since 1996 (see Rucker, Thurman, and Burgett 2011 for a statistical analysis of these data sources). They estimate there to be no CCD effect on non-almond pollination fees and $20 of the recent increase in almond fees.
...
Recent almond fees are near $140, so that the implied almond fee had CCD not arisen is $140 - $20 = $120. The implied percentage increase in almond fees due to CCD is then (20/120) × 100 = 16.7%. Further, with a pollination fee for almonds of $120 per colony and a stocking density of two colonies per acre, the cost per acre of pollinating almonds is 2 × $120 = $240. Suppose, as recent industry data suggest, that the yield of almonds is 2,000 pounds per acre and that the farm-gate price of almonds is $2 per pound. Then revenue per acre is 2,000 × $2 = $4,000 and the cost share of pollination in almonds is $240/$4,000 = 0.06 or 6%.

Next, suppose that Smokehouse® Almonds sell for $7 per pound at the retail level and that one pound requires 1.429 pounds of raw almonds (the rate of conversion from at-the-farm and in-the-shell almonds to retail shelled almonds). Then the cost share of farm almonds in the production of Smokehouse® Almonds is (1.429 × $2)/$7 = 0.41.22 Thus, the cost share of pollination services in retail Smokehouse® Almonds is 0.06 × 0.41 = 0.025 or 2.5 percent.

The stipulated 16.7 percent increase in almond pollination fees due to CCD therefore causes the cost of Smokehouse® Almonds to increase by a proportion of 0.167 × 0.025 = 0.004. Four-tenths of one percent of the $7/lb cost of Smokehouse® Almonds is 2.8¢, the implied increase in the shelf price of the can of almonds.... Given the relatively high cost share of pollination at the farm level, the calculation provides something of an upper bound on what one would find for other commodities and products. Against the backdrop of other sources of food price variation, it is no wonder that evidence of CCD at the grocery store has failed to materialize.
...
Concluding that CCD has had little effect on consumers does not imply that its effects are of no concern to beekeepers.... Responses to questions in the PNW survey about replacement methods indicate that beekeepers used the method of splitting hives for almost 80 percent of the colonies replaced.... Suppose a beekeeper inspects his hives and finds that 100 of them are dead. To replace them, he must purchase 100 queens to place with the new splits produced from the healthy parent colonies. Recent advertisements in the American Bee Journal suggest these will cost about $15 each. In addition, about 20 minutes of labor will be required per colony to remove the four or five frames of brood, bees, and honey stores from the parent colony to stock the nuc colony. If labor costs are assumed to be $12 per hour, the labor cost per colony is $4 and the total cost of each split is $15 + $4 = $19.23

Burgett, Rucker, and Thurman (2009) estimate that PNW winter mortality rates increased from about 14 percent prior to the appearance of CCD to roughly 30 percent over the winter of 2007–08. Thus, assuming that CCD is responsible for all of this 16 percentage point difference, about half the colony mortality in the 2007–08 winter is attributable to CCD. The beekeepers who responded to the survey owned 62,100 out of the USDA’s estimated 90,000 colonies in the PNW. Assuming that the beekeepers responding to the survey are representative of the non-responding PNW beekeepers, the demise of about 14,400 (= 90,000 x 0.16) colonies in the PNW was due to CCD. The 25 beekeepers who responded to the 2008 PNW survey owned a total of 62,100 colonies as of Oct.1, 2007, or an average of 2,484 colonies each. Assuming these beekeepers lost 16 percent of their bees to CCD on average, the estimated CCD cost per beekeeper was 0.16 × 2,484 × $19 = $7,551. Offsetting these increased costs are increased beekeeper revenues from higher almond pollination fees, and 72 percent of the colonies in the 2008 survey were rented out for almond pollination.

If, as in the previous section, we take the almond fee increase due to CCD to be $20, then the average PNW beekeeper with 2,484 colonies, who uses 72 percent of them (0.72 × 2,484 = 1,788) to pollinate almonds, gains an increase in revenue of 1,788 × $20 = $35,760. The change in net revenue is $35,760 - $7,079 = $28,681, implying that beekeepers benefit.

by Wally Thurman 1 and Randy Rucker 2
1. Professor of agricultural and resource economics at North Carolina State University and PERC senior fellow
2. Professor of agricultural and resource economics at Montana State University and PERC 2011 Lone Mountain Fellow.
PERC the Property and Environment Research Center www.PERC.org is dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets. 2048 Analysis Drive Suite A; Bozeman Montana 59718; Tel: 406.587.9591; Email: perc@perc.org
January 17, 2012

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Application of the WFD cost proportionality principle to diffuse pollution mitigation: A case study for Scottish Lochs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479711003963
Abstract: The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to deliver good ecological status (GES) for Europe’s waters. It prescribes the use of economic principles, such as derogation from GES on grounds of disproportionate costs of mitigation. This paper proposes an application of the proportionality principle to mitigation of phosphorus (P) pollution of 544 Scottish lochs at national and local water body scales. P loading estimates were derived from a national diffuse pollution screening tool. For 293 of these lochs (31% of the loch area), GES already occurred. Mitigation cost-effectiveness was assessed using combined mitigation cost curves for managed grassland, rough grazing, arable land, sewage and septic tank sources. These provided sufficient mitigation (92% of national P load) for GES to be achieved on another 31% of loch area at annualised cost of £2.09 m/y. Mitigation of the residual P loading preventing other lochs achieving GES was considered by using a “mop-up” cost of £200/kg P (assumed cost effectiveness of removal of P directly from lochs), leading to a total cost of £189 m/y. Lochs were ranked by mitigation costs per loch area to give a national scale marginal mitigation cost curve. A published choice experiment valuation of WFD targets for Scottish lochs was used to estimate marginal benefits at national scale and combined with the marginal cost curve. This gave proportionate costs of £5.7 m/y leading to GES in 72% of loch area. Using national mean marginal benefits with a scheme to estimate changes in individual loch value with P loading gave proportionate costs of £25.6 m/y leading to GES in 77% of loch area (491 lochs).

Highlights:
► The costs and effectiveness of methods to mitigate P pollution of Scottish lochs are examined.
► A national scale study valuing restoration of Scottish lochs to good ecological status is described.
► Proportionate mitigation cost £5.7 m/y leading to good status in 72% of the national loch area.
► A proposed loch scale approach gives proportionate mitigation in 77% of national loch area.

by A.J.A. Vinten 1, J. Martin-Ortega 1, K. Glenk 2, P. Booth 1, B.B. Balana 1, M. MacLeod 2, M. Lago 3, D. Moran 2, M. Jones 1
1. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK; Tel.: +44(0)1224 395165; fax: +44(0)1224 31156
2. Land Economy and Environment Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH6 5AT, UK
3. Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Strasse 43/44, 10717 Berlin, Germany
Journal of Environmental Management via Elsevier Science Direct www.sciencedirect.com
Volume 97; 30 April 2012; Pages 28-37
Keywords: Water Framework Directive; Disproportionality; Phosphorus pollution; Lochs; Screening tool; Scotland

Sunday, December 25, 2011

SUPERVALU food recovery efforts garner National Waste Wise Award

http://tinyurl.com/6lpf7n7 
SUPERVALU, Inc. received the 2011 National Waste Wise Award Honorable Mention for the company’s exceptional commitment to food recovery. SUPERVALU, a grocery retail and pharmacy company that includes stores like Albertsons, Shoppers, Jewel-Osco, and Shaw’s, made waste reduction and recycling a priority in 2010. The store added a new full-time position dedicated to implementing a successful waste diversion program for the company.

In 2010, SUPERVALU worked with Feeding America to donate edible, but unsellable, food to food banks, diverting more than 30,000 tons of food from the landfill and avoiding more than $2.5 million in landfill costs. In addition, SUPERVALU continues to provide leadership and make significant steps toward achieving their ambitious waste reduction and sustainability goals. EPA is currently working with SUPERVALU to identify and share best practices across the grocery sector through EPA’s Food Recovery Challenge, which SUPERVALU recently joined.

"SUPERVALU is a demonstrated leader in sustainable food management,” said Jim Werntz, EPA Operations Director for Idaho. “In 2010, the company diverted over 60 million pounds of food that would have gone to landfills, and instead it went to feed hungry Americans. SUPERVALU's efforts towards sustainable food management not only benefit people and the earth, they are good for the company's bottom line."

"SUPERVALU and all its banners are focused on driving toward zero waste to get Triple Bottom Line results--Good for People, Planet and Profits,” said Pete Pearson, SUPERVALU’s Director of Sustainability and National Accounts. “We are proud to have the EPA as a partner to collaborate with in our endeavors to drive culture change throughout our enterprise."


Earlier this year, SUPERVALU was recognized by EPA’s GreenChill program for their efforts to green up refrigeration in their stores. SUPERVALU sought out every opportunity to stop refrigerant leaks and achieve the company’s ambitious voluntary emissions reduction goal.

How much money and food is your organization literally throwing away?

For more information on how to save money, support your community and protect the environment, join EPA's Food Recovery Challenge: www.epa.gov/foodrecoverychallenge 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) www.EPA.gov 
Press Release dated December 21, 2011

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Global fisheries losses at the exclusive economic zone level, 1950 to present

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X11001515
Abstract: Up to one-third of commercial fishery stocks may be overfished at present. By analyzing catch trends and applying an empirical relationship derived from stock assessments, this article tracks the geographic spread of overfishing at the country level in terms of lost catch and lost revenue, from the start of industrialized fishing in 1950–2004. The results tell a cautionary tale of serial depletion to meet the ever-rising demand for fish. Examining country losses with respect to fishery management reveals that overcapacity and excess fishing effort are widespread, but also that recent trends towards sustainability can stabilize or reverse losses (e.g. for Norway, Iceland, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Global trade effectively masks the successive depletion of stocks, so that without decisive action to reduce fishing effort, many more stocks will suffer and undernourishment impacts for the major exporting, food-deficit nations will only magnify.

Highlights:
► This study tracks the spread of overfishing by country in catch and revenue losses.
► A pattern of serial depletion to meet growth in demand is observed.
► Losses are linked to overcapacity and excess effort and fishing by foreign fleets.
► Sustainable fisheries management can slow, stabilize or reverse losses.
...
Overfishing and overcapacity are costing the world’s fishery sector dearly, reducing resource rent—the surplus after fishing costs have been subtracted from revenue—by an estimated US$50 billion a year according to two recent studies based on different methodologies. Meanwhile,the gap between global revenue and costs narrows, with global revenue from marine fisheries at approximately US $95 billion and the total variable cost of fishing estimated at US $92 billion (both in real 2005 dollars).



Excess subsidies, by one estimate topping US $27 billion per year currently [8], largely fuel this cycle of dysfunction. Against this backdrop, the human consumption of fish has been rising, up 9% from 2002 to 2006 alone. To support this, overall fish production from both capture fisheries and aquaculture continues to climb, reaching a level in 2006 more than seven times that recorded for 1950. The phenomenal growth of aquaculture is responsible for the recent growth, and nearly half of the world’s food fish supply is farmed at present. But just as the overall rise in fish production hides the stagnation in catches from the world’s capture fisheries over the past two decades, global catch trends mask successive declines in regional stocks and the geographic spread of overfishing in time. Indeed, the roughly five fold increase in marine fishery catches from 1950 to the late 1980s when catches peaked was facilitated by the expansion into and exploitation of new fishing areas, from the North Atlantic and Western Pacific coastlines southward and into the high seas.
...
The anchoveta crash placed Peru 5th in overall catch losses although the country may have ranked higher given that peak landings were under-reported by perhaps 33%. Although Peru’s recent losses have been mitigated by the recovery of anchoveta stocks, it has been estimated that a 60–80% reduction in excess fleet and processing capacity could allow fish stocks to rebuild meaningfully, adding potentially $400 million per year in economic benefits.
...
by U. Thara Srinivasan 1 and 3, Reg Watson 2 and U. Rashid Sumaila 2 and 3
1. Pacific Ecoinformatics and Computational Ecology Lab, Berkeley, 1471 Catherine Dr., Berkeley CA 94702, United States. Tel.: +1 510 524 5467
2. Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4
3. Global Ocean Economics Project, Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, the University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4
Marine Policy via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com Volume 36, Issue 2; March, 2012; Pages 544-549
Keywords: Overfishing; Fisheries management; Depletion; Sustainability