Livestock 

Project Reporting Protocol 

Capturing and destroying methane 

from manure management systems 

Version 2.1 

August, 2008 
The California Climate Action Registry

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

Capturing and destroying methane from manure management 

systems 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 

I.1 Document organization ...............................................................................1 

II. The GHG Reduction Project.....................................................................................2 

II.1 Project definition.........................................................................................2 

II.2 The project developer.................................................................................3 

II.3 Additional manure management GHG reduction activities.........................3 

III. Eligibility Rules .........................................................................................................3 

III.1 Additionality ...............................................................................................3 

III.2 Location.....................................................................................................5 

III.3 Project start date .......................................................................................5 

IV. The GHG Assessment Boundary.............................................................................5 

IV.1 GHG source categories for manure management systems......................5 

IV.2 Methane and carbon dioxide.....................................................................6 

V. GHG Reductions Calculation Methods...................................................................10 

V.1 Modeled Baseline Methane Emissions .....................................................11 

V.2 Modeled Baseline Methane Emissions Equations ...................................12 

V.3 Project Methane Emissions .....................................................................16 

V.4 Project Methane Emissions Equations ....................................................17 

V.5 Metered Methane Destruction Comparison .............................................20 

V.6 Carbon Dioxide Emissions.......................................................................21 

VI. Project Monitoring ..................................................................................................23 

VII. Reporting Parameters ............................................................................................31 

VII.1 Project submittal documentation............................................................31 

VII.2 Record Keeping .....................................................................................32 

VII.3 Reporting cycle ......................................................................................32 

VII.4 Project crediting period ..........................................................................33 

VII.5 Non-California Climate Action Registry reporting ..................................33 

VIII. Glossary of Terms..................................................................................................33 

IX. References.............................................................................................................36 

Appendix A – Associated Environmental Impacts...........................................................38 

Appendix B – Emission Factor Tables ............................................................................39 

Appendix C – Summary of the Performance Standard Paper ........................................49 

Overview of data collection ..............................................................................49 

Performance Standard Recommendation ........................................................55 

Appendix D – Livestock Project Submittal Forms ...........................................................56 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

1

 

I. Introduction 

The California Climate Action Registry’s (California Registry) Livestock Project Reporting 

Protocol – for capturing and destroying biogas in a manure management system – provides 

guidance to account for and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions associated 

with installing a manure biogas control system for livestock operations, such as dairy cattle and 

swine farms. The protocol focuses on quantifying the change in methane emissions, but also 

accounts for effects on carbon dioxide emissions. 

Established by the California Legislature in 2000 as a non-profit, public/private partnership, the 

California Registry runs a voluntary GHG registry. Its purpose is to promote and facilitate the 

measurement, monitoring and reduction of GHG emissions. Participants in the program account 

for and certify their GHG emissions according to the California Registry’s protocols. 

Project developers that install manure biogas capture and destruction technologies use this 

document to register GHG reductions with the California Registry. The protocol provides 

eligibility rules, methods to calculate reductions, performance-monitoring instructions, and 

procedures for reporting project information to the California Registry. Additionally, all project 

reports receive annual, independent verification by California Registry-approved verifiers. 

Guidance for verifiers to verify reductions is provided in the corresponding Livestock Project 

Verification Protocol. 

This project protocol facilitates the creation of GHG emissions reductions determined in a 

complete, consistent, transparent, accurate, and conservative manner, while incorporating 

relevant sources.1

I.1 Document organization

The California Registry’s manure management project protocol has the following sections: 

• The GHG Reduction Project 

• Project Eligibility 

• The GHG Assessment Boundary 

• GHG Reduction Calculation Methods 

• Project Monitoring

• Reporting Parameters

Regarding associated environmental impacts related to installing a biogas control system, such 

as air and water quality issues, the California Registry discusses these potential concerns in 

Appendix A. Project developers that follow the guidance in this protocol and register GHG 

reductions with the California Registry must comply with all local, state, and national air and 

water quality regulations. 

Recommendations for taking an entity-level GHG emissions inventory are provided in Appendix 

D, which augment the guidance in the California Registry’s General Reporting Protocol (GRP). 

To register GHG reductions with the California Registry, project developers are not required to 

take an annual entity-level GHG inventory of their livestock operation. 

1

 See the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol for Project Accounting (Part I, Chapter 4) for a description of GHG accounting 

principles. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

2

 

II. The GHG Reduction Project 

Manure treated and stored under anaerobic conditions decomposes to produce methane, 

which, if uncontrolled, is emitted to the atmosphere. This predominantly occurs when livestock 

operations manage waste with liquid-based systems (e.g. in lagoons, ponds, tanks, or pits). 

Within the livestock sector, the primary drivers of methane generation include the amount of 

manure produced and the fraction of volatile solids that decompose anaerobically. Temperature 

and the retention time of manure during treatment and storage also affect its production. A 

biogas control system captures and destroys methane gas created as a result of manure 

management. 

II.1 Project definition

For the purpose of this protocol, the GHG reduction project is the installation of a biogas control 

system2

 that captures and destroys methane gas from manure treatment and/or storage 

facilities on livestock operations and that commences operation on or after January 1, 2001. 

Captured biogas could be destroyed on-site, or transported for off-site use (e.g. through gas 

distribution or transmission pipeline), or used to power vehicles. Regardless of how project 

developers take advantage of the captured biogas, the ultimate fate of the methane must be 

destruction. “Centralized digesters” that integrate waste from more than one livestock operation 

also meet this definition of the GHG reduction project.3

The biogas control system destroys methane associated with the management of livestock 

waste that would have otherwise been generated through uncontrolled, anaerobic manure 

treatment and/or storage and emitted to the atmosphere. 

Consistent with CDM methodology ACM0010 (V2 p.2), project developers must demonstrate 

that the depth of their anaerobic ponds/lagoons pre-project were sufficient to prevent algal 

oxygen production and create an oxygen-free bottom layer; which usually means at least 1 

meter depth. Ultimately, to generate methane emissions anaerobic systems should be designed 

and maintained with sufficient volume to properly treat volatile solids and prevent solids from 

accumulating, to the extent that they adversely impact the treatment zone. Additional 

information on the design and maintenance of anaerobic manure storage/treatment systems is 

available through USDA NRCS Standards.4

In addition to reducing methane, the installation of a biogas control system could impact carbon 

dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions associated with manure collection, transport, storage, 

treatment, and disposal. The effect could either increase or decrease these GHG emissions, 

depending on the project’s particular circumstance. These system-related effects are secondary 

to the primary effect of the project (reducing methane emissions). Section IV, The GHG 

Assessment Boundary, delineates the scope of the accounting framework. 

2

 Biogas control systems are commonly called digesters, which may be designed and operated in a variety of ways, 

from ambient temperature covered lagoons to heated lagoons to mesophilic plug flow or complete mix concrete tank 

digesters. 

3

 The protocol also does not preclude project developers from co-digesting organic matter in the biogas control 

system. However, the additional organics could impact the nutrient properties of digester effluent, which project 

developers should consider when assessing the project’s associated water quality impacts. 

4

 See U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Practice Standard, 

Waste Storage Facility, No. 313; and U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Conservation Practice Standard, Waste Treatment Lagoon, No. 359. 
II.2 The project developer 

Project developers could be livestock owners and operators, such as dairy cattle, beef cattle, or 

swine farmers. However, they could also include other entities, such as third-party aggregators. 

Ownership of the GHG reductions should be established by clear and explicit title. 

II.3 Additional manure management GHG reduction activities

The California Registry recognizes that project developers could implement a variety of GHG 

reduction activities at a livestock operation, which are complex interrelated systems that make 

use of several types and combinations of manure management practices. Installing technology 

to capture and destroy methane from waste storage and/or treatment systems is but one of 

many projects that could occur at a livestock operation. Several options to modify solid and/or 

liquid manure management practices that do not involve a biogas control system – i.e. a 

digester – could also reduce methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions (including 

land application). And a project developer could also change dietary regimes to reduce methane 

(either enteric fermentation or waste management-related) and nitrous oxide. 

However, at this time, GHG reduction activities not associated with installing a biogas control 

system do not meet this protocol’s definition of the GHG reduction project. Furthermore, 

producing power for the electricity grid (and thus displacing fossil-fueled power plant GHG 

emissions) is a complementary and separate GHG project activity to destroying methane gas 

from waste treatment/storage, and is not included within this protocol’s accounting framework. 

The California Registry anticipates augmenting this document to incorporate GHG reductions 

associated with manure management and livestock operations beyond methane destruction 

from biogas control systems. Indeed, the GHG assessment boundary and GHG reduction 

calculation approach are designed to support such amendments. And, more broadly, new 

protocols may also be developed in the future to facilitate reduction opportunities in the 

agriculture sector (as well as other sectors). 

III. Eligibility Rules 

Project developers using this protocol satisfy the following eligibility rules to register reductions 

with the California Registry. The criteria only apply to projects that meet the definition of a GHG 

reduction project. 

Eligibility Rule I: Additionality Meet performance standard

 Exceed regulatory requirements 

Eligibility Rule II: Location U.S. farms

Eligibility Rule III: Project Start Date January 1, 2001

III.1 Additionality

The California Registry strives to support only projects that yield surplus GHG reductions, which 

are additional to what might have otherwise occurred. That is, the reductions are above and 

beyond business-as-usual – the baseline case. 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

3
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

4

Project developers satisfy the “additionality” eligibility rule by passing two tests: 

1. The Performance Standard Test, and 

2. The Regulatory Test. 

The Performance Standard Test. Project developers pass the Performance Standard Test by 

meeting a program-wide performance threshold – i.e. a standard of performance applicable to 

all manure management projects, established on an ex-ante basis. The performance threshold 

represents “better than business-as-usual.” If the project meets the threshold, then it exceeds 

what would happen under the business-as-usual scenario and generates surplus/additional 

GHG reductions. 

For this protocol, the California Registry uses a technology-specific threshold; sometimes also 

referred to as a practice-based threshold, where it serves as “best-practice standard” for 

managing livestock manure. By installing a biogas control system a project developer passes 

the Performance Standard Test. 

The California Registry defined this Performance Standard by evaluating manure management 

practices in California and the U.S. A summary of the study to establish the threshold is 

provided in Appendix C. 

The California Registry will periodically re-evaluate the appropriateness of the Performance 

Standard. All projects that pass this test are eligible to register reductions with the California 

Registry for the lifetime of the project-crediting period, even if the Performance Standard Test 

changes during mid-period. As stated in Section VII, Reporting Parameters, the project-crediting 

period is ten years. 

The Regulatory Test. The California Registry’s analysis of manure management practices in 

the U.S. identified no regulations that obligate livestock owners to invest in a manure biogas 

control system. The analysis looked most closely at recent, stringent California air quality 

regulations (e.g., SJVAPCD Rule 4570 and Sacramento AQMD Rule 496), and found that 

installing an anaerobic digester is one of several compliance options, although high capital costs 

appear to prohibit the use of anaerobic digesters as a practical compliance mechanism for these 

air quality regulations 

Although the California Registry found no regulations driving livestock operators to install a 

biogas control system, project developers pass the Regulatory Test by demonstrating that the 

preliminary determination from the analysis of manure management practices in the U.S. 

continues to hold true for their region. That is, project developers show that there are no state or 

federal regulations or local agency ordinances/rulings requiring the installation of a biogas 

control system. Project developers are required to submit a signed attestation of title document 

that includes an attestation that the project has not been required to be implemented by any 

law, statute, regulation, court order, environmental mitigation or other mandate. All projects that 

pass this test are eligible to register reductions with the California Registry for the lifetime of the 

project-crediting period (ten years), even if a regulatory agency with authority over a livestock 

operation passes a rule obligating the installation of a biogas control system during mid-period. 

Additionally, project developers pass the California Registry’s Regulatory Test by demonstrating 

that the project meets local air and water quality regulations. Projects that do not comply with air 

and water quality regulations are not eligible to register GHG reductions with the California 

Registry. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

5

III.2 Location 

All projects located at livestock operations in the U.S. are eligible to register reductions with the 

California Registry. The scope of the analysis of manure management practices that formed the 

basis of the Performance Standard covered livestock operations in California and the U.S. 

Therefore, the California Registry will treat GHG reductions from all U.S.-based projects that 

follow the guidance in this protocol equally. 

The California Registry anticipates that this protocol could be applicable internationally. The 

calculation procedure is consistent with international practices and, considering its rigor, the 

Performance Standard could apply to regions outside of the U.S. However, at this time, 

reductions from international projects are not eligible to be registered with the California 

Registry. 

III.3 Project start date

California Senate Bill 1771 (Sher) created the California Registry in September of 2000 to serve 

as a platform to record and register GHG reduction activities, among other things. This sent a 

signal to GHG-emitting entities, including farmers, that project activities could receive 

recognition for their carbon value. The establishment of the California Registry to support GHG 

reduction activities is the basis for the project start date criterion. 

All GHG reduction projects that install a biogas control system are eligible to register reductions 

with the California Registry if the system started operating on or after January 1, 2001. Projects 

that began operating before January 1, 2001 are not eligible to register reductions according to 

this protocol. For the California Registry’s purpose, the commencement of operation means a 

constructed system that is capturing and destroying methane gas from the treatment and/or 

storage of the project developer’s livestock waste. 

IV. The GHG Assessment Boundary 

The GHG assessment boundary delineates the GHG sources and gases assessed by project 

developers to determine the net change in emissions associated with installing a biogas control 

system. This protocol’s assessmentt boundary captures sources from waste production to 

disposal, including off-site manure disposal. However, the calculation procedure only 

incorporates methane and carbon dioxide, so while nitrous oxide sources are technically within 

the boundary they are not assessed in the calculation procedure.

IV.1 GHG source categories for manure management systems

A farm’s manure management system is dictated by site-specific conditions. The design and 

physical layout of a particular operation will influence its make-up of GHG sources and types of 

gases. However, regardless of a livestock operation’s individual characteristics, modifying its 

manure management system (e.g. installing a biogas control system) can increase or decrease 

GHG emissions from sources grouped under three broad source categories: 

• Waste production, 

• Waste treatment and storage, and 

• Waste disposal. 
Figure 1: Schematic of the Manure Management GHG Assessment Boundary

 

Arrows show the waste 

transport pathway. 

Depending on sitespecific conditions, waste 

will be collected and sent 

to one or more storage 

and treatment 

components before 

disposal or sent directly 

to disposal. 

2. Waste Treatment and Storage 

(Waste treatment lagoons, storage ponds, compost piles, dry stacks, 

solid separators, etc; includes the biogas control system, and its 

effluent/overflow pond, under project conditions.)

Biogas Not Combusted 

(Under project conditions)

1. Waste Production 

(Animal housing and confinement – freestall 

barns, corrals, milking parlor, etc)

3. Waste Disposal 

(On-site and off-site land 

application, bedding, off-site 

transport) 

Figure 1 provides a general illustration of the assessment boundary; it encompasses the full 

manure management system (and includes GHG emissions from the biogas control system). 

For the most part, the installation of a biogas control system will not alter emissions from the 

waste production area; however, in some cases, carbon dioxide emissions could change from 

the support equipment. The project will primarily result in a change of methane emissions from 

the waste treatment and storage area. Sources of emissions in the waste collection and 

transport and waste disposal areas could also be affected by the project. 

IV.2 Methane and carbon dioxide

At this time, only two gases within the GHG assessment boundary are quantified to assess the 

project’s impact: 

• Methane 

• Carbon dioxide 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

6
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

7

 

Methane. In most cases, the primary impact of installing a biogas control system corresponds 

with reductions of methane emissions associated with anaerobic decomposition of manure in 

the waste treatment and storage category.5

 The GHG reduction calculation procedure focuses 

on methane, as it will likely constitute the bulk of a project’s reductions. 

Carbon dioxide. In addition to methane, this protocol accounts for changes in direct carbon 

dioxide emissions from mobile and stationary combustion sources within the assessment 

boundary, which can either increase or decrease depending on project and farm specifics.6

 For 

example, methane gas captured in a biogas control system could be used in place of fossil fuels 

to power on-site stationary combustion devices, such as generators or pumping systems, or the 

project could alter the need to transport manure waste for off-site disposal. 

Carbon dioxide emissions from biogas control systems are considered biogenic emissions (as 

opposed to anthropogenic) and will not be included in the GHG reduction calculation – per the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) guidelines for captured landfill gas.7

Sources of carbon dioxide within the manure management system might not change as a result 

of the project or could be insignificant. Therefore, project developers may conduct an 

assessment to determine if carbon dioxide emissions are considered de minimis. Project 

developers are only required to calculate and document fuel use for annual carbon dioxide 

emissions if project carbon dioxide emissions show a variance greater than 5% of total baseline 

emissions. If project carbon dioxide emissions are found to be within 5% of total baseline 

emissions, then the project developer may use a best estimate technique to estimate carbon 

dioxide emissions. Whether the fuel records are documented or estimated, carbon dioxide 

emissions must be verified and reported to the California Registry annually.8

The protocol does not account for carbon dioxide reductions associated with displacing griddelivered electricity. This is classified as an indirect emissions reduction activity because the 

change in GHGs occurs from sources owned and controlled by the power producer, even 

though the project developer produces the renewable electricity that displaces the fossil-based 

electricity. Capturing and using methane to produce electricity for the grid would be defined as a 

complimentary and separate GHG reduction project. 

In a separate development process, the California Registry would establish a project protocol for 

all grid-delivered renewable energy projects, applicable to indirect emissions reductions from 

using biogas from biogas control systems. 

5

 Generally, the secondary impacts of a project correspond with supplemental GHG effects to the main reduction 

activity. They could have a minor or major effect on the project’s reductions (either in a positive or negative 

direction)and in some cases they are unintentional. See also the WBCSD/WRI “GHG Protocol for Project Accounting” 

for a discussion of primary and secondary GHG effects. 6

 Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from mobile and stationary combustion sources are not calculated. 7 IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; p.5.10, ftnt 

4. The rationale is that carbon dioxide emitted during combustion represents the carbon dioxide that would have been 

emitted during natural decomposition of the manure. Emissions from the biogas control system do not yield a net 

increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide because they are theoretically equivalent to the carbon dioxide absorbed 

during plant/feed growth. 

8

 This is consistent with guidance in the Registry’s GRP and WRI’s GHG Project Protocol regarding the treatment of 

significant secondary effects. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

8

Box 1: The Registry’s treatment of nitrous oxide emissions 

This protocol’s GHG assessment boundary conceptually encompasses sources of 

nitrous oxide emissions in the waste production, waste treatment and storage, and 

waste disposal source categories. However, project developers do not calculate nitrous 

oxide impacts. This determination is made for the sake of “conservativeness” since the 

high levels of uncertainty associated with the methods to assess nitrous oxide 

production could lead to overestimations of project reductions. 

Procedures to calculate nitrous oxide emissions associated with a livestock operation’s 

manure management system and from the application of manure to soils (both direct 

and indirect) rely on emission factors with at least an uncertainty range of a factor of two 

– either 100% above or 50% below the default value.9

 The reason for the large 

uncertainty is the complex emissions pathway from organic nitrogen in livestock waste 

to nitrous oxide – the nitrification-denitrification cycle.10 

As the state of science advances and methods to calculate nitrous oxide emissions at 

the farm-level improve, the Registry will incorporate them into this protocol. In fact, as 

the assessment boundary includes sources from waste production to disposal it is setup to integrate nitrous oxide calculations. The Registry will work with project developers 

and the research community to develop an appropriate “conservatism factor” that could 

sufficiently mitigate possible overestimations of project reductions that stem from 

uncertainty in nitrous oxide quantification. 

This approach is consistent with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) 

treatment of nitrous oxide. Under the RGGI Model Rule (January 5, 2007) project 

developers do not receive credit for reductions in nitrous oxide. The CDM “Consolidated 

baseline methodology for GHG emission reductions from manure management 

systems” (ACM0010 V.2) and the U.S. EPA Climate Leaders, Draft Manure Offset 

Protocol (October 2006) on the other hand allow project developers to calculate 

decreases in nitrous oxide emissions from sources up to, but excluding, land 

application. 

Table 1 relates GHG source categories to sources and gases, and indicates inclusion in the 

calculation methodology. It is intended to be illustrative – GHG sources are indicative for the 

source category, GHGs in addition to the main GHG are also mentioned, where appropriate. 

 

9

 See IPCC 2006 Guidelines volume 4, chapter 10, table 10.21 and volume 4, chapter 11, table 11.3. 10 Uncertainty also exists with estimations of baseline methane emission. The Registry takes steps to reduce this 

uncertainty by following a calculation approach that is based on the monthly biological performance of the operation’s 

anaerobic manure handling systems that existed pre-project, as predicted by the van’t Hoff-Arrhenius equation using 

site-specific data on temperature, Volatile Solids (VS) loading, and system VS retention time. Furthermore, 

all existing estimates of uncertainty (of which the Registry is aware) involve the quantification of nitrous oxide at a 

national level, not a project-level. The Registry has been working to evaluate project-level uncertainty. This work is 

ongoing, but early results suggest that uncertainty levels associated with the quantification of nitrous oxide are more 

substantial than methane. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

9

Table 1: Manure management source categories, GHG sources, associated gases, and 

coverage in the manure management GHG assessment boundary 

GHG Source 

Category 

GHG Source Associated 

GHGs* 

Included in 

GHG assessment 

boundary 

Waste 

Production 

(animal housing 

and 

confinement) 

• Enteric fermentation 

• Waste deposits barn, milking 

parlor, or pasture/corral 

• Support equipment 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Carbon dioxide 

3⁄4 Not included (no change 

due to project)11

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Included 

Waste 

Collection and 

Transport 

• Emissions from mechanical 

systems used to collect and 

transport waste (e.g., engines 

and pumps for flush systems; 

vacuums and tractors for scrape 

systems) 

• Vehicle emissions (e.g., for 

centralized digesters) 

Carbon dioxide 

Carbon dioxide 

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Included

Waste 

Treatment and 

Storage 

• Dry lot deposits 

• Compost piles 

• Solid storage piles 

• Manure settling basins 

• Anaerobic lagoons 

• Aerobic treatment 

• Storage ponds 

• Support equipment 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Carbon dioxide 

(from aeration 

equipment) 

Methane 

Nitrous oxide 

Carbon dioxide 

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Not Included 

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Included

3⁄4 Included 

3⁄4 Not Included 

3⁄4 Included 

Waste Disposal • Land application 

• Vehicle emissions 

(for land application and/or 

offsite transport) 

Nitrous oxide 

Carbon dioxide 

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Included 

Biogas controls 

system 

• Uncombusted or leaked gas 

• Biogas combustion 

• Grid-electricity 

Methane 

Carbon dioxide 

Carbon dioxide 

3⁄4 Included

3⁄4 Not Included

3⁄4 Not Included

* Nitrous oxide emissions could stand for either direct, indirect or both 

 

11 A livestock operator could change its feeding strategy to maximize biogas production from a digester; thus 

impacting enteric fermentation emissions from ruminant animals. However, this is an unlikely scenario. Project 

developers should disclose whether their feeding regimes change to optimize biogas production. If this occurs, the 

Registry will work with them to incorporate these emissions into the calculation procedure. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

10

V. GHG Reductions Calculation Methods 

The California Registry’s GHG reduction calculation method is derived from the Kyoto Protocol’s 

Clean Development Mechanism (ACM0010 V.2), the EPA’s Climate Leaders Program (Draft 

Manure Management Offset Protocol, October 2006), and the RGGI Model Rule (January, 5 

2007). 

Total GHG reductions are registered on an annual basis, thus projects will have yearly baseline 

and project (actual) emissions. But project developers should take note that some equations to 

calculate baseline and project emissions are run on a month-by-month basis and activity data 

monitoring have varying levels of frequency. As applicable, monthly baseline emissions are 

summed together as well as monthly project emissions for the annual comparison. 

To support project developers and facilitate consistent and complete emissions reporting, the 

California Registry has developed an Excel based calculation tool available at: 

http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project-protocols.html. The California Registry

recommends the use of the Livestock Calculation Tool for all project calculations and emission 

reduction reports. 

Models that estimate biological and physical processes, such as the nitrogen and carbon cycles 

in soils and biological waste streams, are becoming increasingly available. Process models 

typically rely on a series of input data that research has shown to be important drivers of the 

geochemical process. In terms of GHG emissions models, process models identify the 

mathematical relationships between inputs, basic conditions, and GHG emissions. At this time, 

biogeochemical models to assess carbon and nitrogen cycling from waste management 

systems are under development. As these new modeling methods become widely accepted and 

available, the California Registry will consider updating the protocol to incorporate these new 

approaches into the quantification methodologies. 

The current methodology for quantifying the GHG impact associated with installing a biogas 

control system requires the use of both modeled reductions (following equations 2a - 2c and 3a 

- 3c) as well as the utilization of ex-post metered data from the biogas control system to be used 

as a check on the modeled reductions. 

The California Registry recognizes that there can be material differences between modeled 

methane emission reductions and the actual metered quantity of methane that is captured and 

destroyed by the biogas control system due to digester start-up periods, venting events, and 

other biogas control system operational issues. These operational issues have the potential to 

result in substantially less methane destruction than is modeled, leading to an overestimation of 

GHG reductions in the modeled case. 

To address this issue and maintain consistency with international best practice, the California 

Registry requires the modeled methane emission reduction results to be compared to the expost metered quantity of methane that is captured and destroyed by the biogas control system. 

The lesser of the two values will represent the total methane emission reductions for the 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

11

reporting period. Equation 1 below outlines the quantification approach for calculating the 

emission reductions from the installation of a biogas control system. 12 

Equation 1: GHG reductions from installing a biogas control system 

Total GHG Reductions = (Modeled baseline emissions CH4 – Project emissions CH4) 

 + (Baseline emissions CO2 - Project emissions CO2) 

The (Modeled baseline emissions CH4, – Project emissions CH4) term shall be calculated according to 

equations 2a - 2c and equations 3a - 3c. The resulting aggregated quantity of methane reductions 

must then be compared to the ex-post quantity of methane that is metered and destroyed in the 

biogas collection system, as expressed in equation 4. In the case that the total ex-post quantity of 

metered and destroyed methane is less than the modeled methane reductions, the metered quantity 

of destroyed methane will replace the modeled methane reductions. 

Therefore, the above equation then becomes: 

Total GHG Reductions = (Total quantity of metered and destroyed methane) 

 + (Baseline emissions CO2 – Project emissions CO2)

V.1 Modeled Baseline Methane Emissions 

Baseline emissions represent the GHG emissions within the GHG assessment boundary that 

would have occurred if not for the installation of the biogas control system.13 For the purposes of 

this protocol, project developers calculate their baseline emissions according to the manure 

management system in place prior to installing the biogas control system. This is referred to as 

a “continuation of current practices” baseline scenario. Additionally, project developers calculate 

baseline emissions each year of the project.14 The procedure assumes there is no biogas 

control system in the baseline system. Regarding new livestock operations that install a biogas 

control system, project developers establish a modeled baseline scenario using the prevailing 

system type in use for the geographic area, animal type, and farm size that corresponds to their 

operation. 

Modeled baseline methane emissions. The procedure to determine the modeled baseline 

methane emissions follows Equation 2a, which combines Equation 2b and 2c. 

Equation 2b calculates methane emissions from anaerobic manure storage/treatment systems 

based on site-specific information on the mass of volatile solids degraded by the anaerobic 

storage/treatment system and available for methane conversion.15 It incorporates the effects of 

temperature through the van’t Hoff-Arrhenius (‘f’ factor) and accounts for the retention of volatile 

solids through the use of monthly assessments. Equation 2c is less intensive and applies to 

non-anaerobic storage/treatment systems. Both Equation 2b and 2c reflect basic biological 

principles of methane production from available volatile solids, determine methane generation 

 

12 The calculation procedure only addresses direct emissions sources and does not incorporate changes in electricity 

consumption, which impacts indirect emissions associated with power plants owned and operated by entities other 

than the livestock operator. 

13 The California Registry is working on developing guidance for the accounting of co-digestion activities. Codigestion guidance should be published by early 2009. 

14 Conversely, under a “static baseline,” a project developer would assess baseline emissions once before project 

implementation and use that value throughout the project lifetime. 15 Anaerobic storage/treatment systems generally refer to anaerobic lagoons, or storage ponds, etc. 
for each livestock category, and account for the extent to which the waste management system 

handles each category’s manure. 

V.2 Modeled Baseline Methane Emissions Equations 

Equation 2a: Modeled baseline methane emissions 

= ( ) ∑ + −

LS

BECH BE LASCH BE LASnonCH

,

4 ,,4 ,,4

Where, 

BECH4 = total annual baseline methane emissions, expressed in carbon dioxide 

equivalent (tCO2e/yr) 

BECH4,AS,L = total annual baseline methane emissions from anaerobic 

storage/treatment systems by livestock category ‘L’, expressed in 

carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e/yr) 

BECH4,non-AS,L = total annual baseline methane emissions from non-anaerobic 

storage/treatment systems, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent 

(tCO2e/yr) 

Equation 2b: Modeled baseline methane emissions from anaerobic storage/treatment 

systems 

21001.067.0 ,

,4 = ∑ ,0,deg, ××××

ASL

BE ASCH VS B LLAS

Where, 

BECH4,AS = total annual baseline methane emissions from anaerobic manure 

storage/treatment systems, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent 

(tCO2e/yr) 

VSdeg,AS,L = annual volatile solids degraded in anaerobic manure storage/treatment 

system ‘AS’ from livestock category ‘L’ (kg dry matter) 

B0,L = maximum methane producing capacity of manure for livestock category 

‘L’ (m3

 CH4/kg of VS) – Appendix B, Table B.3 

0.67 = methane density conversion factor, m3

 to kg (at 20 °C and 1 atm 

pressure) 

0.001 = conversion factor from kg to metric tonnes 

21 = Global Warming Potential factor of methane to carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

= ∑ ×

LAS

LAS LASavail VS VS f ,,deg, ,,

Where, 

VSdeg,AS,L = annual volatile solids degraded by anaerobic manure storage/ treatment 

system ‘AS’ by livestock category ‘L’ (kg dry matter) 

VSavail,AS,L = monthly volatile solids available for degradation from anaerobic manure 

storage/treatment system ‘AS’ by livestock category ‘L’(kg dry matter) 

f = the van’t Hoff-Arrhenius factor = “the proportion of volatile solids that are 

biologically available for conversion to methane based on the monthly 

temperature of the system”16

 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

12

16 Mangino, et al. 
Equation 2b continued 

( ) ( ) LASavail LL LAS VS ASavail VS AS VS ,, MSPVS , dpm ,1 ,1deg 8.0 ××= × × + − − −

Where, 

VSavail,AS,L = monthly volatile solids available for degradation in anaerobic 

storage/treatment system ‘AS’ by livestock category ‘L’(kg dry matter) 

VSL = volatile solids produced by livestock category ‘L’ 

 on a dry matter basis (kg/animal/day) – Important - refer to Box 2 for 

guidance on using appropriate units for VSL values from Appendix B. 

PL = annual average population of livestock category ‘L’ (based on monthly 

population data) 

MSAS,L = percent of manure sent to (managed in) anaerobic manure 

storage/treatment system ‘AS’ from livestock category ‘L’ (%)17

dpm = days per month 

0.8 = system calibration factor18

VSavail-1,AS = previous month’s volatile solids available for degradation in anaerobic 

system ‘AS’ (kg) 

VSdeg-1,AS = previous month’s volatile solids degraded by anaerobic system ‘AS’ 

(kg)19

( )

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ − =

21

12 exp TRT

TTE f

Where, 

f = the van’t Hoff-Arrhenius factor 

E = activation energy constant (15,175 cal/mol) 

T1 = 303.16K 

T2 = monthly average ambient temperature (K = °C + 273). If T2 < 5 °C then f

= 0.104 

R = ideal gas constant (1.987 cal/Kmol) 

 

17 The MS value represents the percent of manure that would be sent to (managed by) the anaerobic manure 

storage/treatment systems in the baseline case – as if the biogas control system was never installed. 18 Mangino, et al. This factor was derived to “account for management and design practices that result in the loss of 

volatile solids from the management system.” 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

13

19 The difference between VSavail-1 and VSdeg-1 represents VS retained in the system and not removed at month’s 

end; thus VS could accumulate over time. However, project developers should not carry-over volatile solids from one 

month to the next after a system has been cleaned out, such as temporary storage ponds or tanks where the VSretention time might be 30 days. For these systems project developers do not add “(VSavail-1 – VSdeg-1).” 
Equation 2c: Modeled baseline methane for non-anaerobic storage/treatment systems 

365 21001.067.0 ,

,4 , ,0 ×××⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

∑ ×××××=

SL

BE nASCH L nASL VSMSP L nAS BMCF L

Where, 

BECH4,nAS = total annual baseline methane emissions from non-anaerobic 

storage/treatment systems, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent 

(tCO2e/yr) 

PL = annual average population of livestock category ‘L’ (based on monthly 

population data 

MSL,nAS = percent of manure from livestock category ‘L’ managed in non-anaerobic 

storage/treatment systems (%) 

VSL = volatile solids produced by livestock category ‘L’ 

 on a dry matter basis (kg/animal/day) – Important - refer to Box 2 for 

guidance on using appropriate units for VSL values from Appendix B. 

365 = days in a year 

MCF,nAS = methane conversion factor for non-anaerobic storage/treatment system ‘S’ 

(%) – See Appendix B, Table B.5 

B0,L = maximum methane producing capacity for manure for livestock category ‘L’ 

(m3

 CH4/kg of VS dry matter) – Appendix B, Table B.3 

0.67 = methane density conversion factor, m3

 to kg (at 20°C and 1 atm pressure) 

0.001 = conversion factor from kg to metric tonnes 

21 = Global Warming Potential factor of methane to carbon dioxide equivalent 

Box 2: Daily volatile solids for all livestock categories 

Consistent with international best-practice,20 it is recommended that appropriate VSL values for Dairy 

livestock categories be obtained from the State-specific lookup tables (Tables B.4.a – B.4.e) 

provided in Appendix B. When possible, use the year corresponding to the appropriate emission 

year. If the current year’s table is not available, use the most current year. 

VSL values for all other livestock can be found in Appendix B, Table B.3. 

Important - Units provided for all VS values in Appendix B are in (kg/day/1000kg), in order to get 

VSL in the appropriate units (kg/animal/day), the following equation must be used: 

1000

L

L table

Mass VSVS ×=

Where, 

VSL = volatile solid excretion on a dry matter weight basis (kg/animal/day) 

VSTable = volatile solid excretion from lookup table (Tables B.3 and B.4.a - B.4.e) 

(kg/day/1000kg) 

MassL = average live weight for livestock category ‘L’ (kg), if site specific data is 

unavailable, use values from Appendix B, Table B.2 

 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

14

20 IPCC 2006 Guidelines (Volume 4, Chapter 10, p. 42); ACM0010 (V2, p.8); and EPA Climate Leaders Draft Offset 

Protocol (2006). 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

15

 

Modeled baseline methane calculation variables. The calculation procedure uses a 

combination of site-specific values and default factors.21

Population – PL. The procedure requires project developers to differentiate between livestock 

categories (‘L’) – e.g. lactating dairy cows, non-milking dairy cows, heifers, etc. This accounts 

for differences in methane generation across livestock categories. See Appendix B, Table 2. 

The population of each livestock category is monitored on a monthly basis, and for Equation 2c 

averaged for an annual total population. 

Volatile solids – VSL. This value represents the daily organic material in the manure for each 

livestock category and consists of both biodegradable and non-biodegradable fractions. The VS 

content of manure is a combination of excreted fecal material (the fraction of a livestock 

category’s diet consumed and not digested) and urinary excretions, expressed in a dry matter 

weight basis (kg/animal).22 This protocol requires that the VS value for all livestock categories 

be determined as outlined in Box 2. 

MassL. This value is the annual average live weight of the animals, per livestock category. This 

data is necessary because default VS values are supplied in units of kg/day/1000kg mass, 

therefore the average mass of the corresponding livestock category is required in order to 

convert the units of VS into kg/day/animal. Site specific livestock mass is preferred for all 

livestock categories. If site specific data is unavailable, Typical Average Mass (TAM) values 

can be used (Appendix B, Table B.2). 

Maximum methane production – B0,L. This value represents the maximum methane-producing 

capacity of the manure, differentiated by livestock category (‘L’) and diet. Project developers use 

the default B0 factors from Appendix B, Table B.3. 

MS. The MS value apportions manure from each livestock category to appropriate manure 

management system component (‘S’). It reflects the reality that waste from the operation’s 

livestock categories are not managed uniformly. The MS value accounts for the operation’s 

multiple types of manure management systems. It is expressed as a percent (%), relative to the 

total amount of waste produced by the livestock category. As waste production is normalized for 

each livestock category, the percentage should be calculated as percent of population for each 

livestock category. For example, a dairy operation might send 85% of its milking cow’s waste to 

an anaerobic lagoon and 15% could be deposited in a corral. In this situation an MS value of 

85% would be assigned to equation 2b and 15% to equation 2c. 

Importantly, the MS value indicates where the waste would be managed in the baseline 

scenario – i.e. where the manure would end-up if the digester was never installed. 

Methane conversion factor – MCF. Each manure management system component has a volatile 

solids-to-methane conversion efficiency, which represents the degree to which maximum 

methane production (B0) is achieved. Methane production is a function of the extent of 

21 The Registry permits project developers to refine the calculation where appropriate with site-specific information. 

Justification and supporting documentation for the site-specific variables must be provided to project verifiers. 22 IPCC 2006 Guidelines volume 4, chapter 10, p. 10.42. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

16

 

anaerobic conditions present in the system, the temperature of the system, and the retention 

time of organic material in the system.23 

According to this protocol and similar to the RGGI Model Rule (January 5, 2007), for anaerobic 

lagoons, storage ponds, liquid slurry tanks etc., project developers perform a site-specific 

calculation of the mass of volatile solids degraded by the anaerobic storage/treatment system. 

This is expressed as “degraded volatile solids” or “VSdeg” in Equation 2b, which equals the 

system’s monthly available volatile solids multiplied by “f,” the van’t Hoff-Arrhenius factor. The ‘f’ 

factor effectively converts total available volatile solids in the anaerobic manure 

storage/treatment system to methane-convertible volatile solids, based on the monthly 

temperature of the system. 

The multiplication of “VSdeg” by “B0” gives a site-specific quantification of the uncontrolled 

methane emissions that would have occurred in the absence of a digester – from the anaerobic 

storage and/or treatment system, taking into account each livestock category’s contribution of 

manure to that system. 

This method to calculate methane emissions reflects the site-specific monthly biological 

performance of the operation’s anaerobic manure handling systems that existed pre-project, as 

predicted by the van’t Hoff-Arrhenius equation using farm-level data on temperature, VS 

loading, and system VS retention time.24

Default MCF values for non-anaerobic manure storage/treatment are available in Appendix B, 

Table B.5, which are used for Equation 2c. 

V.3 Project Methane Emissions 

Project emissions are actual GHG emissions that occur within the GHG assessment boundary 

after the installation of the biogas control system. Project emissions are calculated on an 

annual, ex-post basis. But like baseline emissions, some parameters are monitored on a 

monthly basis. Methane emissions from manure storage and/or treatment systems other than 

the digester are modeled much the same as in the baseline scenario. 

Project methane emissions. As shown in Equation 3, project methane emissions equal 

• the amount of methane from waste treatment and storage not captured and destroyed 

by the control system, plus 

• methane from the digester effluent storage pond (if necessary), plus 

• methane from sources in the waste treatment and storage category other than the 

biogas control system and associated effluent pond. This includes all other manure 

treatment systems such as compost piles, solids storage, daily spread, etc. 

Consistent with ACM0010 and this protocol’s baseline methane calculation approach, the 

formula to account for project methane emissions incorporates all potential sources within the 

waste treatment and storage category. Non-biogas control system-related sources follow the 

same calculation approach as provided in the baseline methane equations. Several activity data 

for the variables in Equation 3c will be the same as those in Equation 2a – 2c. 

23 IPCC 2006 Guidelines volume 4, chapter 10, p. 10.43. 24 The method is derived from Mangino et al., “Development of a Methane Conversion Factor to Estimate Emissions 

from Animal Waste Lagoons” 
V.4 Project Methane Emissions Equations 

Equation 3: Project methane emissions 

PECH4 = [(PECH4, BCS + PECH4, EP+ PECH4, non-BCS) × 21] 

Where, 

PECH4 = total annual project methane emissions, expressed in carbon 

dioxide equivalent (tCO2e/yr)

PECH4, BCS = annual methane emissions from the Biogas Control System 

(tCH4/yr) – equation 3a 

PECH4, EP = annual methane emissions from the BCS Effluent Pond 

(tCH4/yr) – equation 3b 

PECH4, non-BCS = annual methane emissions from sources in the waste treatment 

and storage category other than the Biogas Control System and 

associated Effluent Pond (tCH4/yr) – equation 3c 

21 = Global Warming Potential factor of methane to carbon dioxide 

 equivalent 

Equation 3a: Project methane emissions from the biogas control system 

( ) ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = −BDE

BCE

PE BCSCH ) 1

,4 meter4, (CH

Where, 

PECH4, BCS = monthly methane emissions from the Biogas Control System 

(tCH4/yr), to be aggregated annually 

CH4,meter = the monthly quantity of methane collected and metered 

(tCH4/month)

BCE = monthly methane collection efficiency of the Biogas Control 

System (% - as a decimal). The default value is 85% 25 

BDE = monthly methane destruction efficiency of the destruction device 

(% - as a decimal). In the event that there are is more than one 

destruction devices in operation in any given month, the weighted 

average destruction efficiency from all destruction devices is to be 

used (see BDE calculation below) 

CH4,meter= F × (520/T)* × (P/1)*

 × CH4,conc × 0.0423 × 0.000454 

 Where, 

CH4,meter = the monthly quantity of methane collected and metered 

(tCH4/month) 26

F = measured volumetric flow of Biogas per month (ft^3/month) 

 

25 Project developers have the option to justify a higher BCS collection efficiency based on verifiable documentation. 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

17

26 This value reflects directly measured biogas mass flow and methane concentration in the biogas to the combustion 

device. 
Equation 3a continued 

T = Temperature of the Biogas flow in oR (Rankine). (oR = oF +459.67) 

 

P = Pressure of the Biogas flow in atm 

CH4,conc = measured methane concentration of Biogas from the most recent 

methane concentration measurement (% as a decimal) 

0.0423 = density of methane gas (lbsCH4/ft^3) at STP (1atm, 20o

C) 

0.000454 = conversion factor, lbs to metric tons 

 

* The terms (520/T) and (P/1) should be omitted if the continuous flow meter 

 automatically corrects for temperature and pressure. 

total

tt bb gcnggcng ngng

ofof cfcf lbic lbic rbic rbic

F

BDEFBDEFBDE F FBDE

FBDE FBDEFBDE FBDE

BDE ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+×+×+ ×+×

+×+×+× × = ()( () () )( () () () )

ln/ ln/

Where, 

BDEof = default methane destruction efficiency for open flare27,28 = 0.96 

Fof = total volume of gas fed to open flare (ft^3) 

BDEcf = default methane destruction efficiency for enclosed flare27,29 = 

 0.995 

Fcf = total volume of gas fed to enclosed flare (ft^3) 

BDElbic = default methane destruction efficiency for lean-burn IC 

 engine27,29 = 0.936

Flbic = total volume of gas fed to lean-burn IC engine (ft^3) 

BDErbic = default methane destruction efficiency for rich-burn IC 

 engine27,29 = 0.995 

Frbic = total volume of gas fed to rich-burn IC engine (ft^3) 

BDEt = default methane destruction efficiency for microturbine or large 

 gas turbine27 = 0.995 

Ft = total volume of gas fed to turbine (ft^3) 

BDEb = default methane destruction efficiency for boilers27 = 0.98 

Fb = total volume of gas fed to boiler (ft^3) 

BDEcng/lng = default methane destruction efficiency for upgrade and use of gas 

 as cng/lng vehicle fuel = 0.95 

Fcng/lng = total volume of gas upgraded for use as CNG/LNG fuel (ft^3) 

BDEng = default methane destruction efficiency for upgrade and injection 

 into NG pipeline30 = 0.98 

Fng = total volume of gas upgraded an injected into NG pipeline (ft^3) 

Ftotal = total volume of biogas captured and metered from biogas control 

 system (ft^3) 

 

27 If available, the official source tested methane destruction efficiency shall be used in Equations 3a and Equation 4 

in place of the default methane destruction efficiency. Otherwise, project developers have the option to use either the 

default methane destruction efficiencies provided, or the site specific methane destruction efficiencies as provided by 

a state or local agency accredited source test service provider, for each of the combustion devices used in the project 

case. 

28 Seebold, J.G., et. Al., Reaction Efficiency of Industrial Flares, 2003 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

18

29 The default destruction efficiencies for this source are based on a preliminary set of actual source test data 

provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The default destruction efficiency values are the lesser of 

the twenty fifth percentile of the data provided or 0.995. These default destruction efficiencies may be updated as 

more source test data is made available to the California Registry. 
Equation 3b: Project methane emissions from the BCS effluent pond31

PE ,4 EPCH ×= BVS oep , ep × × 67.0365 × MCFep × 001.0

Where, 

PECH4, EP = methane emissions from the Effluent Pond (tCH4/year) 

VSep = volatile solid to effluent pond (kg/day) – 30% of the average daily 

VS entering the digester32

Bo,ep = maximum methane producing capacity (m3

CH4/kg of VS dry 

matter)33

365 = number of days in a year 

0.67 = conversion factor for m3

 to kg 

MCFep = methane conversion factor (%), Appendix B, Table B.5. Project 

developers should use the liquid slurry MCF value for effluent 

ponds 

0.001 = conversion factor from kg to metric tones 

( ) ( 3.0) = ∑ L ×× ,BCSL ×

L

VSep L MSPVS

Where, 

 VSL = volatile solids produced by livestock category ‘L’ 

 on a dry matter basis (kg/animal/day) – Important - refer to Box 2 

 for guidance on using appropriate units for VSL values from 

 Appendix B 

PL = annual average population of livestock category ‘L’ (based on 

 monthly population data 

MSL,BCS = percent of manure from livestock category ‘L’ that is managed in 

 the Biogas Control System 

0.3 = default value representing the amount of Volatile Solids that exit 

 the digester as a percentage of the Volatile Solids entering 

 the digester 

 

30 The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories gives a standard value for the 

fraction of carbon oxidized for gas combustion of 99.5% (Reference Manual, Table 1.6, page 1.29). It also gives a 

value for emissions from processing, transmission and distribution of gas which would be a very conservative 

estimate for losses in the pipeline and for leakage at the end user (Reference Manual, Table 1.58, page 1.121). 

These emissions are given as 118,000kgCH4/PJ on the basis of gas consumption, which is 0.6%. Leakage in the 

residential and commercial sectors is stated to be 0 to 87,000kgCH4/PJ, which equates to 0.4%, and in industrial 

plants and power station the losses are 0 to 175,000kg/CH4/PJ, which is 0.8%. These leakage estimates are 

compounded and multiplied. The methane destruction efficiency for bio gas injected into the natural gas transmission 

and distribution system can now be calculated as the product of these three efficiency factors, giving a total efficiency 

of (99.5% * 99.4% * 99.6%) 98.5% for residential and commercial sector users, and (99.5% * 99.4% * 99.2%) 98.1% 

for industrial plants and power stations.

31 If no effluent pond exists and project developers send digester effluent (VS) to compost piles or apply directly to 

land, for example, then the VS for these cases should also be tracked using equation 3b. 32 Per ACM0010 (V2 Annex I). 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

19

33 The Bo value for the project effluent pond is not differentiated by livestock category. Project developers could use 

the Bo value that corresponds with an average of the operation’s livestock categories that contributes manure to the 

biogas control system. Supporting laboratory data and documentation need to be supplied to the verifier to justify the 

alternative value. 
Equation 3c: Project methane emissions from non-biogas control system related 

sources34

001.0))(( ,4 ,4 ⎟×

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = ∑ × L

L

PE nBCSCH EF LCH PnBCSs

Where, 

PECH4, nBCS = methane from sources in the waste treatment and storage 

 category other than the biogas control system and 

 associated Effluent Pond (tCH4/yr) 

EFCH4,L (nBCSs) = emission factor for the livestock population 

 (kgCH4/head/year) from non-BCS-related sources – 

 (calculated below) 

PL = population of livestock category ‘L’ 

0.001 = conversion factor from kg to metric tonnes 

( ) ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

××××= ∑ ×

S

EF LCH nBCSs BVS LoL S MSMCF SL )( (67.0365 ) ,4 , ,

Where, 

 EFCH4,L (nBCSs) = methane emission factor for the livestock population 

 (kgCH4/head/year) from non-biogas control system related 

 sources 

VSL = volatile solids produced by livestock category ‘L’ 

 on a dry matter basis (kg/animal/day) – important - refer to Box 

2 for guidance on using appropriate units for VSL values from 

Appendix B. 

Bo,L = maximum methane producing capacity for manure for livestock 

category ‘L’ (m3

 CH4/kg of VS dry matter), Appendix B, Table 

B.3 or B.4 

365 = number of days in a year 

0.67 = conversion factor for m3

 to kg 

MCFS = methane conversion factor for system component ‘S’ (%), 

Appendix B, Table B.5 

MSL,S = percent of manure from livestock category L that is managed in 

non-BCS system component ‘S’ (%) 

V.5 Metered Methane Destruction Comparison 

As described above, the California Registry requires all projects to compare the modeled 

methane emission reductions for the reporting period, as calculated in equations 2a - 2c and 

3a - 3c above, with the actual metered amount of methane that is destroyed in the biogas 

control system over the same period. The lesser of the two values is to be used as the total 

methane emission reductions for the reporting period in question. 

In order to calculate the metered methane reductions, the monthly quantity of biogas that is 

metered and destroyed by the biogas control system must be aggregated over the reporting 

 

34 According to this protocol, non-BCS-related sources means manure management system components (system 

component ‘S’) other than the biogas control system and the BCS effluent pond (if used). 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

20

 
period. In the event that a project developer is reporting reductions for a period of time that is 

less than a full year, the total modeled methane emission reductions would be aggregated over 

this time period and compared with the metered methane that is destroyed in the biogas control 

system over the same period of time. For example, if a project is reporting and verifying only 6 

months of data, July – December for instance, then the modeled emission reductions over this 6 

month period would be compared to the total metered biogas destroyed over the same six 

month period, and the lesser of the two values would be used as the total methane emission 

reduction quantity for this 6 month period. 

Equation 4 below details the metered methane destruction calculation. 

Equation 4: Metered methane destruction 

( 21) ,4 = ∑ ,4 ××

months

CH destroyed CH meter BDE 

Where, 

 CH4,destroyed = The aggregated quantity of methane collected and destroyed 

 (tCO2e/yr) during the reporting period

 CH4,meter = the monthly quantity of methane collected and metered 

 (tCH4/month). See equation 3a for calculation guidance 

BDE = the monthly methane destruction efficiency of the combustion 

 device (% as a decimal). In the event that there is more than 

 one destruction device in operation in any given month, the 

 weighted average destruction efficiency from all combustion 

 devices is to be used. See equation 3a for calculation guidance

21 = Global Warming Potential factor of methane to carbon dioxide 

 equivalent 

Determining the methane emission reductions 

• If CH4,destroyed is less than (BECH4 – PECH4) as calculated in equations 2a - 2c and 3a - 3c for 

the reporting period, then the methane emission reductions are equal to CH4,destroyed.

• Otherwise, the methane emission reductions are equal to (BECH4 – PECH4). 

V.6 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Sources of carbon dioxide within the manure management system might not change as a result 

of the project, or could be insignificant. Therefore, project developers may conduct an 

assessment to determine if carbon dioxide emissions are considered de minimis. Project 

developers are only required to calculate and document fuel use for annual carbon dioxide 

emissions calculations if project carbon dioxide emissions show a variance greater than 5% of 

total baseline emissions. If project carbon dioxide emissions are found to be within 5% of total 

baseline emissions, then the project developer may use a best estimate technique to estimate 

these de minimis carbon dioxide emissions. All carbon dioxide must be reported within the GHG 

assessment boundary, including all estimated de minimis carbon dioxide emissions. 35

 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

21

35 This is consistent with guidance in the California Registry’s GRP and WRI’s GHG Project Protocol regarding the 

treatment of significant secondary effects. 
For mobile and stationary combustion sources, project developers multiply the quantity of fuel 

consumed by a fuel-specific emission factor (see Equation 5 below). Examples of sources 

include fossil fuel generators to power pumping systems or milking parlor equipment, Bobcats 

that operate in barns or freestalls, or manure hauling trucks. Mobile sources include vehicles 

that transport manure off-site. 

Carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of biogas are considered biogenic emissions (as 

opposed to anthropogenic) and will not be included in the project emissions calculation. 

For additional information on calculating mobile and stationary combustion sources, project 

developers can refer to the guidance in the California Registry’s General Reporting Protocol. 

Equation 5 below calculates the net change in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions resulting 

from the project activity. 

Equation 5: Carbon dioxide emission calculations 

CO2,net = (BECO2MSC - PECO2MSC) 

Where, 

CO2,net = net change in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from 

 Mobile and Stationary Combustion sources resulting from 

 project activity (tCO2/yr)

BECO2MSC = total annual baseline carbon dioxide emissions (tCO2/yr) from 

 Mobile and Stationary Combustion sources (see equation below) 

PECO2MSC = total annual project carbon dioxide emissions (tCO2/yr) from 

 Mobile and Stationary Combustion sources (see equation below) 

All stationary and mobile combustion are calculated using the equation: 

,2 ,2 ⎟× 001.0

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = ∑ c × fCO

c

CO MSC EFQF

Where, 

CO2MSC = anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (tCO2) from Mobile and 

Stationary Combustion sources 

EFCO2,f = fuel-specific emission factor f (kg CO2/MMBTU or kg CO2/gallon), 

General Reporting Protocol Appendix C 

QFc = quantity of fuel consumed for each mobile and stationary 

 emission source ‘c’ (MMBTU/yr or gallon/yr) 

0.001 = conversion factor from kg to metric tonnes 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

22
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

23

VI. Project Monitoring 

Project developers are responsible for monitoring the performance of the project and operating 

the biogas control system in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 

According to this protocol, methane emissions from the biogas control system are monitored 

with measurement equipment that directly meters 

• the continuous rate of biogas flow, and 

• the methane concentration of the biogas to the destruction devices, on a quarterly basis, 

and 

• the continuous flow rate of biogas to each destruction device. 

The hourly operational activity of the biogas collection system and the destruction devices shall 

be monitored and documented to ensure actual methane destruction. GHG reductions will not 

be accounted for during periods which the destruction device was not operational. The 

measurement equipment is sensitive for gas quality (humidity, particulate, etc.), so a strong 

QA/QC procedure for the calibration of this equipment is required. Monitoring instruments shall 

be inspected, cleaned and calibrated at least bi-annually. If a portable calibration instrument is 

used, such as a pitot tube or a calibrated portable gas analyzer, the portable instrument shall be 

calibrated at least annually at an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory. 

Project developers shall create a written monitoring plan which describes the frequency of data 

acquisition, the record keeping plan (see section VII.2 for minimum record keeping 

requirements) and the frequency of instrument calibration activities. The monitoring plan shall 

also include QA/QC provisions to ensure that data acquisition and meter calibration are carried 

out consistently and with precision. Figure 2 represents the suggested arrangement of the 

biogas flow meters and methane concentration metering equipment. 
Figure 2: Suggested arrangement of biogas metering equipment 

Digester F

CH4

Measurements:

F = Continuous flow 

rate of Biogas

CH4 = Quarterly 

measurement of the 

concentration of CH4 

in the Biogas.

F

F

F

F

Flare

IC Engine

Boiler

Upgrade to 

NG

 Note: The number of flow meters must be sufficient to track the total flow as well as the flow to each 

 combustion device. The above scenario includes one more flow meter than would be necessary to achieve 

 this objective. 

Flow meters should be installed along the header pipe at a section that provides a straight 

section of pipe sufficient to provide laminar gas flow, as turbulent flow resulting from bends or 

obstructions in the pipe can cause interference with flow measurements which rely on 

differential pressure.36

In situations where the flow rate or methane concentration monitoring equipment has failed a 

calibration test (tested to be outside of allowable 5% margin of error), or is missing data, the 

project developer should apply the data substitution methods provided for under the US EPA 

Acid Rain Program in 40 CFR Part 75 Subpart D 75.33.37 

In the event that the destruction device monitoring equipment is inoperable, then all metered 

biogas shall be assumed to be released to atmosphere during the period of inoperability by 

assuming a destruction efficiency of zero for the period of inoperability. In equation 3a the 

monthly destruction efficiency (BDE) value shall be adjusted accordingly. As an example, 

consider the primary destruction device to be an open flare with a BDE of 96% and it is found to 

be inoperable for a period of 5 days of a 30 day month. In this case the monthly BDE would be 

(0.96*25)/30 = 80%. 

Provisions for monitoring other variables to calculate baseline and project emissions are 

provided in table 2. The parameters are organized by general project factors then by the 

calculation methods. 

 

36 Solid Waste Association of North America, 1997. Landfill gas operation and maintenance, manual of practice. 

__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

24

37 Available at the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations website: www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

25

Table 2: Project Monitoring Parameters 

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

General Project Parameters 

Regulations 

Project developer 

attestation to 

compliance with 

regulatory 

requirements 

relating to the 

manure digester 

project 

Environmental 

regulations n/a Annual 

Information used to: 

1) To demonstrate ability 

to meet the Regulatory 

Test – where regulation 

would require the 

installation of a biogas 

control system. 

2) To demonstrate 

compliance with 

associated environmental 

rules, e.g., criteria 

pollutant and effluent 

discharge limits. 

Verifier: Determine 

regulatory agencies 

responsible for regulating 

livestock operation; 

Review regulations and 

site permits pertinent to 

livestock operation 

L 

Type of livestock 

categories on the 

farm 

Livestock 

categories o Monthly 

Select from list provided in 

Appendix B, Table B.2. 

Verifier: Review herd 

management software; 

Conduct site visit; 

Interview operator. 

MSL

Fraction of manure 

from each livestock 

category managed 

in the baseline 

waste handling 

system ‘S’ 

Percent (%) o Annually 

Reflects the percent of 

waste handled by the 

system components ‘S’ 

pre-project. Applicable to 

the entire operation. 

Within each livestock 

category, the sum of MS 

values (for all 

treatment/storage 

systems) equals 100%. 

Select from list provided in 

Appendix B, Table B.1. 

Verifier: Conduct site visit; 

Interview operator; Review 

baseline scenario 

documentation. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

26

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

PL

Average number of 

animals for each 

livestock category 

Population (# 

head) o Monthly 

Verifier: Review herd 

management software; 

Review local air and water 

quality agency reporting 

submissions, if available 

(e.g., in CA, dairies with 

more than 500 cows 

report farm information to 

CARB). 

MassL

Average live weight 

by livestock 

category kg o,r Monthly 

From operating records, or 

if onsite data is 

unavailable, from lookup 

table (Appendix B Table 

B.2). 

Verifier: Conduct site visit; 

Interview livestock 

operator; 

review average daily gain 

records, operating 

records. 

T 

Average monthly 

temperature at 

location of the 

operation 

o

C m/o Monthly 

Used for van’t Hoff 

Calculation and for 

choosing appropriate MCF 

value. 

Verifier: Review 

temperature records 

obtained from weather 

service. 

Baseline Methane Calculation Variables 

B0,L

Maximum methane 

producing capacity 

for manure by 

livestock category 

(m3

 CH4/kgVS) r Annually 

From Appendix B, Table 

B.3. 

Verifier: Verify correct 

value from table used. 

MCFS

Methane 

conversion factor 

for manure 

management 

system component 

‘S’ 

Percent (%) r Annually 

From Appendix B, Table 

B.5 

Differentiate by livestock 

category 

Verifier: Verify correct 

value from table used. 

VSL 

Daily volatile solid 

production (kg/animal/day) r,c Annually 

Appendix B, Tables B.3 

and B.4a-e; see Box 2 for 

guidance on converting 

units from (kg/day/1000kg) 

to (kg/animal/day). 

Verifier: Ensure 

appropriate year’s table is 

used; review data units. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

27

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

VSavail

Monthly volatile 

solids available for 

degradation in 

each anaerobic 

storage system, for 

each livestock 

category 

kg c,o Monthly 

Calculated value from 

operating records. 

Recommend CCAR 

Livestock Calculation Tool 

for all calculations. 

Verifier: Ensure proper 

use of CCAR Livestock 

Calculation Tool, review 

operating records 

VSdeg

Monthly volatile 

solids degraded in 

each anaerobic 

storage system, for 

each livestock 

category 

Kg c,o Monthly 

Calculated value from 

operating records. 

Recommend CCAR 

Livestock Calculation Tool 

for all calculations. 

Verifier: Ensure proper 

use of CCAR Livestock 

Calculation Tool, review 

operating records 

f van’t HoffArrhenius factor n/a c Monthly 

The proportion of volatile 

solids that are biologically 

available for conversion to 

methane based on the 

monthly temperature of 

the system. 

Recommend CCAR 

Livestock Calculation Tool 

for all calculations. 

Verifier: Ensure proper 

use of CCAR Livestock 

Calculation Tool, review 

calculation; review 

temperature data 

Project Methane Calculation Variables – BCS + Effluent Pond 

CH4, destroyed 

Aggregated 

amount of methane 

collected and 

destroyed in the 

biogas control 

system 

Metric tonnes of 

CH4 c,m Annually 

Calculated as the 

collected methane times 

the destruction efficiency 

(see the ‘CH4,meter ‘ and 

‘BDE’ parameters below) 

Verifier: Review meter 

reading data, confirm 

proper operation of the 

destruction device(s), 

ensure data is accurately 

aggregated over the 

correct amount of time. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

28

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

CH4,meter

Amount of 

methane collected 

and metered in 

biogas control 

system 

Metric tonnes of 

CH4 (tCH4) c,m Monthly 

Calculated from biogas 

flow and methane fraction 

meter readings (See ‘F’ 

and ‘CH4,conc’ parameters 

below). 

Verifier: Review meter 

reading data; confirm 

proper operation, in 

accordance with the 

manufacturer’s 

specifications, confirm 

meter calibration data. 

F 

Monthly volume of 

biogas from 

digester to 

destruction devices 

ft^3/month m 

Continuously, 

aggregated 

monthly 

Measured continuously 

from flow meter and 

recorded at least once 

every 15 minutes. Data to 

be aggregated monthly. 

Verifier: Review meter 

reading data; confirm 

proper aggregation of 

data; confirm proper 

operation in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s 

specifications and confirm 

meter calibration data. 

T Temperature of the 

biogas °R (Rankine) m 

Continuously, 

averaged 

Monthly 

Measured to normalize 

volume flow of biogas to 

STP. No separate 

monitoring of temperature 

is necessary when using 

flow meters that 

automatically measure 

temperature and pressure, 

expressing biogas 

volumes in normalized 

cubic feet. 

P Pressure of the 

biogas atm m 

Continuously, 

averaged 

Monthly 

Measured to normalize 

volume flow of biogas to 

STP. No separate 

monitoring of pressure is 

necessary when using 

flow meters that 

automatically measure 

temperature and pressure, 

expressing biogas 

volumes in normalized 

cubic feet. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

29

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

CH4,conc

Methane 

concentration of 

biogas 

Percent (%) m Quarterly 

Use a direct sampling 

approach that yields a 

value with at least 95% 

confidence. Samples to be 

taken at least quarterly. 

Calibrate monitoring 

instrument in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

Verifier: Review meter 

reading data; confirm 

proper operation, in 

accordance with the 

manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

BDE 

Methane 

destruction 

efficiency of 

destruction 

device(s) 

Percent (%) r,c Monthly 

Reflects the actual 

efficiency of the system to 

destroy captured methane 

gas - accounts for different 

destruction devices. See 

guidance and default 

factors in equation 3a. 

Verifier: Confirm proper 

and continuous operation 

in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

BCE 

Biogas capture 

efficiency of the 

anaerobic digester, 

accounts for gas 

leaks. 

Percent (%) r Annually 

Default value is 85%. 

Project developers may 

justify a higher BCE using 

verifiable evidence. 

Verifier: Review operation 

and maintenance records 

to ensure proper 

functionality of BCS. 

Assess claims that BCE is 

higher than default. 

VSep

Average daily 

volatile solid of 

digester effluent to 

effluent pond 

kg/day c Annually 

If project uses effluent 

pond, equals 30% of the 

average daily VS entering 

the digester (From 

ACM0010 -V2 Annex I) 

Verifier: Review VSep

calculations. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

30

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

MSL,BCS 

Fraction of manure 

from each livestock 

category managed 

in the biogas 

control system 

Percent (%) o Annually 

Used to determine the 

total VS entering the 

digester. The percentage 

should be tracked in 

operational records. 

Verifer: Check operational 

records and conduct site 

visit. 

Boep

Maximum methane 

producing capacity 

for manure to 

effluent pond 

(m3

 CH4/kgVS) c Annually 

An average of the Boep

value of the operation’s 

livestock categories that 

contributes manure to the 

biogas control system. 

Verifier: Check calculation. 

MCFep

Methane 

conversion factor 

for biogas control 

system effluent 

pond 

Percent (%) r Annually 

Appendix B, Table B.5, 

(From IPCC v.4, chapter 

10, Table 10.17) Project 

developers should use the 

liquid slurry MCF value. 

Verifier: Verify value from 

table. 

Project Methane Calculation Variables – Non-BCS Related Sources 

MSL,S

Fraction of manure 

from each livestock 

category managed 

in non-anaerobic 

manure 

management 

system component 

‘S’ 

Percent (%) o Monthly 

Based on configuration of 

manure management 

system, differentiated by 

livestock category. 

Verifier: Conduct site visit; 

interview operator. 

EFCH4,L

(nBCSs)

Methane emission 

factor for the 

livestock 

population from 

non-BCS-related 

sources 

(kgCH4/head/year) c Annually 

Emission factor for all nonBCS storage systems, 

differentiated by livestock 

category. See equation 

3c. Verifiers: review 

calculation, operations 

records. 

Baseline and Project CO2 Calculation Variables 

EFCO2,f

Fuel-specific 

emission factor for 

mobile and 

stationary 

combustion 

sources 

kg CO2/MMBTU 

or 

kg CO2/gallon 

r Annually 

Refer to CCAR GRP V.3.0 

for emission factors. If 

biogas produced from 

digester is used as an 

energy source, the EF is 

zero. 

Verifier: review emission 

factors 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

31

Parameter Description Data unit

calculated (c) 

measured (m) 

reference(r) 

operating 

records (o)

Measurement 

frequency Comment

QFc

Quantity of fuel 

used for 

mobile/stationary 

combustion 

sources 

MMBTU/year 

Or 

Gallon/year 

o,c Annually 

Fuel used by project for 

manure collection, 

transport, 

treatment/storage, and 

disposal, and stationary 

combustion sources 

including supplemental 

fossil fuels used in 

combustion device. 

Verifer: Review operating 

records and quantity 

calculation. 

VII. Reporting Parameters 

This section provides guidance on reporting rules and procedures. A priority of the California 

Registry is to facilitate consistent and transparent information disclosure among project 

developers. All direct methane and carbon dioxide must be reported within the GHG 

assessment boundary, including all estimated de minimis carbon dioxide emissions. Project 

developers must submit verified emission reduction reports to the California Registry, and it is 

recommended that the California Registry Livestock Calculation Tool be used for all 

calculations. 

VII.1 Project submittal documentation 

Project developers provide the following information to the California Registry before registering 

reductions associated with the installation of a biogas control system. 

• Completed project submittal form (see Appendix D) 

• Signed attestation of title document 

• Complete project verification report 

• Positive verification opinion document 

At a minimum, the above project documentation will be available to the public via the California 

Registry’s online reporting tool – The Climate Action Reserve (Reserve).38 Project developers 

will also have the option to make other documentation available for public viewing, such as the 

California Registry Livestock Calculation Tool. 

 

38 Project Submittal forms and project registration information can be found at: 

http://www.climateregistry.org/offsets/project-registration.html . 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

32

 

VII.2 Record Keeping 

For purposes of independent verification and historical documentation, project developers shall 

be required to keep all information outlined in this protocol for a period of 10 years after the 

information is generated or 7 years after the last verification. 

System Information: 

• All data inputs for the calculation of the baseline emissions and project emission 

reductions 

• CO2e annual tonnage calculations 

• Relevant sections of the biogas control system operating permits 

• Project developer attestation to compliance with regulatory requirements relating to the 

livestock project 

• Project developer attestation that the livestock project was not undertaken to become 

compliant with any regulatory requirements 

• Biogas control system information (installation dates, equipment list, etc.) 

• Biogas flow meter information (model number, serial number, manufacturer’s calibration 

procedures) 

• Methane monitor information (model number, serial number, calibration procedures) 

• Biogas flow data (for each flow meter) 

• Biogas flow meter calibration data (for each flow meter) 

• Biogas temperature and pressure readings (only if flow meter does not correct for 

temperature and pressure automatically) 

• Methane concentration monitoring data 

• Methane concentration monitor calibration data 

• Destruction device monitoring data (for each destruction device) 

• Destruction device, methane monitor and biogas flow monitor information (model 

numbers, serial numbers, calibration procedures) 

• Initial and annual verification records and results 

• All maintenance records relevant to the biogas control system, monitoring equipment, 

and destruction devices. 

If using a calibrated portable gas analyzer for CH4 content measurement 

• Date, time, and location of methane measurement 

• Methane content of biogas (% by volume) for each measurement 

• Methane measurement instrument type and serial number 

• Date, time, and results of instrument calibration 

• Corrective measures taken if instrument does not meet performance specifications 

VII.3 Reporting cycle 

For the purposes of this protocol, project developers report GHG reductions associated with 

installing a biogas control system that occurred the preceding year. Although projects must be 

verified annually at a minimum, the California Registry will accept verified emission reduction 

reports on a sub-annual basis, should the project developer choose to have a sub-annual 

verification schedule (i.e. monthly, quarterly, etc.). 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

33

VII.4 Project crediting period 

Project developers are eligible to register GHG reductions with the California Registry according 

to this protocol for a period of ten years. The first reduction year commences the year the 

biogas control system becomes operational. As described above, a system is operating if it is 

capturing and destroying methane gas from the treatment of the project developer’s livestock 

waste. 

VII.5 Non-California Climate Action Registry reporting

The California Registry requests that project developers only register reductions from manure 

management GHG reduction projects with one registry. However, under a voluntary system, 

enforcement authority is limited. Therefore, if a project developer participates in this program it 

is their responsibility to transparently disclose the registration of all reductions associated with 

the project activity that occur outside of the California Registry. In the event that GHG 

reductions from the project were previously registered with or claimed by another registry or 

program, or sold to a third party prior to submitting the project to the California Registry, a 

Project Transfer Form must be completed and submitted to the California Registry along with 

other project listing documentation. If the Registry determines that duplicative emissions 

reductions registration has occurred, all duplicate reductions reported with the Registry will be 

made void. 

VIII. Glossary of Terms 

Accredited verifier: A verification firm approved by the California Registry to provide 

verification services for project developers. 

Additionality: Manure Management practices that are above and beyond business-as-usual 

operation, exceed the baseline characterization, and are not mandated by regulation. 

Anaerobic: Pertaining to or caused by the absence of oxygen. 

Anthropogenic Emissions: GHG emissions resultant from human activity that are considered 

to be an unnatural component of the Carbon Cycle (i.e. fossil fuel combustion, de-forestation 

etc.). 

Biogas: The mixture of gas (largely methane) produced as a result of the anaerobic 

decomposition of livestock manure. 

Biogas Control System (BCS): A system designed to capture and destroy the biogas that is 

produced by the anaerobic treatment and/or storage of livestock manure and/or other organic 

material. Commonly referred to as a “digester.” 

Biogenic CO2 Emissions: CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion and/or aerobic 

decomposition of organic matter. Biogenic emissions are considered to be a natural part of the 

carbon cycle, as opposed to anthropogenic emissions. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2): The most common of the six primary greenhouse gases, consisting of a 

single carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

34

CO2 Equivalent (CO2e): The quantity of a given GHG multiplied by its total global warming 

potential. This is the standard unit for comparing the degree of warming which can be caused 

by different GHGs. 

De minimis: Those emissions reported for a source or sources that are calculated using 

alternative methods selected by the operator, subject to the limits specified in this protocol. 

Direct Emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the 

reporting entity. 

Emission factor: A unique value for determining an amount of a greenhouse gas emitted for a 

given quantity of activity data (e.g. metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted per barrel of fossil 

fuel burned.). 

Flare: A destruction device that uses an open flame to burn combustible gases with combustion 

air provided by uncontrolled ambient air around the flame. 

Fossil fuel: A fuel, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, produced by the decomposition of ancient 

(fossilized) plants and animals. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG): means carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), or perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 

Global Warming Potential (GWP): The ratio of radiative forcing (degree of warming to the 

atmosphere) that would result from the emission of one unit of a given GHG compared to one 

unit of CO2. 

Indirect Emissions: Emissions that are a consequence of the actions of a reporting entity, but 

are produced by sources owned or controlled by another entity. 

Livestock Project: Installation of a Biogas Control System that, in operation, causes a 

decrease in GHG emissions from the baseline scenario through destruction of the methane 

component of biogas. 

Metric tonne (MT) or “tonne”: A common international measurement for the quantity of GHG 

emissions, equivalent to about 2204.6 pounds or 1.1 short tons. 

Methane (CH4): a potent GHG with a GWP of 21, consisting of a single carbon atom and four 

hydrogen atoms. 

MMBtu: One million British thermal units. 

Mobile combustion: Emissions from the transportation of materials, products, waste, and 

employees resulting from the combustion of fuels in company owned or controlled mobile 

combustion sources (e.g. cars, trucks, tractors, dozers, etc.). 

Nitrous oxide (N2O): a GHG consisting of two nitrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom. 

Project Baseline: A business-as-usual GHG emission assessment against which GHG 

emission reductions from a specific GHG reduction activity are measured. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

35

 

Project Developer: An entity that undertakes a project activity, as identified in the Livestock 

Project Protocol. A project developer may be an independent third party or the Dairy/Swine 

operating entity. 

Stationary combustion source: A stationary source of emissions from the production of 

electricity, heat, or steam, resulting from combustion of fuels in boilers, furnaces, turbines, kilns, 

and other facility equipment. 

van’t Hoff-Arrhenius factor: The proportion of volatile solids that are biologically available for 

conversion to methane based on the monthly temperature of the system.39

Verification: The process used to ensure that a given participant’s greenhouse gas emissions 

or emissions reductions have met the minimum quality standard and complied with the 

California Registry’s procedures and protocols for calculating and reporting GHG emissions and 

emission reductions. 

Verification body: A California Registry and state of California accredited firm that is able to 

render a verification opinion and provide verification services for operators subject to reporting 

under this protocol. 

39 Mangino, et al. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

36

IX. References 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Standard: ASAE D384.2 (2005). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty 

Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2001). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management (2006). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories, Chapter 11: N20 Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime 

and Urea Application (2006). 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Draft Model Rule (January 2007). 

Mangino, J., Bartram, D. and Brazy, A. Development of a methane conversion factor to estimate 

emissions from animal waste lagoons. Presented at U.S. EPA's 17th Annual Emission Inventory 

Conference, Atlanta GA, April 16-18, 2001. 

Solid Waste Association of North America, Landfill gas operation and maintenance, manual of 

practice (1997) 

Seebold, J.G., et. Al., Reaction Efficiency of Industrial Flares: The Perspective of the Past 

(2003) 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Revisions to the 

Approved Consolidated Baseline Methodology ACM0010, “Consolidated baseline methodology 

for greenhouse gas emission reductions from manure management systems,” Clean 

Development Mechanism, Version 02, Sectoral Scopes 13 and 15 (2006). 

U.S. Department, of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation 

Practice Standard, Anaerobic Digester—Ambient Temperature, No. 365 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Practice 

Standard, Anaerobic Digester—Controlled Temperature, No. 366 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Practice 

Standard, Waste Storage Facility, No. 313 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Practice 

Standard, Waste Treatment Lagoon, No. 359 

U.S. Department of Energy 1605(b) Technical Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Program 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

37

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990-2002, 1990-2003, 1990-2004, 1990-2005, and 1990-2006. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Climate Leaders, Draft Manure Offset Protocol, 

(October 2006). 

Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency AgStar Program, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural 

Development, Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion 

Systems for Livestock Manures (January 2007). 

World Resource Institute and World Business Counsel for Sustainable Development, 

Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting (November 2005). 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

38

Appendix A – Associated Environmental Impacts 

Manure management projects have many documented environmental benefits, including air 

emissions reductions, water quality protection, and electricity generation. These benefits are 

the result of practices and technologies that are well managed, well implemented, and well 

designed. However, in cases where practices or technologies are poorly or improperly 

designed, implemented, and/or managed, local air and water quality could be compromised. 

With regard to air quality, there are a number of factors that must be considered and addressed 

to realize the environmental benefits of a biogas project and reduce or avoid potential negative 

impacts. Uncontrolled emissions from combustion of biogas may contain between 200 to 300 

ppm NOx. The anaerobic treatment process creates intermediates such as ammonia, hydrogen 

sulfide, orthophosphates, and various salts, all of which must be properly controlled or captured. 

In addition, atmospheric releases at locations off-site where bio-gas is shipped may negate or 

decrease the benefit of emissions controls on-site. Thus, while devices such as Selective 

Catalyst Reduction (SCR) units can reduce NOx emissions and proper treatment system 

operation can control intermediates, improper design or operation may lead to violations of 

federal, state, and local air quality regulations as well as release of toxic air contaminants. 

With regard to water quality, it is critical that project developers and managers ensure digester 

integrity and fully consider and address post-digestion management of the effluent in order to 

avoid contamination of local waterways and groundwater resources. Catastrophic digester 

failures; leakage from pipework and tanks; and lack of containment in waste storage areas are 

all examples of potential problems. Further, application of improperly treated digestate and/or 

improper application timing or rates of digestate to agricultural land may lead to increased 

nitrogen oxide emissions, soil contamination, and/or nutrient leaching, thus negating or reducing 

benefits of the project overall. 

Project developers must not only follow the protocol to register GHG reductions with the 

California Registry, they must also comply with all local, state, and national air and water quality 

regulations. Projects must be designed and implemented to mitigate potential releases of 

pollutants such as those described, and project managers must acquire the appropriate local 

permits prior to installation to prevent violation of the law. 

The California Registry agrees that GHG emission reduction projects should not undermine air 

and water quality efforts and will work with stakeholders to establish initiatives to meet both 

climate-related and localized environmental objectives. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

39

Appendix B – Emission Factor Tables 

Table B.1: Manure management system components 

System Definition 

Pasture/Range/ Paddock The manure from pasture and range grazing animals is allowed to lie as deposited, and is not managed. Daily spread Manure is routinely removed from a confinement facility and is applied to cropland or pasture within 24 hoSolid storage The storage of manure, typically for a period of several months, in unconfined piles or stacks. Manure is 

presence of a sufficient amount of bedding material or loss of moisture by evaporation. 

Dry lot A paved or unpaved open confinement area without any significant vegetative cover where accumulating 

periodically. 

Liquid/Slurry Manure is stored as excreted or with some minimal addition of water in either tanks or earthen ponds outs

usually for periods less than one year. 

Uncovered anaerobic lagoon 

A type of liquid storage system designed and operated to combine waste stabilization and storage. Lagooto remove manure from the associated confinement facilities to the lagoon. Anaerobic lagoons are design

storage (up to a year or greater), depending on the climate region, the volatile solids loading rate, and oth

water from the lagoon may be recycled as flush water or used to irrigate and fertilize fields. 

Pit storage below animal confinements 

Collection and storage of manure usually with little or no added water typically below a slatted floor in an 

facility, usually for periods less than one year. 

Anaerobic digester Animal excreta with or without straw are collected and anaerobically digested in a large containment vess

Digesters are designed and operated for waste stabilization by the microbial reduction of complex organic 

which is captured and flared or used as a fuel. 

Burned for fuel The dung and urine are excreted on fields. The sun dried dung cakes are burned for fuel. Cattle and Swine deep bedding 

As manure accumulates, bedding is continually added to absorb moisture over a production cycle and pomonths. This manure management system also is known as a bedded pack manure management system dry lot or pasture. 

Composting – in-vessel* Composting, typically in an enclosed channel, with forced aeration and continuous mixing. Composting – Static pile* Composting in piles with forced aeration but no mixing. Composting – Intensive windrow* 

Composting in windrows with regular (at least daily) turning for mixing and aeration. 

Composting – Passive windrow* 

Composting in windrows with infrequent turning for mixing and aeration. 

Aerobic treatment The biological oxidation of manure collected as a liquid with either forced or natural aeration. Natural aeration is limite

and wetland systems and is due primarily to photosynthesis. Hence, these systems typically become anoxic during p

*Composting is the biological oxidation of a solid waste including manure usually with bedding or another organic carbon source typically at thermop

microbial heat production. 

Source: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management, Table 1Management Systems, p. 10.49.
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

40

Table B.2: Livestock categories and Typical Average Mass (TAM)

Livestock Category (L) Livestock Typical Average Mass 

(TAM) in kg 

Dairy cows (on feed) 604b

Non-milking dairy cows (on feed) 684a

Heifers (on feed) 476b

Bulls (grazing) 750b

Calves (grazing) 118b

Heifers (grazing) 420b

Cows (grazing) 533b

Nursery swine 12.5a

Grow/finish swine 70a

Breeding swine 198b

Sources for TAM:

a. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Standards 2005, ASAE D384.2. b. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006 

(2007), Annex 3, Table A-161, pg. A-195. 

Table B.3: Volatile Solids and Maximum Methane Potential by Livestock 

Category 

Livestock category (L) VSL 

(kg/day/1,000 kg mass) 

Bo,L 

b

 

(m3

 CH4/kg VS added) 

Dairy cows See Appendix B Tables 4a-e 0.24 

Non-milking dairy cows 5.56 0.24 

Heifers See Appendix B, Table 4a-e 0.17 

Bulls (grazing) 6.04b 0.17 

Calves (grazing) 6.41b 0.17 

Heifers (grazing) See Appendix B, Tables 4a-e 0.17 

Cows (grazing) See Appendix B, Tables 4a-e 0.17 

Nursery swine 8.89b 0.48 

Grow/finish swine 5.36b 0.48 

Breeding swine 2.71b 0.35 

Sources:

a. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Standards 2005, ASAE D384.2, VSL(kg/day per 

animal) from table 1.b (p.2) converted to (kg/day per 1,000 kg mass) using average Live Weight 

(kg)values from table 5c (p.7). 

b. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-Climate Leaders, Draft Manure Offset Protocol, October 

2006, Table IIa: Animal Waste Characteristics (VS, Bo, and Nex rates), p. 18. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

41

Table B.4.a: 2006 Volatile Solid default values for Dairy Cows, Heifers, Heifers-Grazing and 

Cows-Grazing by State (Kg/day/1,000 Kg mass) 

State VS Dairy Cow VS Heifer VS Heifer –Grazing VS Cows-Grazing 

Alabama 8.28 6.64 7.55 6.74 

Alaska 7.87 7.09 9.96 8.71 

Arizona 11.41 7.09 9.99 8.71 

Arkansas 7.55 6.48 7.53 6.72 

California 9.59 6.13 7.37 6.57 

Colorado 9.98 6.10 6.93 6.19 

Connecticut 8.87 6.10 7.42 6.62 

Delaware 8.33 6.10 7.43 6.62 

Florida 8.88 6.64 7.55 6.74 

Georgia 9.45 6.64 7.56 6.74 

Hawaii 8.20 7.09 9.97 8.71 

Idaho 11.23 7.09 10.02 8.71 

Illinois 8.84 6.10 7.45 6.63 

Indiana 9.07 6.10 7.44 6.63 

Iowa 9.11 6.10 7.46 6.63 

Kansas 9.34 6.10 6.93 6.19 

Kentucky 7.89 6.64 7.56 6.74 

Louisiana 7.28 6.48 7.52 6.72 

Maine 8.47 6.10 7.42 6.62 

Maryland 8.23 6.10 7.43 6.62 

Massachusetts 8.31 6.10 7.41 6.62 

Michigan 9.70 6.10 7.44 6.63 

Minnesota 8.66 6.10 7.45 6.63 

Mississippi 8.38 6.64 7.55 6.74 

Missouri 7.91 6.10 7.43 6.63 

Montana 8.67 6.10 6.90 6.19 

Nebraska 8.59 6.10 6.93 6.19 

Nevada 10.68 7.09 9.99 8.71 

New Hampshire 8.94 6.10 7.42 6.62 

New Jersey 7.97 6.10 7.43 6.62 

New Mexico 10.96 7.09 10.00 8.71 

New York 8.75 6.10 7.44 6.62 

North Carolina 9.53 6.64 7.56 6.74 

North Dakota 7.53 6.10 6.91 6.19 

Ohio 8.42 6.10 7.44 6.63 

Oklahoma 8.58 6.48 7.55 6.72 

Oregon 10.12 7.09 9.99 8.71 

Pennsylvania 8.89 6.10 7.44 6.62 

Rhode Island 8.28 6.10 7.42 6.62 

South Carolina 8.86 6.64 7.55 6.74 

South Dakota 8.66 6.10 6.92 6.19 

Tennessee 8.64 6.64 7.56 6.74 

Texas 10.02 6.48 7.56 6.72 

Utah 10.55 7.09 10.00 8.71 

Vermont 8.60 6.10 7.43 6.62 

Virginia 9.17 6.64 7.56 6.74 

Washington 11.47 7.09 10.01 8.71 

West Virginia 7.73 6.10 7.43 6.62 

Wisconsin 8.73 6.10 7.44 6.63 

Wyoming 8.38 6.10 6.91 6.19 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-US Inventory of GHG Sources and Sinks 1990-2006 (Draft) (2007), Annex A 

Table A -163 pg. A -186. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

42

Table B.4.b: 2005 Volatile Solid default values for Dairy Cows, Heifers, Heifers-Grazing and 

Cows-Grazing by State (Kg/day/1,000 Kg mass) 

State VS Dairy Cow VS Heifer VS Heifer –Grazing VS Cows-Grazing 

Alabama 8.76 6.81 7.21 6.74 

Alaska 11.03 6.81 9.47 8.71 

Arizona 11.03 6.81 9.53 8.71 

Arkansas 9.19 7.56 7.19 6.72 

California 9.47 6.81 7.06 6.57 

Colorado 8.97 6.81 6.66 6.19 

Connecticut 8.62 6.13 7.09 6.62 

Delaware 8.62 6.13 7.13 6.62 

Florida 8.76 6.81 7.19 6.74 

Georgia 8.76 6.81 7.22 6.74 

Hawaii 11.03 6.81 9.49 8.71 

Idaho 11.03 6.81 9.58 8.71 

Illinois 8.74 6.81 7.14 6.63 

Indiana 8.74 6.81 7.13 6.63 

Iowa 8.74 6.81 7.16 6.63 

Kansas 8.97 6.81 6.67 6.19 

Kentucky 8.76 6.81 7.23 6.74 

Louisiana 9.19 7.56 7.18 6.72 

Maine 8.62 6.13 7.08 6.62 

Maryland 8.62 6.13 7.11 6.62 

Massachusetts 8.62 6.13 7.07 6.62 

Michigan 8.74 6.81 7.13 6.63 

Minnesota 8.74 6.81 7.14 6.63 

Mississippi 8.76 6.81 7.21 6.74 

Missouri 8.74 6.81 7.11 6.63 

Montana 8.97 6.81 6.59 6.19 

Nebraska 8.97 6.81 6.66 6.19 

Nevada 11.03 6.81 9.54 8.71 

New Hampshire 8.62 6.13 7.08 6.62 

New Jersey 8.62 6.13 7.10 6.62 

New Mexico 11.03 6.81 9.55 8.71 

New York 8.62 6.13 7.13 6.62 

North Carolina 8.76 6.81 7.20 6.74 

North Dakota 8.97 6.81 6.63 6.19 

Ohio 8.74 6.81 7.11 6.63 

Oklahoma 9.19 7.56 7.23 6.72 

Oregon 11.03 6.81 9.54 8.71 

Pennsylvania 8.62 6.13 7.12 6.62 

Rhode Island 8.62 6.13 7.08 6.62 

South Carolina 8.76 6.81 7.21 6.74 

South Dakota 8.97 6.81 6.64 6.19 

Tennessee 8.76 6.81 7.21 6.74 

Texas 9.19 7.56 7.24 6.72 

Utah 11.03 6.81 9.55 8.71 

Vermont 8.62 6.13 7.10 6.62 

Virginia 8.76 6.81 7.23 6.74 

Washington 11.03 6.81 9.59 8.71 

West Virginia 8.62 6.13 7.09 6.62 

Wisconsin 8.74 6.81 7.12 6.63 

Wyoming 8.97 6.81 6.62 6.19 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-US Inventory of GHG Sources and Sinks 1990-2005 (2006), Annex A Table 

A -163 pg. A -186.
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

43

Table B.4.c: 2004 Volatile Solid default values for Dairy Cows, Heifers, Heifers-Grazing and 

Cows-Grazing by State (Kg/day/1,000 Kg mass) 

State VS Dairy Cow VS Heifer VS Heifer –Grazing VS Cows-Grazing 

Alabama 8.47 6.81 7.24 6.74 

Alaska 10.87 6.81 9.52 8.71 

Arizona 10.87 6.81 9.57 8.71 

Arkansas 8.55 7.56 7.23 6.72 

California 9.35 6.81 7.12 6.57 

Colorado 8.64 6.81 6.75 6.19 

Connecticut 8.41 6.13 7.14 6.62 

Delaware 8.41 6.13 7.26 6.62 

Florida 8.47 6.81 7.21 6.74 

Georgia 8.47 6.81 7.24 6.74 

Hawaii 10.87 6.81 9.56 8.71 

Idaho 10.87 6.81 9.68 8.71 

Illinois 8.51 6.81 7.22 6.63 

Indiana 8.51 6.81 7.2 6.63 

Iowa 8.51 6.81 7.25 6.63 

Kansas 8.64 6.81 6.75 6.19 

Kentucky 8.47 6.81 7.28 6.74 

Louisiana 8.55 7.56 7.19 6.72 

Maine 8.41 6.13 7.11 6.62 

Maryland 8.41 6.13 7.17 6.62 

Massachusetts 8.41 6.13 7.11 6.62 

Michigan 8.51 6.81 7.2 6.63 

Minnesota 8.51 6.81 7.21 6.63 

Mississippi 8.47 6.81 7.23 6.74 

Missouri 8.51 6.81 7.17 6.63 

Montana 8.64 6.81 6.61 6.19 

Nebraska 8.64 6.81 6.75 6.19 

Nevada 10.87 6.81 9.6 8.71 

New Hampshire 8.41 6.13 7.11 6.62 

New Jersey 8.41 6.13 7.15 6.62 

New Mexico 10.87 6.81 9.64 8.71 

New York 8.41 6.13 7.19 6.62 

North Carolina 8.47 6.81 7.23 6.74 

North Dakota 8.64 6.81 6.69 6.19 

Ohio 8.51 6.81 7.18 6.63 

Oklahoma 8.55 7.56 7.3 6.72 

Oregon 10.87 6.81 9.62 8.71 

Pennsylvania 8.41 6.13 7.18 6.62 

Rhode Island 8.41 6.13 7.11 6.62 

South Carolina 8.47 6.81 7.25 6.74 

South Dakota 8.64 6.81 6.7 6.19 

Tennessee 8.47 6.81 7.24 6.74 

Texas 8.55 7.56 7.32 6.72 

Utah 10.87 6.81 9.62 8.71 

Vermont 8.41 6.13 7.15 6.62 

Virginia 8.47 6.81 7.27 6.74 

Washington 10.87 6.81 9.69 8.71 

West Virginia 8.41 6.13 7.13 6.62 

Wisconsin 8.51 6.81 7.17 6.63 

Wyoming 8.64 6.81 6.66 6.19 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-US Inventory of GHG Sources and Sinks 1990-2004 (2005), Annex 3 Table 

A -158 pg. A -186. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

44

Table B.4.d: 2003 Volatile Solid default values for Dairy Cows, Heifers, Heifers-Grazing and 

Cows-Grazing by State (Kg/day/1,000 Kg mass) 

State VS Dairy Cow VS Heifer VS Heifer –Grazing VS Cows-Grazing 

Alabama 8.5 6.82 7.22 6.74 

Alaska 10.87 6.82 9.5 8.71 

Arizona 10.87 6.82 9.53 8.71 

Arkansas 8.58 7.57 7.2 6.72 

California 9.38 6.82 7.06 6.57 

Colorado 8.68 6.82 6.67 6.19 

Connecticut 8.44 6.14 7.13 6.62 

Delaware 8.44 6.14 7.14 6.62 

Florida 8.5 6.82 7.2 6.74 

Georgia 8.5 6.82 7.22 6.74 

Hawaii 10.87 6.82 9.52 8.71 

Idaho 10.87 6.82 9.59 8.71 

Illinois 8.54 6.82 7.15 6.63 

Indiana 8.54 6.82 7.13 6.63 

Iowa 8.54 6.82 7.17 6.63 

Kansas 8.68 6.82 6.67 6.19 

Kentucky 8.5 6.82 7.24 6.74 

Louisiana 8.58 7.57 7.08 6.72 

Maine 8.44 6.14 7.18 6.62 

Maryland 8.44 6.14 7.11 6.62 

Massachusetts 8.44 6.14 7.12 6.62 

Michigan 8.54 6.82 7.13 6.63 

Minnesota 8.54 6.82 7.14 6.63 

Mississippi 8.5 6.82 7.21 6.74 

Missouri 8.54 6.82 7.12 6.63 

Montana 8.68 6.82 6.6 6.19 

Nebraska 8.68 6.82 6.67 6.19 

Nevada 10.87 6.82 9.54 8.71 

New Hampshire 8.44 6.14 7.08 6.62 

New Jersey 8.44 6.14 7.11 6.62 

New Mexico 10.87 6.82 9.56 8.71 

New York 8.44 6.14 7.14 6.62 

North Carolina 8.5 6.82 7.21 6.74 

North Dakota 8.68 6.82 6.64 6.19 

Ohio 8.54 6.82 7.12 6.63 

Oklahoma 8.58 7.57 7.24 6.72 

Oregon 10.87 6.82 9.55 8.71 

Pennsylvania 8.44 6.14 7.12 6.62 

Rhode Island 8.44 6.14 7.08 6.62 

South Carolina 8.5 6.82 7.22 6.74 

South Dakota 8.68 6.82 6.64 6.19 

Tennessee 8.5 6.82 7.22 6.74 

Texas 8.58 7.57 7.25 6.72 

Utah 10.87 6.82 9.55 8.71 

Vermont 8.44 6.14 7.12 6.62 

Virginia 8.5 6.82 7.23 6.74 

Washington 10.87 6.82 9.59 8.71 

West Virginia 8.44 6.14 7.1 6.62 

Wisconsin 8.54 6.82 7.12 6.63 

Wyoming 8.68 6.82 6.63 6.19 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-US Inventory of GHG Sources and Sinks 1990-2003 (2004), Annex 3 Table 3 

-90 pg. 187. 
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry 

Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

45

Table B.4.e: 2002 Volatile Solid default values for Dairy Cows, Heifers, Heifers-Grazing and 

Cows-Grazing by State (Kg/day/1,000 Kg mass) 

State VS Dairy Cow VS Heifer VS Heifer –Grazing VS Cows-Grazing 

Alabama 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Alaska 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

Arizona 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

Arkansas 8.36 7.57 7.15 6.72 

California 9.44 6.82 6.98 6.57 

Colorado 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Connecticut 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Delaware 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Florida 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Georgia 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Hawaii 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

Idaho 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

Illinois 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Indiana 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Iowa 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Kansas 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Kentucky 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Louisiana 8.36 7.57 7.15 6.72 

Maine 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Maryland 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Massachusetts 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Michigan 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Minnesota 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Mississippi 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Missouri 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Montana 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Nebraska 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Nevada 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

New Hampshire 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

New Jersey 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

New Mexico 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

New York 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

North Carolina 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

North Dakota 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Ohio 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Oklahoma 8.36 7.57 7.15 6.72 

Oregon 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

Pennsylvania 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Rhode Island 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

South Carolina 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

South Dakota 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Tennessee 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Texas 8.36 7.57 7.15 6.72 

Utah 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

Vermont 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Virginia 8.61 6.82 7.17 6.74 

Washington 10.86 6.82 9.44 8.71 

West Virginia 8.52 6.14 7.04 6.62 

Wisconsin 8.38 6.82 7.04 6.63 

Wyoming 8.53 6.82 6.55 6.19 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-US Inventory of GHG Sources and Sinks 1990-2002 (2003), Annex 3 Table 3 

-79 pg. 177.
__________________________ 46

California Climate Action Registry Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

Table B.5: IPCC 2006 Methane Conversion Factors by Manure Management System Component/Metha

MCF VALUES BY TEMPERATURE FOR MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

MCFs by average annual temperature (°C) 

Cool Temperate Warm Systema

≤ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ≥ 

Pasture/Range/Paddock 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% Daily spread 0.1% 0.5% 1.0% Solid storage 2.0% 4.0% 5.0% Dry lot 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 

With natural crust cover 

10% 11% 13% 14% 15% 17% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 29% 31% 34% 37% 41% 44% 48% 50

Liquid/Slurry 

Without natural crust cover 

17% 19% 20% 22% 25% 27% 29% 32% 35% 39% 42% 46% 50% 55% 60% 65% 71% 78% 80

40 From 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Managemen
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

47

MCF VALUES BY TEMPERATURE FOR MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

MCFs by average annual temperature (°C) 

Cool Temperate Warm Systema

≤ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ≥ 

Uncovered anaerobic lagoon 66% 68% 70% 71% 73% 74% 75% 76% 77% 77% 78% 78% 78% 79% 79% 79% 79% 80% 8

< 1 month 3% 3% 3% 

Pit storage below animal confinements 

> 1 month 17% 19% 20% 22% 25% 27% 29% 32% 35% 39% 42% 46% 50% 55% 60% 65% 71% 78% 8
__________________________ 

California Climate Action Registry Livestock Project Reporting Protocol 

48

MCF VALUES BY TEMPERATURE FOR MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

MCFs by average annual temperature (°C) 

Cool Temperate Warm Systema

≤ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ≥ 28 

Anaerobic digester 0-100% 0-100% 0-100% Burned for fuel 10% 10% 10% Cattle and Swine deep bedding 

< 1 month 3% 3% 30% 

Cattle and Swine deep bedding (cont.) 

> 1 month 17% 19% 20% 22% 25% 27% 29% 32% 35% 39% 42% 46% 50% 55% 60% 65% 71% 78% 90% 

Composting - 

In-vesselb 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

Composting - 

Static pileb 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

Composting - 

Intensive windrowb 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 

Composting – Passive 

windrowb 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 

Aerobic treatment 0% 0% 0% a Definitions for manure management systems are provided in Table 1. b Composting is the biological oxidation of a solid waste including manure usually with bedding or another organic carbon source typically at thermophilic teheat production.
Appendix C – Summary of the Performance Standard 

Paper 

The analysis to establish a Performance Standard for the Manure Management Project 

Protocol was undertaken by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and 

independent consultant Kathryn Bickel. It took place at the end of 2006. The analysis 

culminated in a paper that provided a Performance Standard recommendation to support 

the California Registry’s protocol development process, which the California Registry 

has incorporated into the protocol’s eligibility rules (see Section III).41

The purpose of a Performance Standard is to establish a threshold that is significantly 

better than average greenhouse gas (GHG) production for a specified service, which, if 

met or exceeded by a project developer, satisfies the criterion of “additionality”. The 

California Registry’s project protocol focuses on the following direct emission reduction 

activity: capturing and combusting methane from managing livestock manure. Therefore, 

in this case the methane emissions correspond to GHG production, and manure 

treatment/storage correspond to the specified service. 

The analysis to establish the Performance Standard evaluated U.S. and Californiaspecific data on dairy and swine manure management systems. Ultimately, it 

recommended a practice-based/technology-specific GHG emissions Performance 

Standard – i.e., the installation of a manure digester (or biogas control system, more 

generally). The paper had the following sections: 

• The livestock industry in the U.S. and California, 

• Livestock manure management practices, 

• GHG emissions from livestock manure management, 

• Data on livestock manure management practices in the U.S. and California, 

• Current and anticipated regulations in California impacting manure management 

practices, 

• Recommendation for a performance threshold for livestock operations, and 

• Considerations for baseline determinations. 

Overview of data collection

Conditions for methane generation exist under manure treatment and storage, namely 

anaerobic lagoons and/or storage ponds. The distribution of livestock across different 

sized operations can be an important criterion when developing a livestock manure 

management Performance Standard. There is a general relationship between manure 

management practices and operation size, where larger operations (in terms of livestock 

numbers) tend to use manure management systems that treat and store waste in liquid 

form (i.e., flush or scrape/slurry systems), particularly in dairy and swine operations.42 

U.S. and California livestock population data. The report presents data on livestock 

type and population in the U.S. It also describes the livestock industry in California in 

 

41 The full Performance Standard report is available on the Registry’s website: 

http://www.climateregistry.org/PROTOCOLS/PIP/1/ 42 U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (and earlier editions), US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Report # 430-R-06-002, April 2006. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html 
relation to U.S. operations. Table C.1 shows that California raises 16.5% of all dairy 

cows in the US on only 3% of US dairy operations, indicating that California has 

relatively few but substantially sized diary operations. 

Table C.1: Livestock Population Data for the U.S. and California, 2002 

US California 

# Farms # Animals # Farms

# 

Animals 

% of US 

Farms 

% of US 

Animals 

Dairy 91,989 17,013,361 2,793 2,806,357 3.0% 16.5% 

Beef 796,436 34,431,060 12,497 879,582 1.6% 2.6% 

Hogs 78,895 60,405,103 1,521 163,465 1.9% 0.3% 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2004) 

U.S. data on manure management practices. A data source to assess national-level 

manure management practices comes from the Draft EPA Climate Leaders Manure 

Management Protocol.43 It uses data on farm distribution and manure management 

systems from the Manure Management portion of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2004, uses data on the number of farms by farm size and 

geographic location from the 2002 Census of Agriculture. 

Information compiled for the EPA’s U.S. GHG Inventory also provided the Climate 

Leaders protocol with a breakdown of the assumed predominant manure management 

system in use for dairy and swine operations. Table C.2 and C.3 show data compiled for 

the systems in place in 2006. 

Table C.2: Dairy and Swine Operations in the U.S. by Manure Management System 

Animal Number of Operations by Manure Management System

P/R/P Anaerobic 

Digester 

Lagoon Liquid/ 

Slurry 

Solid 

Storage 

Deep 

Pit 

Total 

Dairy 72,487 62 4,453 4,345 9,494 1,147 91,989

Swine 53,230 18 6,571 6,303 1,129 11,643 78,894 

Source: U.S. EPA - Climate Leaders, Draft Manure Offset Protocol, Table I.A 

Table C.3. Dairy and Swine Operations by Size and Manure Management System 

 

43 http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/docs/ClimateLeaders_DraftManureOffsetProtocol.pdf 
Animal Number of Operations by Farm Size and Manure Management System

Farm 

Size 

P/R/P Anaerobic 

Digester 

Lagoon Liquid/ 

Slurry 

Solid 

Storage 

Deep 

Pit 

Total 

≥500 

head 

320 48 1,614 675 245 - 2,902

200-

499 

3,213 9 617 652 54 - 4,546

Dairy 

1-199 6,8954 5 2,223 3,017 9,195 1,147 84,541

≥2000 

head 

- 14 2,581 1,084 297 2,774 6,749

200-

2000 

- 3 3,990 5,219 832 8,869 18,913

Swine 

1-199 53,230 1 - - - - 53,231

Source: U.S. 2002 Census of Agriculture 

The EPA Climate Leaders protocol focuses on the prevalence of anaerobic digesters for 

determining their performance threshold. Data on the implementation of anaerobic 

digesters at animal operations was taken from the Interim Draft Winter 2006 AgSTAR 

Digest. Of 91,988 dairy and 78,894 swine farm operations in the United States, a total of 

80 anaerobic digesters are currently in operation: 62 (0.07%) for dairy manure and 18 

(0.02%) for swine manure. 

Data were also disaggregated in the Climate Leaders protocol to determine whether 

digester installation was a common practice in any animal production operation size 

range. As was shown in Table C.3, even at large animal production operations, very few 

digester systems are in place. At dairy farms with ≥500 head, only 1.7% of manure 

management systems include digesters, and of swine farms with >2000 head, only 0.2% 

have digesters. 

Regarding swine operations, there are few large farms in California. As was noted 

previously, most swine in California (76%) are raised on only twelve operations with over 

1,000 head each, while most farms with swine in California are very small and have less 

than 24 head. The majority of swine are then managed on large operations where the 

manure is very likely transported and stored in liquid form. 

California data on manure management practices. The most comprehensive data 

source for California dairies comes from permit application data submitted to San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV) and South Coast (SC) Air Pollution Control Districts to meet air 

quality permit requirements. The data were provided by Applied GeoSolutions, which 

maintains a database of manure management practices from the permits. 

The permit database includes information from 293 dairies housing approximately 1.2 

million cows, which covers about 57% of California dairies with herds greater than 1,000 

head. Most dairies (282) are in the San Joaquin Valley and the rest are in the South 

Coast. 
Most permits from operators in the SJV report the use both freestall and drylot 

configurations (56%), a third report drylot only (33%), and a few report freestall only.44 

A single operator could choose more than one practice. The figures below show the 

percent of SJV and SC dairies, by dairy type, reporting the use of specific handling 

practices. 

Figure C.1: Manure Handling Practices at SJV Dairies 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anaerobic Treatment Lagoons

 Aerobic Treatment Lagoons

Anaerobic Digester

 Storage Ponds

 Composting

Settling Basins

 Manure Stock Piles

 Mechanical Separator

 Land Application Off-site Disposal

 Other 

Percent reporting use of practice

Freestall only

Drylot only

Freestall+Drylot

 

44 Operators provided additional information on specific manure handling practices in the permit data. 
Figure C.2: Manure Handling Practices at SC Dairies 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anaerobic Treatment Lagoons

Aerobic Treatment Lagoons

Anaerobic Digester

Storage Ponds

Composting

Settling Basins

 Manure Stock Piles

Mechanical Separator

Land Application

Off-site Disposal

Other

Percent reporting use of practice

Drylot only

Based on the information contained in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast permit 

database the report makes following key findings. 

Liquid components: 

• Most (91% of total) dairies report using storage ponds (fewer for freestall only 

operations because they are reporting their liquid storage in other categories, i.e., 

aerobic and anaerobic lagoons) 

• Few (3% of total) report using anaerobic treatment lagoons (most are on freestall 

only operations) 

• Few (8% of total) report using aerobic45 treatment lagoons (most are on freestall 

only operations) 

• Very few dairies (1% of total) report using anaerobic digesters (4 total, 2 on 

freestall only and 2 on freestall+drylot) 

Dry components: 

• Less than 10% of freestall only and drylot dairies, and less than 30% of 

freestall+drylot dairies use composting46 (18% overall) 

• Use of manure stockpiles ranges from ~40 to 55% (51% overall) 

• 50-60% of freestall dairies (only and +drylot) use mechanical separation, 

compared to ~20% of drylots (45% overall) 

• 50-70% use settling basins (more freestall and than drylots) (61% overall) 

 

45 These are believed to be “red” or phototropic lagoons used for odor control and not true aerobic lagoons 

according to personal communication with Paul Sousa at the Western United Dairymen. 46 Composting is predominantly, if not entirely, windrow composting as per Paul Sousa - WUD 
Current digester use in California. The report provides information from the EPA 

AgStar program, which offers technical support to livestock operators for installation and 

operation of anaerobic digesters. The Interim Draft Winter 2006 AgSTAR Digest states 

that there are 18 anaerobic digesters operating in California; only one is on a swine 

operation and the rest are on dairies. Eleven of the 17 dairy digesters are on operations 

with greater than 1,000 head. The uptake of digesters in California is less than 1% 

(0.6%) of the State’s 2,793 dairies. And the 11 digesters operating on large dairies 

(>1000 dairy cows) calculates to 2.1% of this group (California has 517 dairies with more 

than 1000 cows – from the full report, Table 3, ‘California Data on Livestock Operations, 

by Farm Size’). 

Additionally, the report considered the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2006 

Energy Action Plan, which states that a total of 14 projects have been approved for 

grants through 2005 totaling $5,792,370 under the Dairy Power Production Program (as 

of the end of 2006). It is unclear how many of these 14 digesters are currently operating 

and whether they are also captured in the AgStar database. Geographic information on 

the digester locations is available from a November 2004 map prepared by the CEC47. It 

shows 14 digester operations that convert methane to energy in the following air basins: 

• SJV APCD – 8 digesters 

• SCAQMD – 2 digesters 

• BAAQMD – 1 digester 

• South Central Coast (San Luis Obispo) – 1 digester 

• San Diego Air Basin – 1 digester 

• Mojave Desert Air Basin – 1 digester 

Evaluation of regulatory requirements. The report evaluated recently passed 

regulations that affect the management of manure at dairies and at other livestock 

operations. The analysis included the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s 

Rule 4570 adopted on June 15, 2006, which requires all large confined animal feeding 

operations (CAFs) to apply for permits and adopt various practices that will reduce 

volatile organic compounds, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide emissions. The 

Sacramento Air Quality Management District adopted an almost identical rule – Rule 496 

adopted August 24, 2006. 

The report states that although the solid waste and liquid waste mitigation measures 

noted in Rule 4570 and Rule 496 could impact methane emissions, the rules are 

structured to allow large CAFs to select from a variety of control options – so there is no 

specific requirement for digesters to be installed. A summary of compliance options for 

Rule 4570 and Rule 496. 

1. Non-permitted dairy below large CAF cutoff – drylot (continue current practice) 

2. Non-permitted dairy below large CAF cutoff – freestall scrape (continue current 

practice) 

3. Non-permitted dairy below large CAF cutoff – freestall flush (continue current 

practice) 

4. Non-permitted swine farm below large CAF cutoff – continue current practice 

5. Large CAF dairy – drylot – (assume pond converted to anaerobic lagoon or 

mechanical separator installed to comply with Rule 4570/496) 

 

47 http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/pier_biogas_projects_maps/index.html 
6. Large CAF dairy – freestall scrape (assume pond converted to anaerobic lagoon 

or mechanical separator installed to comply with Rule 4570/496) 

7. Large CAF dairy – freestall flush (assume pond converted to anaerobic lagoon or 

mechanical separator installed to comply with Rule 4570/496) 

8. Large CAF swine farm - assume pond converted to anaerobic lagoon or 

mechanical separator installed to comply with Rule 4570/496 

9. New or modified large CAF– all categories (assume installation of anaerobic 

lagoon unless new BACT determination is made requiring digesters). 

Performance Standard Recommendation

The report recommends that a Performance Standard apply to the control of methane 

emissions from dairy and swine livestock operations in the U.S. and California. In 

particular, the Performance Standard should be a technology-specific threshold that 

dairy or swine operators would meet. The threshold should be the installation of a biogas 

control system (anaerobic digester). 

California serves as a good proxy for the U.S. regarding the level of digester use and the 

likelihood of its use as common practice. The data shows that California livestock 

operations (dairy, in particular) manage waste in a manner that is very suitable for 

digesters – i.e., liquid-based system. Yet even in these favorable conditions digester are 

found on less than 1% of the dairies. The report concludes that if a dairy operator 

chooses to install a digester than the farmer would be managing waste in the 99th

percentile. This constitutes above and beyond common practice. 

Moreover, the main barrier inhibiting the installation and use of digesters is cost. EPA’s 

AgStar program has developed cost curves indicating that for a 4000 cow dairy, the cost 

of a covered lagoon digester is approximately $1 million, and $1.2 million for a plug flow 

digester. AgStar estimated digester costs are considerably less for a 1000 cow dairy - 

approximately $250,000 for the covered lagoon and $450,000 for the plug flow digester 

– but the generated methane volumes are proportionately less. A 2005 CEC study48

showed that the cost of biogas recovered (after considering amortized capital costs) 

from 14 plug flow digesters in the U.S. averaged $10.05 per cubic foot. The costs of 

recovered biogas were even higher for complete mix digesters – over $11 per cubic foot 

for 3 systems in the U.S. and over $16 per cubic foot for system in Denmark. These 

indicate non-commercial rates for gas recovered and that significant subsidies and/or 

incentives are needed to encourage additional digester installations. 

 

48 Commonwealth Energy Biogas/PV Mini-Grid Renewable Resources Program; “Making Renewables Part 

of an Affordable and Diverse Electric System in California;” Contract No. 500-00-036; Digester Comparison 

Study. 
Appendix D – Livestock Project Submittal Forms 
Livestock Project Submittal Forms 

Instructions: 

This project form must be submitted to the Reserve and to the verifier in the first year of 

reporting prior to verification. In some cases, it may be necessary to update parts of the 

Project Submittal Form in subsequent years. All information in this Form will be made 

publicly available. 

These forms are to be used for reporting general Livestock Project information to the 

California Climate Action Registry in order to initiate the project listing process. All fields 

must be completed as thoroughly as is possible. If the project in question is still in the 

planning/development phase, all fields must be completed using best available data and 

estimations based on the proposed system design. Upon receipt of completed submittal 

forms, Registry staff will perform a general eligibility screen in accordance with the most 

current version of the California Climate Action Registry Livestock Project Reporting 

Protocol based on the information provided. Project Developers can expect an 

automated invoice for the $500 project listing fee within 15 days of submittal of the 

completed forms, and a decision regarding the status of the project within 15 days of the 

receipt of the project listing fee. If a project passes the eligibility screen, it will be officially 

“listed” with the Climate Action Reserve. 

This is an interactive PDF form that can be filled out and saved as a PDF. All fields must 

be completed, if a field is not applicable insert N/A in the space provided. The completed 

form must be saved and uploaded to your Climate Action Reserve account. Submit all 

questions regarding the project submittal process to: reserve@climateregisry.org . 

 

Version 2.2 

August 2008
Form1: General Information

1. Name of operation: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2. Address (including county): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

3. Latitude/Longitude of Project (degrees/minutes/seconds): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

4. Description of the type of operation (e.g., dairy, swine, etc.): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

5. If dairy, 

a. Breed (e.g., Holstein, Guernsey, etc.): 

____________________________________ 

b. Average number of lactating cows: 

_______________________________________ 

c. Average number of dry cows: 

___________________________________________ 

d. Average number of replacements: 

________________________________________ 

e. Respective fraction of the manure from the milking herd, dry cows, and 

replacements that was sent to an anaerobic storage system pre-project 

________________________________________________________________ 

f. Type(s) of manure collection system (e.g., scrape, flush, etc.) and frequency 

of manure collection: 

________________________________________________________________ 
6. If swine, 

a. Type of swine operation (e.g., farrow-to-wean, farrow plus nursery, farrow-tofinish, etc.): 

_____________________________________________________________ 

b. Average number of sows and pregnant gilts and number of litters per sowyear: 

_____________________________________________________________ 

c. Average number of nursery pigs and number of nursery stage cycles per 

year: 

_____________________________________________________________ 

d. Average number of feeder pigs and number of grow/finish cycles per year: 

________________________________________________________________ 

e. Type(s) of manure collection systems (e.g., flush, pull-plug pit, etc.) and 

frequency of manure collection: 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. For animal operations other than those listed above, 

a. Number and ages of animals: 

___________________________________________ 

b. Type of manure collection system: 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

8. Diagrammatic representation of the waste management system existing on the 

project site prior to project implementation. (Upload as a separate PDF Titled: 

Baseline Management System Diagram) 

9. Does/Did the baseline anaerobic waste handling system(s) comply with the 

specifications provided in the Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation 

Practice Standard Waste Treatment Lagoon, No. 359, and/or Conservation Practice 

Standard, Waste Storage Facility, No. 313: Yes No 

Comments (if any): 

______________________________________________________________________ 
 

10. Provide a summary of the permits obtained to build and operate the baseline 

anaerobic waste handling system(s). 

______________________________________________________________________ 

11. Is the project required by any local, state, or federal regulation? Yes No 

Comments (if any): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

12. When did the project first commence operation, or when is the project expected to 

commence operation? 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

13. What Version or publication date of the Livestock Project Reporting Protocol is the 

project documentation base upon? 

_________________________________________________ 

14. Has a detailed monitoring plan been developed for this project? If not, what date will 

a monitoring plan be in place? 

______________________________________________________________________ 

15. Have any vintage reduction tons from the project ever been registered with or 

claimed by another registry or program, or sold to another third party prior to submitting 

the project to the Reserve? 

______________________________________________________________________ 

If the answer is yes, you must complete and return a "Project Transfer" form. 
Form 2: Biogas Control System Information

1. Type of digester (e.g., mixed, plug-flow, attached film, or covered lagoon): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2. Name of system designer, address, and other contact information : 

______________________________________________________________________ 

3. Digester design assumptions 

a. Number and type of animals: 

___________________________________________ 

b. For lactating cows, average live weight or average milk production: 

________________________________________________________________ 

c. For swine, type or types (e.g., gestating sows, lactating sows, feeder pigs, 

etc.) and average live weight: 

__________________________________________________ 

d. Manure volume, ft

3

/day (m

3

/day): 

________________________________________ 

e. Wastewater volume, ft

3

/day (m

3

/day) (e.g., none, milking center wastewater, 

confinement facility wash-down, etc.): 

____________________________________ 

f. Other waste volume(s), ft

3

/day (m

3

/day) (e.g., none, food processing wastes, 

etc.): 

_____________________________________________________________ 

g. Pretreatment before digestion (e.g., none, gravity settling, stationary screen, 

screw press, etc.): 

 

________________________________________________________________ 
h. Treatment of digester effluent (e.g., none, solids separation by screening, etc. 

with details including use or method of disposal): 

________________________________________________________________ 

i. Method of digester effluent storage (e.g., none, earthen pond, etc.): 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

4. Physical description 

a. General description including types of construction materials (e.g., partially 

below grade, concrete channel plug-flow with flexible cover, etc.): 

________________________________________________________________ 

b. Dimensions (length and width or diameter and height or depth): 

________________________________________________________________ 

c. Type(s), location(s), and thickness(s) of insulation: 

________________________________________________________________ 

d. Operating volume and ancillary biogas storage volume if present: 

________________________________________________________________ 

e. Design hydraulic retention time: 

_________________________________________ 

f. Design operating temperature: 

__________________________________________ 

g. Does the biodigester waste handling system comply with the applicable 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard 

(No. 365: Anaerobic Digester—Ambient Temperature or No. 366: Anaerobic 

Digester—Controlled Temperature): Yes No 

Comments (if any): 

 

_____________________________________________________________ 
5. Description of local and state air and water quality regulations pertinent to the project: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

6. Provide a summary of the permits obtained to build and operate the biodigester 

waste handling system. 

______________________________________________________________________ 
Form 3: Biogas Utilization Information

1. Biogas utilization (e.g., none, generation of electricity, use on-site as a boiler or 

furnace fuel, or sale to a third party): 

___________________________________________________________________ 

2. If designed to generate electricity, 

a. Type of engine-generator set (e.g., internal combustion engine, micro turbine 

or fuel cell with the name of the manufacturer, model, power output rating 

(kW or MJ) for biogas, and nominal voltage: 

________________________________________________________________ 

b. Component integration (factory or owner): 

_________________________________ 

c. Origin of equipment controller (manufacturer integrated, third party off-theshelf, or third party custom): 

________________________________________________________________ 

d. System installer: 

________________________________________________________________ 

e. Pretreatment of biogas (e.g., none, condensate trap, dryer, hydrogen sulfide 

removal, etc. with the names of manufacturers, models, etc.) : 

________________________________________________________________ 

f. Exhaust gas emission control (e.g., none, catalytic converter, etc.): 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

g. If interconnected with an electric utility 

 Name of the utility: 

_________________________________________________ 

 Type of utility contract (e.g., sell all/buy all, surplus sale, or net metering): 

_____________________________________________________________ 
h. If engine-generator set waste heat utilization 

Heat source (e.g., cooling system or exhaust gas or both) and heat recovery 

capacity (Btu or kJ/hr): 

_____________________________________________________________ 

 Waste heat utilization (e.g., digester heating, water heating, space 

heating, etc.): 

_____________________________________________________________ 

3. If designed to use on-site as a boiler or furnace fuel, a description of the boiler or 

furnace including manufacturer, model, and rated capacity (Btu or kJ/hr): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

4. If designed for biogas sale to a third party, a description of the methods of 

processing, transport, and end use: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

a. Pretreatment of Biogas (e.g., none, condensate trap, dryer, hydrogen sulfide 

removal, etc.) include names of manufacturer, model etc.: 

________________________________________________________________ 

b. Exhaust gas emission controls from gas processing step: 

_______________________________________________________________