IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/afrpps/v70y2010i2p157-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial barriers to the adoption of anaerobic digestion on US livestock operations

Author

Listed:
  • Brent A. Gloy
  • Jonathan B. Dressler

Abstract

Purpose - Anaerobic digestion (AD) of livestock waste is a potential source of renewable energy and can reduce the methane emissions associated with livestock waste storage. Because AD is capital intensive, lenders will play a key role in the adoption of this technology. The purpose of this paper is to describe some of the barriers that currently make lenders reluctant to finance AD systems and provide recommendations for public policies that would reduce these barriers, making financing more available and encouraging farmers to adopt digester systems. Design/methodology/approach - This paper describes some of the barriers that currently make lenders reluctant to finance AD systems and makes recommendations for public policies that would reduce these barriers, thus making finance available. Findings - AD systems face a number of financial barriers which make lenders reluctant to finance them. Many of these barriers can be overcome by adopting policies and programs designed to improve the understanding of the financial situation associated with AD adoption and establishing markets that reward livestock operations for achieving the benefits associated with AD installation. Some of the more important potential solutions include developing mechanisms to collect and analyze data associated with AD system economics and developing markets that reward livestock operations for producing the non‐market outputs of renewable energy and methane emission reductions. Originality/value - The ability to attract financing is a key barrier to the widespread adoption of anaerobic digester systems. This paper describes these challenges and identifies solutions which would reduce these barriers and lead to greater adoption of AD on the US livestock operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Brent A. Gloy & Jonathan B. Dressler, 2010. "Financial barriers to the adoption of anaerobic digestion on US livestock operations," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 70(2), pages 157-168, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:157-168
    DOI: 10.1108/00021461011064932
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00021461011064932/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00021461011064932/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/00021461011064932?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway, 2009. "The Economics of Dairy Anaerobic Digestion with Coproduct Marketing," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 394-410, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edwards, Joel & Othman, Maazuza & Burn, Stewart, 2015. "A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 815-828.
    2. Li, Xue & Mupondwa, Edmund, 2018. "Commercial feasibility of an integrated closed-loop ethanol-feedlot-biodigester system based on triticale feedstock in Canadian Prairies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 401-413.
    3. Vergara, Sintana E. & Damgaard, Anders & Horvath, Arpad, 2011. "Boundaries matter: Greenhouse gas emission reductions from alternative waste treatment strategies for California's municipal solid waste," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 87-97.
    4. Borchers, Allison M. & Xiarchos, Irene & Beckman, Jayson, 2014. "Determinants of wind and solar energy system adoption by U.S. farms: A multilevel modeling approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 106-115.
    5. T. Chen & M. Liu & Y. Takahashi & J.D. Mullen & G.C.W. Ames, 2016. "Carbon emission reduction and cost--benefit of methane digester systems on hog farms in China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 948-966, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Key, Nigel & Sneeringer, Stacy, 2012. "Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity, and Profits: Comparing Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 139-157, August.
    2. Cowley, Cortney & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2018. "Anaerobic Digester Production and Cost Functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 347-357.
    3. Namuli, R. & Pillay, P. & Jaumard, B. & Laflamme, C.B., 2013. "Threshold herd size for commercial viability of biomass waste to energy conversion systems on rural farms," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 308-322.
    4. Neibergs, J.S. & Harrison, J. & Whitefield, E., 2013. "PR - Economic Analysis Of Anerobic Co-digestion Using Dairy Manure And Byproduct Feedstocks," 19th Congress, Warsaw, Poland, 2013 345686, International Farm Management Association.
    5. Njuki, Eric & Bravo-Ureta, Boris, 2014. "A Bayesian Approach to Analyzing the Economic Costs of Environmental Regulation in U.S. Dairy Farming," Working Papers 33, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    6. Willeghems, Gwen & Buysse, Jeroen, 2016. "Changing old habits: The case of feeding patterns in anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 212-221.
    7. Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa & Harrigan, Timothy & Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan, 2017. "Resource use and economic impacts in the transition from small confinement to pasture-based dairies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 157-171.
    8. Dalke, Rachel & Demro, Delaney & Khalid, Yusra & Wu, Haoran & Urgun-Demirtas, Meltem, 2021. "Current status of anaerobic digestion of food waste in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Sean O’Connor & Ehiaze Ehimen & Suresh C. Pillai & Gary Lyons & John Bartlett, 2020. "Economic and Environmental Analysis of Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion Plants on Irish Dairy Farms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.
    10. DeVuyst, Eric A. & Pryor, Scott W. & Lardy, Greg & Eide, Wallace & Wiederholt, Ron, 2011. "Cattle, ethanol, and biogas: Does closing the loop make economic sense?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(8), pages 609-614, October.
    11. Kabyanga, Moris & Balana, Bedru B. & Mugisha, Johnny & Walekhwa, Peter N. & Smith, Jo & Glenk, Klaus, 2018. "Economic potential of flexible balloon biogas digester among smallholder farmers: A case study from Uganda," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 392-400.
    12. Anderson, Robert C. & Hilborn, Don & Weersink, Alfons, 2013. "An economic and functional tool for assessing the financial feasibility of farm-based anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 85-92.
    13. Usack, J.G. & Gerber Van Doren, L. & Posmanik, R. & Labatut, R.A. & Tester, J.W. & Angenent, L.T., 2018. "An evaluation of anaerobic co-digestion implementation on New York State dairy farms using an environmental and economic life-cycle framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 28-40.
    14. Kay Camarillo, Mary & Stringfellow, William T. & Jue, Michael B. & Hanlon, Jeremy S., 2012. "Economic sustainability of a biomass energy project located at a dairy in California, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 790-798.
    15. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    16. Li, Xue & Mupondwa, Edmund, 2018. "Commercial feasibility of an integrated closed-loop ethanol-feedlot-biodigester system based on triticale feedstock in Canadian Prairies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 401-413.
    17. Benavidez, Justin & Thayer, Anastasia W., 2018. "Poo Power: Revisiting Energy Generation from Biogas on Dairies in Texas," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266636, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Robert C. Anderson & Alfons Weersink, 2014. "A Real Options Approach for the Investment Decisions of a Farm-Based Anaerobic Digester," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(1), pages 69-87, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:157-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

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