Farms.com Home   News

Report raises doubts on California dairy digester costs

By Farms.com

The financial sustainability of California's initiative to lower methane emissions from dairy farms through anaerobic digesters has been challenged in a report by the Center for Food Safety. Conducted by Kevin Fingerman of Cal Poly Humboldt, the analysis reveals that the Dairy Digester Research and Development Program's costs could be 17 times the state and industry's estimates. 

California has allocated approximately $200 million towards this endeavor between 2015 and 2022, aiming for a substantial decrease in methane emissions. However, the report suggests a discrepancy in cost-effectiveness, with actual expenses ballooning to $159 per ton of CO2 reduced, far exceeding the state's $9 per ton estimate. 

This revelation stirs debate about the allocation of taxpayer money, especially as the program appears to predominantly benefit large agribusinesses and investors.  

Despite criticisms, the California Department of Food and Agriculture counters by highlighting the ecological benefits of dairy digesters, such as their role in generating renewable energy and preventing worse environmental outcomes. 

The state contends that supporting sustainable practices across dairy farms is crucial, even as it faces scrutiny over the program's cost and its impact on agricultural practices and the environment.


Trending Video

Michigan Cover Crop Decision Tool Update 2026

Video: Michigan Cover Crop Decision Tool Update 2026

Abigail Smith, NRCS State Agronomist, Monica Jean, MSU Extension Field Crops Educator, and Madelyn Cleovsky, MSU Extension Conservation Agronomist Educator, discuss 2025 updates made to MCCC’s Cover Crop Decision Tool for Michigan.

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under agreement number 2023-38640-39573 through the North Central Region SARE program under project number ENC23-226. USDA is an equal opportunity employer and service provider. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.