Where Agriculture and the Environment Meet

Barnyards Need Attention

2011-05-31T09:47:00.000-04:00

Barnyards are in need of attention on many dairies and future regulations are aiming to make sure that attention is paid. The new Pennsylvania Manure Manual has not yet been released by the Department of Environmental Protection, but all indications are that barnyards are going to receive greater attention than they have in the past. Future regulations on manure management and cropping practices have been discussed previously, but barnyards are a major concern of environmental regulators. Barnyards are often areas that are not suited for cropping, get too much traffic for a ground cover to really take hold, and are just not a priority for maintenance or improvement on most farms. However, from and environmental standpoint, barnyards are a major source of manure runoff to streams. Heavy rains can easily flush manure from barnyards into local streams if there is not a system in place to prevent this. Also, from an animal health standpoint, improperly maintained or designed barnyards can contribute to mastitis and hoof health problems.

Barnyards can be dirt lots or paved areas. Barnyards that are dirt can quickly become mud pits. Standing in wet conditions, like a muddy barnyard, can soften hooves leading to hoof problems and lameness that can negatively impact milk production. Also, if animals are left in barnyards long enough during the day they will eventually lay down exposing the teats to environmental mastitis pathogens. Although environmental mastitis is generally easier to treat compared with contagious mastitis it can still lead to a great deal of lost production and income before it is controlled. Lastly, the cleaner the barnyard is kept the cleaner the cows will be at milking, which means less cleanup at milking.

Concrete barnyards can be better than dirt barnyards, but only if maintained. Uneven concrete can lead to injury and hoof problems. Also, unless concrete is poured so that there is good drainage it can become just as wet and sloppy as a dirt barnyard.

There is cost share money available for barnyard improvements through Natural Resources Conservation Service, county Conservation Districts, and private groups. The following are some areas to consider about your own barnyard.

Is the barnyard cleaned regularly? Scraping barnyards weekly will prevent hoof problems and eliminate the potential runoff of manure from the barnyard.
Are there curbs on the concrete barnyard? Curbs keep manure from running off the barnyard into local waterways.
Is there a system to collect runoff from the barnyard? If the barnyard is curbed, there needs to be a drain so that the barnyard doesn’t become a pool. However, the collection of rain water and other material from the barnyard needs to be treated as any other manure laden runoff and should be run through some type of filtration or storage system.
Is excess rainwater running into the barnyard? Roof gutters and down spouts should be designed to divert rainwater away from the barnyard into a filtration area.

In short, proper design of rain gutters and downspouts to divert rain water away from the barnyard, a proper filtration or storage system for collection of runoff from the barnyard, and scraping the barnyard to keep manure from building up will protect local waterways and prevent herd health issues. For more information on this issue visit the Penn State Agriculture and Environment Center at www.aec.cas.psu.edu to watch a webinar on barnyards, exercise lots and water quality.

Monitoring Dry Matter Intake

2011-05-23T10:30:00.002-04:00

Dry matter intake (DMI) is the biggest driver of milk production so it only makes sense that it should be monitored as closely as milk production. Dry matter intake is a measure of what is presented to the cows minus what is remaining when the next feeding is provided. It can be impacted by a number of factors, but unless you have a good idea as what the true DMI on your farm is it will be very hard to trouble shoot when a problem does arise.

In order to track DMI the dry matter of the ration and the refusals need to be monitored regularly. If the herd is fed using a component feeding system then the dry matter of the individual ingredients also need to be tracked. Like any type of analysis, getting a good representative sample is the first and most important step to the process. Sampling a total mixed ration can be difficult, but taking a sample right at the mixer is one of the best ways to get a good sample. A refusal sample should be taken from the refusal collection from the entire herd, not just what was in front of a couple of animals. Once the sample is taken it is dried in either a Koster tester or a microwave oven until the weight of the sample no longer changes. The dried weight is then divided by the wet weight to determine the dry matter percent. Although there will be fluctuations in dry matter from week to week, if there are big changes then mixing of the total mixed ration should be investigated to make sure it is being done properly.

The other aspect of monitoring DMI requires that the amount of feed being presented to the cows is known. Mixing and delivering the ration as close to what is on the feed sheet should always be the goal. Scales that are not calibrated correctly or not working well can significantly change what is being presented to the cow. Therefore, checking the scales every week is a good practice to get into and does not take a lot of time. A less precise way to monitor mixing of the ration is to track feed inventory on the farm. If grain bins are getting empty faster or slower than would be expected based on the formulated ration this indicates a problem. Either there is a problem with mixing the proper amount of each ingredient, or pests (birds/rodents) are eating the feed from the storage area. Pests can also eat the feed once it is in front of the cow, which can make DMI look greater than it actually is. Pests will not only impact feed inventories and DMI, but they can also spread disease so trying to eliminate them should be a priority.

Lastly, in order to get the full picture of DMI on the farm, the refusals from each group of animals needs to be weighed. Depending on the feeding situation on the farm this job will be easier for some than others. However, it is worth the effort because simply eye-balling it is not always the best method of estimating how much the cows are not eating because gradual changes in intake may go undetected until they reach a significant threshold. If problems in intake are detected early it may be possible to correct them before they lead to big changes in milk production. Therefore, taking the time and effort to weigh back refusals a least a few times a month will keep the eyeballing method honest and may head off some bigger problems.

Feed Efficiency

2011-05-16T14:26:00.000-04:00

Feed efficiency is something that has been extensively used by beef, swine, and poultry producers for years, but dairy farmers have not utilized it to the degree that it could be. Feed efficiency reflects how well the cows convert feed into milk. It is one of the most basic production measures on the farm and will directly impact of bottom line of the farm. The more milk that can be gained for each pound of feed consumed equates to greater income on the farm, but you cannot improve on something you are not tracking to begin with.

Feed efficiency is defined as pounds of 3.5% fat corrected milk per pounds of dry matter intake. It is a simple calculation that should be tracked on every farm. Fat corrected milk is not a value that dairy farmers deal with regularly but the following is the equation for calculating it: 3.5% fat corrected milk = 0.432 x milk (lb) + 16.23 x fat (lb).

So what is the goal? For a one group herd at 150 to 225 days in milk we would expect a feed efficiency of between 1.4 and 1.6 lb 3.5% fat corrected milk per pound of feed. However, goals for specific groups will depend on the diet as well as the cows themselves. Cows that are fewer days in milk will have higher feed efficiency, which means they put more feed into milk and less into weight gain. This is obvious to many farmers, but understanding that this is the case can also be a good motivation to get cows bred in a more timely manner so that the average days in milk is lower and there are more cows with higher feed efficiency on the farm. Also, older cows will tend to be more efficient than heifers because heifers are still growing and some of their intake is going into growth and not into milk production. There is not much that can be done to correct this, but it is good to understand that heifers will be less efficient. Lastly, pregnant animals are less efficient than non-pregnant animals because some of the nutrients in the feed are going towards supporting the fetus instead of all of it going to milk production. Again, there is not much to be done about this because we need cows to be pregnant, but it is good to recognize this.

From a feeding standpoint, anything that increases the digestibility of the diet will increase feed efficiency because the cows will be able to get more out of the feed than they will out of less digestible feeds. Forages are one of the main ingredients in the ration and the most variable in terms of digestibility. In general, forages that are lower in neutral detergent fiber and lignin are more digestible and will be utilized to a greater extent by the cow than forages with higher fiber content.

Grains are the other main ingredient in many rations and how well they are processed will impact how efficiently they are used. Processing corn silage so that kernels are broken down into at least quarters will increase the utilization of the starch in the kernels. The more the kernels are broken the more access the rumen microbes have to the starch and the more they can utilize the starch. This is the same reason why fine grinding of shell corn is recommended.

Improving feed efficiency has economic benefits, but the environmental benefit is if more of the feed is broken down and utilized for milk production than there will be less manure to deal with on the back end.

Nitrates in Well Water

2011-05-09T15:48:00.002-04:00

Nitrates are found in fertilizers, manure and liquid waste, and naturally occurring soil bacteria can convert other forms of nitrogen to nitrate. The water quality standard in Pennsylvania for nitrates is 10 parts per million (ppm). However, there are no state regulations on private wells in Pennsylvania so the responsibility of monitoring water quality of private wells is up to the home owner. Lancaster County is known to have high nitrate levels with 10-20% of wells having nitrate levels above the 10 ppm limit with 30-60% of wells in limestone areas measuring high in nitrates.

The health concerns with nitrates apply to both humans and animals. Nitrate is converted to nitrite by bacteria in the digestive track of people and animals. Once the nitrite form is absorbed it decreases the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen. The higher the nitrate level in the water the more dangerous it becomes. Babies are especially vulnerable because they do not produce a lot of acid in their stomachs; therefore, nitrate to nitrite converting bacteria can grow in the stomach and produce more nitrite compared to a more acidic stomach. Adults, with their highly acidic stomachs, do not have nitrate to nitrite converting bacteria in their stomachs so nitrate is only converted to nitrite once it reaches the large intestine at which point there is less opportunity for absorption before it is excreted.

Ruminant are the most susceptible group of animals on the farm due to the bacteria population in the rumen that converts nitrates to nitrites. Nitrites are then absorbed across the rumen wall and inhibit oxygen transport. Nitrates are found naturally in ruminant feed so high nitrate water may push them past the toxicity level. Acute toxicity can be treated and animals can recover well if caught early, but there is some concern about chronic impacts of slightly high nitrate levels. A University of Wisconsin study showed that, over time, the services per conception were higher in cows given high nitrate water versus cows given water with no nitrates.

Although there are ways to treat high nitrate wells, preventing nitrate contamination of the well in the first place is the best option. Careful manure application is the best way to prevent nitrate contamination of well water. Manure contains nitrogen in the form of ammonia, nitrates, and organic nitrogen. Ammonia can be converted to nitrates by soil bacteria. Nitrates are associated with the water in the soil and leach down through the soil if not utilized by the crop. Once the nitrates are below the root zone they are no longer available to the plants and will continue down through the soil until they reach ground water. Once in ground water nitrates remain unchanged and can build up over time. Therefore, applying nitrogen to meet the demands of the crop without over applying is important to prevent nitrate leaching into ground water. Spreading of manure near shallow wells, poorly sealed or constructed wells, and wells that draw from shallow aquifers should be avoided as these wells are at greatest risk for nitrate contamination because the path for manure nitrate to the ground water is the least restricted. Also, wells should be located away from sources of contamination like barnyards, fields that receive manure, septic fields, etc. Wells should also be sealed properly to prevent contamination from surface water.

Freeboard Requirements

2011-05-02T13:51:00.000-04:00

Manure storage facilities need to be designed and constructed to accommodate the amount of manure produced on the farm, the length of time storage will be needed for, and there needs to be a safety net space. This safety net space is referred to as "freeboard". Freeboard becomes especially important for rainy weather because uncovered manure storage facilities can fill up with rain water quickly, and during the spring when facilities are filled with manure that was stored all winter rain water can quickly cause an overflow. The following are the rules for freeboard requirements in Pennsylvania.

For a liquid or semisolid manure storage facility, the following minimum freeboard requirements apply and shall be maintained:

1. For an agricultural operation with over 1,000 AEUs that was a new or expanded operation after January 29, 2000, a minimum 24-inch freeboard, except for enclosed facilities that are not exposed to rainfall, which must have a minimum freeboard of 6 inches.

2. For all other facilities, a minimum 12-inch freeboard for manure storage facilities that are ponds, and a minimum 6-inch freeboard for all other manure storage facilities.

Manure Runoff

2011-04-26T14:29:00.000-04:00

Much of the country, including Pennsylvania, have received more rain this spring than the ground can absorb. This has delayed planting and can also lead to increased manure runoff. Although waiting to spread when there is not rain in the forecast is ideal, it may not be practical if a farm does not have any more storage. If spreading during wet weather cannot be avoided then manure should be spread on fields with the least chance of runoff and sink holes should be avoided. Wisconsin has put out a nice public awareness radio address and the message in this address could apply to any number of states this spring. Resources on manure spreading can be found at http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/ag/manure.html.

Feed Management Plans Being Embraced

2011-02-18T13:45:00.000-05:00

Pennsylvania’s NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) set a goal of 40 feed management plan applications this year and they have already received 43 applications! This is a great start to a program that has so much potential to help farmers and the environment. The overall goal of the program is to adjust rations and feeding procedures on the farm in order to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the feed. When less of these nutrients are fed to the animals less ends up in the manure. Therefore, if the manure does happen to make its way to a local water way it will have less of an impact on local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay overall. The plan is written by a certified nutritionists and that nutritionist then has to follow up with the farm quarterly to make sure the plan is being implemented and make any adjustments to the plan.

Although there are a lot of environmental benefits to having a feed management plan there are also economic benefits to the farmer. The first year of the contract a farmer can get $2,000 per group of animals and they can have up to five groups on the farm so that farm could receive $10,000 the first year to cover the cost of the plan writing and implementation. There is also money available for the second and third year of the contract, although the most money is allocated for the first year. Also, it has been shown that farmers that follow a reduced nitrogen and phosphorus ration tend to have lower feed costs and if implemented correctly the cows can actually produce more milk than they did on a conventional ration.

So why aren’t more than 43 farmers involved in this program? For one, it is a new program that many farmers don’t even know exists so there is still a lot of work to do to bring attention to it. Two, the fear of losing milk production is always a concern when rations are adjusted. Lastly, this type of plan takes a consistently high level of management to implement well on a farm. It takes attention to the details every day, which can be a big change to some producers. However, I think a plan could be developed to work into any farm situation and the benefits of a few small adjustments could be great.

Conewago Creek Stream Teams

2011-02-10T09:23:00.000-05:00

This is a great program designed to get youth involved in improving local water quality.

Watershed Winds

2011-02-02T11:38:00.000-05:00

There is a new newsletter available electronically through Penn State Water Resources website called Watershed Winds. The goal of this newsletter is to disseminate strategies and practices to improve water quality that are working in one watershed to other areas of the state and country. The articles range from agricultural practices to municipality programs to how to bring different organizations together. There are a number of great example of how local watersheds have improved there water quality, and sharing how they managed to accomplish it is something that needs to be shared with others that are facing the same issue. I encourage everyone to check out the newsletter and share what is working for them.

Dietary Phosphorus and Water Quality

2011-01-25T14:39:00.000-05:00

cattle-manager.com

Phosphorus (P) is a very important mineral for both cows and their rumen microbes. It is involved in almost all metabolic reactions so being deficient can be very detrimental. However, it is also a very important element in almost all metabolic reactions in plants. Therefore, as cows eat plants and plant materials they are getting enough P to meet their requirements. Grains tend to be higher in P compared with forages, and byproducts (distiller’s grains, corn gluten feed, and wheat midds) tend to be the highest. Because it is so prevalent in plants supplemental P is almost never needed.

What is the big deal about P? The issue with P is that, like animals and plants on land, algae also need P to grow. When too much P gets into waterways either through manure contamination or soil erosion algae grows uncontrollably. Too much algae in the water blocks out the light killing aquatic plants, which serve as habitat and food supply of higher level organisms. When this algae bloom finally dies the decomposition of the algae draws oxygen out of the water making it impossible for fish and other aquatic organisms (fish, shellfish, etc.) to survive.

So how much is too much? Like the level of any nutrient, the level of P required for the cow depends on her milk production and how available the P in the feed is. However, in most cases a P concentration of 0.35% to 0.38% of ration dry matter will be enough to meet the needs of the cow. In the “Reducing Dietary Phosphorus in the Dairy Herd” publication by Zhiguo Wu and Virginia Ishler with Penn State University there is a nice example of how overfeeding P in the ration contributes to higher levels in the manure. For a cow milking 75 lbs and eating 50 lbs of dry matter, a dietary P content of 0.35% of ration dry matter will result in 1.9 lbs/ton of P in the manure where as a dietary P content of 0.48% of ration dry matter will result in 2.9 lbs/ton of P in the manure. Because P fed above the level that the cow needs will just be excreted going from a recommended P level of 0.35% to a high level of 0.48% results in the significant increase in manure P levels.

Higher manure P means that there may be limitations as to where that manure can be spread. Another calculation from this publication shows that when a cow is fed a 0.48% P diet compared with a 0.38% P diet an additional 12.2 pounds of manure P is excreted over a 305 day lactation. This higher P diet would require an additional 0.31 acres to spread the manure on compared with the low P diet. If additional land was not available P would be applied at 14.5 lbs/acre in excess of what the crop could remove and would result in an increase in the soil P test over time.

Although many have reduced the level of P in their rations, there are still a few that throw in a little extra for good measure. This is not only bad for the environment, but it is also represents an unnecessary cost. Deficiency issues are not seen until you get around 0.3% P, and a dietary level of 0.3% P is hard to create using normal feedstuffs. Therefore, concerns about loss of milk production or reproductive performance due too little P are unwarranted.

Phosphorus, has, and will continue to, receive a lot of attention, but the positive side is that it is something that can be easily controlled at the farm level.

Feed Management

2011-01-14T11:27:00.000-05:00

Feed Management is an excellent program that all dairy farmers should be taking advantage of. It is a Natural Resources Conservation Service program that is available nationwide, but is receiving a great deal of attention in Pennsylvania. When farmers apply for this program they can receive $2,000/group per for the first year, $1,500/group per for the second year, and $1,100/group for the third year of the contract. A group can be the high producing cows, low producing cows, heifer groups, etc. Farmers can apply for up to five groups on their farm so that can be a good amount of money. There has been $1 million set aside in Pennsylvania to cover new plan applications so there is plenty of funding available for anyone who is interested. The payments are to cover the cost of having a feed management plan written by a certified plan writer and the quarterly follow-up that the plan writer needs to do. In Pennsylvania, the plan writers are trained by Penn State Cooperative Extension and state extension specialists. The goal of a feed management program is to reduce nitrogen and/or phosphorus excretion by the cows through ration alterations and/or feed management changes on the farm. These plans are very flexible and tailored to every individual farm, and are designed to be things that the farmer is capable and willing to implement on the farm. If you are interested in learning more about this program contact your local NRCS office.

Winter Manure Spreading; a Necessary Evil

2011-01-07T11:10:00.000-05:00

Winter spreading of manure is not something that is popular with many environmental folks. This has recently come to a head in Iowa where they are allowing producers to spread manure in the winter for five more years with approval by the state. However, a local advocacy group, that has been fighting this ruling, is vowing to take note of every bit of manure spread and report any problems.

The winter months, when the ground is frozen, are the months that see the most manure runoff because the manure and it's nutrients do not have an opportunity to be incorporated into the soil. Therefore, they sit on top of the soil until the ground thaws. Therefore, any sudden precipitation or snow melt can lead to manure runoff into local waterways.

In Pennsylvania, winter manure spreading is still allowed, but with certain regulations. For example, the maximum that can be spread is 5,000 gallons of liquid manure or 20 tons of dry manure per acre or applied to the phosphorus removal rate of the coming year's crop. There needs to be 40% crop residue, a growing cover crop, or pasture for manure to be spread on any field. There may be other rules that apply once the new Manure Manual regulations come out this spring, and the EPA is still working with Pennsylvania to try to eliminate winter spreading all together.

Although many do not like winter manure spreading, including many farmers, building enough storage to last through the entire winter is very costly. For example, an average concrete storage big enough for four months of storage on a 100 lactating cow dairy can cost around $50,000. With milk prices and feed costs the way they are finding that kind of money is difficult. There are cost-share programs available to alleviate the installation costs, but even coming up with the money to cost share is challenging for many small dairies.

This is a very difficult issue with no good solutions, but for now responsibly spreading manure any time of year is a must.

Another Year Comes to an End

2010-12-21T13:46:00.000-05:00

Festive Cow to Bring a Smile to Your Face

Many dairy farmers are giving thanks for surviving another year and hoping to make it through next year. Recovery from 2009 has eluded many and with lending getting harder and harder 2011 promises to be another tough year for many. Here in Lancaster County many are wondering what new environmental regulations 2011 will bring and how they will financially deal with what is expected of them. Changes have already come to many dairies in 2010 when EPA began inspections of farms in target watersheds. There are more watersheds on the list to investigate and even those farmers not in these priority watersheds will face increased enforcement of current laws and potentially new laws. However, dairy farmers are some of the most adaptable group of professionals and they will find a way to persevere and continue doing what they love. So this Christmas while you are enjoying eggnog and cookies think of the dairy farmers that are out there milking and caring for their cows so that you can sit back in your warm house and enjoy the holiday.

Pennsylvania Watershed Implementation Plan: Impacts on Dairy Farming

2010-12-13T15:07:00.000-05:00

Environmental regulations are moving fast and furious and it can be hard to keep up, but all dairy farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed will be affected so understanding these new regulations is a must. The final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or “pollution diet”, will be out by December 31^st and will outline the official and final rules going forward. Because the final TMDL is not out yet this article will focus on the preliminary TMDL and Pennsylvania’s final Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP). The final TMDL will reflect the WIPs submitted by each state in the watershed unless EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) thinks that the state WIPs will not meet water quality goals then EPA will override the state plans with their own regulations.

The Pennsylvania WIP focuses on increasing enforcement of current laws. The PA Clean Streams law requires that all farms, regardless of size, control sediment and nutrient discharges from their farm, which includes from fields, silage and manure storage, milk house, barnyards, and animal concentration areas. To this end, all farms that disturb more than 5,000 square feet of land are required to have an erosion and sediment control plan (E&S plan), which is similar to a conservation plan. These plans do not need to be approved at the state or county level, but do need to be on the farm. As of November 19, 2010 this regulation was changed to include “animal heavy use” areas, require additional BMPs (best management practices) for fields within 100 feet of a stream, require that soil erosion be reduced to the highest amount that can be tolerated and still maintain sustainable crop productivity indefinitely (T), and require an implementation schedule.

The Pennsylvania WIP also relies on updates to the Manure Management Manual, which will be completed by spring 2011. The contents of this manual apply to all farms that have animals. At minimum, farms are required to have a manure management plan that covers collection, storage, and application of manure on fields. Specifically, it will address overall manure application, winter application, stockpiling manure, manure storage, pasture management, and animal heavy use areas. The Manure Management Manual will also require farms to apply manure at rates that will minimize phosphorus runoff, unless they can show that the risk is extremely low, such as with soil testing and the P-Index, a tool to determine the potential loss of phosphorus from the soil to waterways by looking at a variety of factors.

Current laws require that farms with greater than 2000 lbs of animals per acre of land to spread the manure on are considered Concentrated Animal Operations (CAO) in PA and are required to have a nutrient management plan that is written by a certified plan writer and approved by the State Conservation Commission or local Conservation District. Nutrient Management Plans are similar to manure management plans, but are more in-depth and must be reviewed as mentioned. CAOs are inspected yearly by the Conservation District to make sure conservation plans and nutrient management plans are being implemented. The rules that apply to CAOs are not new and will most likely not change in a new plan.

Farms with greater than 700 dairy cows (milking and dry), or CAOs with greater than 300 cows, are considered CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) by the federal government and the state of Pennsylvania. CAFOs are required to adhere to even stricter laws than CAOs. Small farms can be deemed a CAFO by EPA if there is a point-source discharge from that farm into a local waterway, which could be something as simple a point leak in a barnyard where material from the barnyard can escape to a local waterway. The rules that apply to CAFOs may become stricter and it is possible that CAFO rules could be expanded to cover more farms if EPA does not determine that the Pennsylvania plan is sufficient to meet water quality goals.

Front End Solutions to Back End Problems

2010-11-24T13:55:00.001-05:00

Photo by Dan McFarland

Precision feeding of dairy cows is a great way to address water quality concerns in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. So what is precision feeding? It is feeding dairy cows to most precisely meet their nutrient requirements based on their level of production. Because precision feeding depends on the level of milk production it is a very farm specific practice that can be difficult to identify without evaluating more than just the nitrogen and phosphorus content of the ration.

However, the ration is the first place to start when implementing precision feeding and we will start there with more specifically defining precision feeding. Phosphorus is a required nutrient for the cow, but it can be supplied in the ration at levels greater than what she needs. Any excess phosphorus is excreted in the manure and provides no benefit to the cow. In general, a phosphorus level of 0.37% of the ration is enough to meet the needs of most animals. Supplementation of phosphorus in dairy rations is rarely needed and is a quick ration adjustment to make. Many farms are doing better at feeding a lower phosphorus diet, but byproducts (brewer’s grains, distiller’s grains, etc.) tend to be a cheaper feed alternative to more traditional feedstuffs, but they are also high in phosphorus. Therefore, incorporating byproducts into a ration can lead to higher phosphorus diets than would be recommended.

Nitrogen is the other nutrient we are most concerned with and, like phosphorus, excess nitrogen above what the cow needs for her level of milk production will be excreted in the urine. However, unlike phosphorus, nitrogen cannot simply be reduced in the ration without potential negative impacts. The amount of energy in the ration along with a number of other factors greatly impacts how efficiently nitrogen is utilized by the cow and how much needs to be included in the ration. If other aspects of the ration are not balanced correctly or there is a problem with how feed is managed on the farm reducing the protein content of the ration could potentially lead to a loss of milk production.

When done correctly precision feeding will not only benefit local water ways, but will also increase the profitability of the dairy farm by reducing feed costs, but if implementing improperly it can lead to a loss of milk production. Therefore, implementation of precision feeding requires that the nutritionists and the farmer be educated on this practice before it should be implemented on the farm.

Penn State University along with other organizations have, and continue to, provide education to farmers and nutrition consults on how to best implement precision feeding on a farm.

Here is a link to the Penn State Extension website with more information on feeding dairy cattle. http://www.das.psu.edu/research-extension/dairy/nutrition

Water Education Resources are Easy to Find

2010-11-17T12:13:00.001-05:00

It is not hard to find information on almost any topic on the web, but sorting through what is reliable information is another story. The Penn State Extension Water Resources team makes finding water education materials a lot easier. The group focuses on four main program areas: Safe Drinking Water, Pond and Lake Management, Discovery Watersheds, and Marcellus Shale Water Issues. All four of these programs have areas that impact agriculture as well as the general population.

Safe Drinking Water program educates private well owners on best management practices to protect and improve drinking water supplies. On many farms, especially small dairies, the cows are drinking water from the same well as the people. Although human health concerns are always the priority, animals can also get sick from poor quality water and the level of production can also be decreased when water quality is poor. Animals on the farm can also contribute to the contamination of the well in the first place if the well is not considered in relation to animal management.

Pond and Lake Management program educates pond and lake owners on how to properly maintain their pond or lake for the desired purpose. Many farms have ponds and animals may have access to this water resource. Therefore the water in the pond needs to be safe for the animals to consume if they do have access, but it is also important to make sure the animals do not contribute to contamination of the pond. In most cases it is best to keep animals away from ponds as it will reduce the water quality of the pond.

Discovery Watersheds program is a new program focused on disseminating lessons learned on improving water quality in local watersheds to other watersheds across the state. There are many small watersheds that have made significant improvements in water quality through community involvement and implementation of best management practices so getting the word out on how these watersheds were successful is very important in light of the large number of impaired watersheds. As agriculture is generally are large portion of many watersheds disseminating how the agriculture community was involved in the improvement of the local water can be beneficial to all.

Marcellus Shale Water Issues program is another relatively new program created by the advancement of technology that allowed for gas well drilling in areas that were previous inaccessible. This new process of extracting the gas requires a lot of water that may be reducing water availability for other sources. Also, this new gas boom is happening in an area of Pennsylvania where there is a lot of farming and there are huge water quality and financial implications to farmers. Cattle coming in contact with contaminated water has already occurred, but the financial benefits to many farmers are hard to turn down and have allowed some to continue farming.

The Penn State Extension Water Resources web page is a great source of in-depth information on these topics and other related topics.

Environmentally Friendly Milk, Would You Pay for It?

2010-11-08T13:54:00.001-05:00

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/clip/milk.html

Some consumers are willing to pay extra for organic milk to support the method of production of that particular product even though the actual product is not different from conventionally produced milk. Would consumers be willing to make that same choice for milk that has an “Environmentally Friendly” label? That is a question that is being tossed around these days as a way to make improving local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay more financial feasible.

The quality of the water in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay is gaining a great deal of attention lately after President Obama issued an Executive Order in May 2009 designating the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure that needs to be preserved. Also, the requirement for a TMDL (total maximum daily load), or a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, have put everyone and every practice within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed under a microscope. Agriculture is especially feeling the heat. Even though agriculture has made more progress in reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment going to the Chesapeake Bay than any other segment, they are still the largest contributors of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the bay overall.

Although everyone agrees that they want clean waterways, the economic crisis is making achieving those goals even more difficult. The economy has hit everyone, but dairy farmers were especially hit hard with low milk prices and high feed costs in 2009. Although the milk price paid to farmers has increased in recent months it is not enough to make up for the huge losses that occurred last year and it will take many years for the dairy industry to recover. Therefore, convincing farmers to spend money they don’ t have on a management practice that may be good for water quality but will not increase milk production or bring in extra income is a very hard sell. In other businesses, when increased regulation requires capital investment the cost of that investment is passed on to the consumer of that product, but farmers do not have that luxury. Farmers are paid based on the amount of milk they produce and the pounds of fat and protein in the milk, not the method of production (except for organic). However, what if a new brand of milk were produced similar to how organic milk is marketed where consumers would pay a premium for milk produced on farms that met curtain environmental and nutrient management requirements and the premium paid by consumers would be passed onto the farmers that made the capital investment to improve the environment.

In order to truly improve local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay everyone in the watershed will have to do their part, and it is not fair to expect one segment of the community to carry so much of the burden. Many farmers have a desire to reduce what environmental impact they may be having, and many have taken those steps on their own and invested their own money with no hope of seeing any financial payback for their investment. However, there are others that just don’t have the money to spare and this type of program might take a best management practice from too expensive to doable. Of course developing a new label and monitoring that the farms that sell their milk under that label are doing what they are supposed to do is not a simple task, but improving water quality in the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed will take every idea there is.

What is in Manure?

2010-11-01T14:09:00.000-04:00

Manure can be both a blessing and a curse on many farms. It is a great fertilizer for the crops, but it also has to be managed diligently from when it comes out of the cow to when it is spread on the field to ensure that it is all ending up where it should. From collections systems to storage and spreading there are many things to consider about manure management, but one benefit to manure is often overlooked. It is a great indicator of the health of your cows and how well they are utilizing the diet that is being fed to them.

There is a great deal of effort put into creating a well balanced ration and presenting it to the cow, but after that the cow and her rumen microbes are in control and do we really know what is happening in there? Yes, we know a great deal about how feeds are digested and utilized, but every farm and every cow are different. Therefore, the only way to determine how cows on your farm are utilizing your diet is to look at the manure. Many producers look for loose manure as an indicator that there might be too much protein in the ration or too many concentrates in general. Some even look at whether there are corn kernels in the manure. Identifiable corn in the manure is a good sign that not all the corn in the ration is being utilized for milk production.

However, not many look beyond the looseness of the manure or whether there is corn in it. There is more that can be learned from the manure and it requires that a manure sample be taken and sent to a lab for analysis. Manure analysis do not need to be done as often as forage analysis, but looking at it once or twice a year might yield some surprising information. From an environmental perspective looking at the phosphorus content of the manure will give you a good idea as to whether the diet is providing the right amount of phosphorus to the cow. Manure phosphorus levels should be between 0.55% and 0.7% in a diet that is meeting the phosphorus requirements of the cow without providing too much. Manure can also be analyzed for neutral detergent fiber to determine how well the fiber portion of the ration is being utilized. Starch is also a great thing to measure because it will quantify how much of the starch from the corn in the manure is being excreted.

In order for manure analysis results to be useful they first need to be taken properly. The general rule is that 15% of a specific group or up to 20 cows should be sampled. The sample should be of fresh manure, which means palpating cows or obtaining samples from piles that have recently hit the floor and are not contaminated with feed or bedding. As with any sampling, it is important that the sample is representative of the entire group. Samples from all the cows in a group are mixed together and sub-sampled. The sub-sample is placed in a well sealed container and shipped overnight to a lab that performs manure analysis, or should be frozen if not mailed immediately. This analysis can take two to three weeks to perform. The results need to be interpreted relative to the ration that specific group was eating at the time of the sampling.

Having done many manure analysis I understand that it is not something that folks are eager to do, but it is another tool that can be utilized on the farm to help ensure that the ration is being utilized as efficiently as possible.

Grouping Animals for Better Water Quality

2010-10-20T14:39:00.000-04:00

What does grouping animals have to do with water quality? Initially they may not seemed connected, but grouping animals can have big impacts on local water quality. Cows can be grouped by age, pregnancy status, or stage of lactation. Although all grouping strategies have benefits, grouping cows by stage of lactation is the most beneficial for water quality.

Cows at different stages of lactation have different levels of milk production. When cows first calve their milk production is relatively low, but rapidly increases and peaks around 60 days post calving. After that, milk production declines at a slower rate until the cows are dried off around 300 days post calving. Because milk production is the main driver of feed and nutrient intake, cows at a similar stage of lactation will have similar nutrient requirements. Therefore, if a herd is grouped based on stage of lactation rations can be created for each specific group that more closely matches the needs of that group.

Rations are formulated based off of the average milk production of a group plus two standard deviations. This is the best compromise to meet the requirements for the highest producing cows while decreasing the amount of overfeeding to the lower producing cows. However, the tighter the range of milk production in a group of animals the lower the standard deviation and the more precisely the ration can be formulated to meet the needs of the group without overfeeding the lower producing cows in the group by such a degree. The overfeeding of nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, are major contributors to local water quality concerns because when more nitrogen and phosphorus is fed to the cow than she needs the extra is excreted in the feces and urine.

Grouping cows is generally more economical as well because feeds can be used most efficiently. Larger dairy farms have been grouping cows for a while, but it is more difficult for smaller farmers to have enough animals in a certain stage of lactation and/or the facilities to group animals. However, it can be done with some creativity and smaller farmers should consider grouping as a way to increase feed efficiency and reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loss from the farm.

Challenges to Implementing BMPs on a Farm

2010-10-13T11:21:00.000-04:00

Why don't farmers implement certain best management practices (BMP) on their farms? For those who are not farmers, it may seem obvious going onto a farm that a certain BMP should be implemented. The farmer may even agree with you but yet there is no plan to implement that BMP on the farm. The biggest reason BMPs are not implemented is the economy. Farmers have no money to spare so even if there is cost sharing available there just aren't the matching funds from the farm perspective to make the BMP go forward. Everyone has been hit by the overall economic crisis, but farmers were hit especially hard with low milk prices that will take many years to recover from. In short, most farms are in survival mode and extras are just not going to happen. Unfortunately there is no good solution to this issue until the milk price and the overall economy improve.

The other reason I see why farmers don't implement a specific BMP on their farm is that they don't know what to do. With limited funds they don't know what BMP would be most beneficial to them, and they may not be aware that some BMPs are actually required. For example, farms in Pennsylvania have been required to have a conservation plan and a manure management plan since the 70's but there are many farmers that do not know that they are required to have these two plans on file. If we want farmers to improve nutrient management and soil conservation on their farm we need to be very specific about what they need to do.

The Miner Institute, A Great Resource

2010-10-08T15:10:00.000-04:00

Miner Institute Dairy Facilities

The Miner Institute is a privately funded research institution located in Norther New York. It has a working dairy farm and equine facilities that allows it to do a great deal of research in many different areas and one of those is environmental issues. The institute also publishes an informative and entertaining monthly newsletter entitled the "Farm Report" on current topics and research updates.

The October issue just came out and there are two interesting environmental focused articles related to manure application and the carbon footprint of milk. The manure article emphasizes the importance of spreading manure as thin as possible to avoid environmental consequences. The article also makes the point that in many situations traveling a little further to spread manure instead of just going to the field next to the barn will pay off. Many farms assume that the gas and time is not worth traveling further to spread manure, but the improved yields from those fields will offset the cost of travel in many situations.

The other article of interest summarized a study published in Food and Nutrition Research that evaluated the carbon foot print of various drinks (milk, soft drinks, orange juice, beer, red wine, mineral water, soy drink, and oat drink) relative to the nutrients provided by those drinks. The results of the article showed that milk had the lowest climate impact relative to the amount of nutrients provided. Milk is a very nutrient dense product so what environmental impact it has is offset by the nutritive value of the product.

I encourage everyone to check out the Miner Institute's Farm Report. It will be well worth the time.

Essential Oils and Methane Production

2010-09-28T10:38:00.000-04:00

Oregano

Cow belches release methane into the air, which leads to air quality concerns since methane is considered a greenhouse gas. Ionophores, like Monensin, have been used to alter the rumen fermentation and reduce methane production along with providing other benefits. However, ionophores have been banned in Europe and who knows what the future is for these products in the US. Therefore, researches have tried to find naturally occurring substances that could have the same effect as ionophores.

Like ionophores, essential oils alter the rumen fermentation of feeds by changing the populations of the different kinds of rumen bacteria. They essentially act like antibiotics in the rumen and kill certain kinds of bacteria. In the rumen, there are numerous different kinds of bacteria and if one is inhibited another one will flourish. Since different kinds of bacteria produce different end products (volatile fatty acids, methane, ammonia, etc.) from their fermentation changing the populations will change what is produced from the overall rumen fermentation process.

Some of the common essential oils that have been studied so far are garlic oil, cinnamaldehyde (from cinnamon oil), eugenol (from clove bud), capsaicin (from hot peppers), and anise oil. All of these oils have been shown to reduce methane production, modify protein degradation, and increase propionate production in the rumen. Propionate is the main energy source for milk production so one benefit to feeding essential oils could be increased milk production. Modification of protein degradation could reduce the amount of ammonia produced in the rumen. Ammonia produced in the rumen is converted to urea in the blood, is excreted in the milk and urine, and is the main source of excess nitrogen in manure. Therefore, reducing ammonia production could have both air and water quality benefits. Reducing methane production would have direct positive impacts on air quality since it would result in less methane being belched out.

Researchers at Penn State have also waded into the area of study and have looked at oregano as a feed additive to reduce methane production. Dr. Alex Hristov is the main investigator and he began this work by evaluating different supplements in the lab. He then moved his research to animal studies and found that feeding oregano reduced methane production in dairy cows by 40% and increased milk production by 3 lbs/day. Because methane production represents an energy loss to the animal it is not surprising that reducing methane production would also lead to an increase in milk production. The future of this work is to determine what specific compound in the oregano is actually eliciting the response. Determining the basic compound is essential to get this type of research out onto the farm because basic compounds are easier to make consistently and would be cheaper for farmers to buy.

Although many of these products show promise, how well they work and if they alter the rumen fermentation in a positive manner is highly variable. These products work on a broad range of rumen bacteria so truly manipulating rumen fermentation on a fine scale will be difficult. Also, essential oils are very pH dependent meaning that they work differently at low versus high pH. Therefore, the type of animal and diet fed to that animal will greatly impact how well essential oils reduce methane production. What dose to feed, how to incorporate into rations, and what combination of oils is the best are all things that are yet to be determined.

Water Conservation

2010-09-22T15:27:00.001-04:00

This summer has been a dry one for many folks in Pennsylvania and around the northeast. This has lead to major losses in crop production because many farmers in this part of the state do not irrigate their crops. In other parts of the country irrigation is the norm, but in Pennsylvania there is usually enough rainfall to not warrant irrigation. This year was an exception.

Although drought has the most noticeable impact on crop production other areas of the farm can be impacted as well. Farm animals need a lot of water and if the water supply to the farm is not adequate to sustain them through dry times animal production can also suffer. A person uses about 62 gallons of water per day, much of which is water that we are using for washing and other activities, and not directly consuming. However, a dairy cow needs about 30-35 gallons of water a day just to drink, beef cows and horses need about 15 gallons per day, and 100 chickens need about 10 gallons of water per day. Many farms are supplied by wells or springs and both can give out during extended dry seasons. Springs are more likely to give out than wells, assuming the well is dug deep enough, so they should be monitored more closely. Monitoring the well, regardless of how deep it was dug, is always a good idea because if it is getting close to giving out you will have time to plan for an alternative water source. Well monitors cost between $250 and $1000, but if that is the main water source for a farm it is well worth the investment.

There are a number of simple things that can be done to conserve water in the home and on a farm and many good suggestions can be found at the Penn State Extension Water Resources web page.

Tracking MUNs to Limit Ammonia Emissions

2010-09-14T09:30:00.000-04:00

Milk urea nitrogen (MUN) is an affective and easy tool for farmers to track how well their cows are utilizing nitrogen from the feed, but it can also be a tool to evaluate air quality on farms.

Milk urea nitrogen on well managed farms ranges from 8 mg/dl up to 12 mg/dl. Values higher than 12 indicates that there is nitrogen being wasted and the ration formulation needs to be evaluated. There are two things that should be looked at in the ration when MUNs are running high. The first is the amount of protein in the ration. If the cow is fed more protein than she needs that protein will first be converted to ammonia in the rumen. Ammonia is then absorbed into the blood stream where it is converted to urea due to the toxicity of ammonia to the cow. Much of this urea is then excreted as a waste product in the urine, but some will also go into the milk. Therefore, MUN is a good indicator of how much urea is excreted in the urine. The other thing to look at in the ration is the amount of available energy. If there isn't enough energy for the level of protein the protein will be broken down without subsequent microbial protein production and ammonia will be formed.

From a farmer perspective high MUNs indicate that money is being wasted on protein that is not being used for milk production. From an environmental perspective urea that is excreted in the urine is quickly converted back to ammonia by the urease enzyme found in the feces. This ammonia creates air quality concerns for the farm and the surrounding area. It is estimated that 25% of the nitrogen that ends up in the Chesapeake Bay comes from the air as ammonia.

Protein Utilization on Pasture

2010-08-30T10:25:00.001-04:00

Although we tend to worry about cows getting too much protein from the pasture during the lush spring months, the fall bump can also lead to too much protein intake on pasture. Good quality pastures tend to provide more protein than energy in general, but during the spring and fall growing seasons that ratio tilts even further towards protein. Therefore, supplementing either grain, corn silage, or a total mixed ration (TMR) is usually necessary to improve production in grazing herds and increase the utilization of protein from the pasture.

The energy component of the diet can greatly influence how the protein from the pasture is digested. This is because when a cow eats she is not only eating to support her own needs, but also the needs of the microbes in her rumen. When there is energy and protein available at the same time these microbes break down the feed (energy and protein) and use the end products to produce more of themselves (microbial protein). They then pass out of the rumen serving as a protein source for the cow. However, if there isn’t enough energy available, as is the case on pasture, the protein in the pasture will still be broken down, but instead of being converted to microbial protein, feed protein is broken down to ammonia. Ammonia is absorbed into the blood where it is converted to urea. This urea in the blood is the source of milk urea nitrogen (MUN) and urea nitrogen in the urine. Since MUN is coming from the same blood urea nitrogen pool as urea in the urine it is a good indicator of urea excretion and utilization. Excessive urea production and excretion in urine can lead to water and air quality concerns.

Also, from the cow’s standpoint, the production and excretion of excess urea takes energy. There is a paper out of Penn State by Kolver and Muller that estimated excess urea excretion cost the cow almost 4 lbs of milk/day! This is because it takes energy for the cow to convert the absorbed ammonia, which came from excess protein supply in the rumen, to urea. Ammonia is toxic to the cow so this conversion to urea is a necessary energy utilizing process, which cannot be eliminated, but can be reduced through lower protein rations and appropriately matching ration protein and energy concentrations. Are you willing to leave 4 lbs of milk on the table knowing that not only did you lose milk production, but you also lost feed efficiency and it could have been prevented if MUN had been tracked and maintained within the recommended 8-12 mg/dl?

One way to improve nitrogen efficiency from the pasture and decrease MUN is to supplement the pasture with a partial TMR. A study from Penn State supplemented pasture with a partial TMR and saw an 8 lb/day increase in milk production and a 3 mg/dl decrease in MUN compared with pasture supplemented with 19 lb of concentrate. Supplementing with a grain mix or corn silage are also options, but a mixture is usually better at providing digestible energy that is not too fermentable in the rumen.

Although the pasture may be supplying a large portion of the dry matter, supplementing the pasture is necessary to maximize its full potential. Total mixed ration supplementation of pasture allows for better capture of protein from the pasture the nitrogen utilization will be increased, which can be tracked though MUN values. For all the effort that goes into developing and maintaining high quality pastures lets be sure we are getting all we can out of these efforts.

Getting a Farmer's Attention

2010-08-20T11:01:00.004-04:00

Many nutrient management, water quality, and general environmentally minded folks get frustrated at times that farmers aren’t as engaged in these issues as they would like or don’t implement changes on the farm at the pace they would like. Why is that? Well, it boils down to what is your priority. If you work in the environmental field and live and breathe water quality and air quality all day you begin to believe that it is the most important thing, which rightly you should. If environmental quality is your field it makes sense that air and water quality are top priorities for you and you may tend to assume that they should be for others.

Farmers, on the other hand, do care about water and air quality and other environmental concerns, but that is not their entire job so it is not their priority issue. Farmers actually have very complicated jobs with a lot of things pulling them in many different directions. Farmers are raising, large numbers of animals. Even a 40-cow dairy, which is small in the dairy world, is a daunting task when you think about actually taking care of 40 animals plus the 20 calves and heifers that would also be on that farm. I work in the dairy industry and I know I would be overwhelmed with all they have to deal with. Cows get sick and need to be treated, maybe they need help calving, they need extra care and attention after calving even if everything went well, they need to be fed multiple times a day, they need to have access to water, they need to be milked at least twice a day, their housing and stalls need to be maintained daily so that they are comfortable, and the list could go on and on.

Just dealing with the needs of the cows is a lot of work, but farmers also need to provide food for these animals, and in many cases that means growing the corn, soybeans, and hay that will be fed to the cows. Good quality feed is necessary to have high levels of milk production, which is necessary for a farm to make money and continue in the business. That means fields need to be planted and fertilized in a timely manner, hay needs to be chopped multiple times throughout the year and timed so that it has time to dry before getting rained on, and crops need to be harvested a precise times and stored properly so that there is little loss of this precious feed through the year.

All of these animal care and feed production activities take a lot of time and deserve the attention of the farmer. These are, and should be, their priorities if they want to remain in the dairy business. Although many farmers do care a great deal about the environment it just doesn’t make it to the top of the priority list very often. Therefore, for someone working in the environmental field to gain the attention of the farmer and get them to really implement a strategy on their farm you need to show them how it will impact their bottom line and/or improve the health of their animals or the quality of the feeds they are growing. If it doesn’t benefit the dairy operation in some way it will never reach the top of the priority list even though it is on the list.

eXtension - A Great Resource

2010-08-11T14:01:00.001-04:00

eXtension is a website that was developed within the last 5 years and is turning into a great resources on a number of issues. All the material on the website is peer reviewed and comes from reputable research institutions and extension professionals so it can be trusted. It has information on the following general topic areas:

Community - master gardening and entrepreneurship
Disaster Issues - floods, oil spill, wildfires, and agrosecurity
Energy - farm and home
Family - child care, food and fitness, care giving, food safety, parenting, and personal finance
Farm - manure management, bee health, beef cattle, dairy cattle, corn and soybean production, cotton, goats, horses, organic, and small meat processors
Pest Management
Youth

Hidden under the "manure management" sub-section of the "Farm" tab is a great page on environmental regulations related to livestock and poultry operations. This explains both water and air quality regulations that are enforced at the national level. There are many state and local regulations that farmers will also need to follow which aren't discussed on this page, but it is still a great resource for the national laws. On other pages is a dearth of information on environmental tools and management strategies that can be employed on varies types of farms.

Fly Away Fly

2010-07-26T14:04:00.000-04:00

Flies are an unwelcome guest on any farm. Farmers get a lot of complaints from neighbors about flies, and in most cases the farmer doesn't like the flies any more than the neighbor does. Flies are a nuisance to everyone, farmer, neighbor, and animal. Flies can cause disease, spread disease, or bother animals enough that they lose production. There are many options to control flies on a farm from sprays, fly paper, dusters, to parasitic wasps, but one of the most overlooked ways to reduce flies on a farm is to keep the farm as clean as possible. Manure, feed, and milk are three of the biggest draws for flies to keeping those things cleaned up on the farm will help to reduce fly pressure. Some things to think about would be: make sure barnyards are cleaned regularly, stalls are cleaned and freshly bedded daily, milk houses washed after each milking, spilled milk around calf hutches is cleaned up, and spilled feed is cleaned up. Flies are drawn to food sources and places to lay their eggs and if those options are not available on the farm they will move on. The added benefit to keeping the farm neat and clean is that it will reduce the chances of runoff from the farm that can lead to water quality concerns, and it will give a positive impression to the neighbors that the farm is doing the right thing. I should state that there will always be flies on a farm no matter what anyone does, but keeping them at a manageable level is the goal.

Rain!!

2010-07-16T16:10:00.000-04:00

After almost of a month of no rain we finally got some much needed precipitation here in Lancaster County. Unfortunately we got 3-4 inches in a span of a few days, which under traditional cropping strategies could have made for a very muddy situation not only on land, but also in the local waterways. However, because so many farmers have adopted no-till farming practices the fields were able to absorb this water preventing the local streams from becoming that familiar muddy color. In this area around 50% of land is in no-till production, which is a great tribute to farmer's concern for local water quality. There are many other states that cannot boast such a high number of no-till acres. The benefit to no-till is that there is residue from last year's crop still covering the top of the soil. This residue inhibits the flow of water allowing more it to be absorbed into the soil instead of running off into local streams. Excessive runoff from a field, which could have easily happened during this rain event, can carry with it nutrients and sediment that will then contaminate local waterways. Also, because the water had a better opportunity to be absorbed into the soil the plants will benefit from this rain for weeks to come.

Hazy, Hot, and Humid!!

2010-07-06T11:06:00.001-04:00

Summer has officially arrived, and with it the heat and humidity. As uncomfortable as these hot days can be for us cows are even more miserable. Farmers do all they can to make the cows comfortable, but you can’t air condition the outdoors.

Dairy cows are most comfortable between 41oF and 77oF, but obviously if the humidity is high even lower temperatures can become uncomfortable. When cows get too hot and uncomfortable they eat less, which leads to less milk production. For example, increasing the temperature from 68oF to 86oF can reduce milk production by almost 10 lbs. One a 100-cow dairy that would equate to 1000 lbs less milk per day and with the current milk price of around $15 per hundred pounds that would equate to $150 in lost profit to the dairy producer each day just from the heat!

Due to the significant production losses that can be seen with heat stress in cows, farmers do lot a try to keep their cows cool. The most obvious is to provide plenty of water. Milk is 87% water so even in cooler weather cows need at least 20 to 25 gallons of water a day, but in hot weather they will drink up to 30 to 35 gallons. Of course, this water has to be provided in enough areas so cows don’t have to stand in line for water, and it should be provided in clean waterers. Cows on pasture are very susceptible to heat stress because they are more exposed to the heat so making sure they have enough water is even more crucial.

Shade is the other thing we think of as a way to cool down. Cows that are housed in barns already have shade available, but cows on pasture need a tree or some type of shade to stay cool. Many farms try to provide shade to their cows, but it is not always possible to provide shade on the pasture. Therefore, many farmers, who graze their cows, will bring them into the barn during the hottest part of the day to provide some relief from the sun and heat.
Fans are another option used on farms to keep cows cool. Almost all barns have fans in the main stall area, holding areas, and the milking parlor. Fans help move the air over the cows and evaporates the heat. There a many types of fans used on farms and one type, tunnel ventilation, you can see from the road. These farms have fans at one end of the barn and an opening at the other end, which allows the fans to pull air through the barn cooling the cows in the process. Also, there are fans in the barn itself directly over the cows that helps move the air even more.

Fans are a great way to cool cows, but adding sprinklers on top of using the fans is even better. Sprinklers are usually set on timers so that they come on every few minutes during hot weather. They are placed over the feeding areas so as not to get the bedding area wet. Sprinklers cool cows, much as running through a sprinkler cools you. When cows eat they get wet from the sprinkler and then the air movement from the fans evaporates the heat from the cow even faster than fans alone.

What Do They Measure in the Chesapeake Bay Part III

2010-06-28T10:43:00.002-04:00

This is the last in the series looking at what is measured in the Chesapeake Bay and if those measurements are moving in the right direction. In agriculture we mostly hear about nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, but as we have learned so far there are many other areas that are evaluated. The previous articles in this series have focused on water quality, plants, and invertebrates, which are directly impacted by nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. This last installment of the series will focus on the larger aquatic fish and shellfish that live in the Chesapeake Bay and are indirectly impacted by the excess nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the bay.

Although there are a number of fish and shellfish species in the bay the focus falls on blue crabs, striped bass, oysters, and shad as representative species to track more intensely. Many of these organisms are harvested for commercial sale and that harvest is tightly regulated. Also, these fish and shellfish are popular with tourists and are a source of local pride, which means their commercial value is only part of their overall value to the region.

One third of all the blue crabs sold in the United States come from the Chesapeake Bay and they need good water quality and underwater grasses to survive and thrive. Within the bay ecosystem they are consider both a predator of bottom dwelling organisms and prey for birds, which makes them a very important species. Their numbers are holding steady around the goal populations, but decreases in water quality could change their status.

Striped bass is the main fish species evaluated in terms of the health of the bay. The Chesapeake Bay is their primary spawning location on the Atlantic coast. Even though there are water quality concerns with the bay the striped bass population has exceeded the goal population since 1995.

Oysters filter water for food so they are very susceptible to water contamination, and because they filter the water they also help to increase water clarity. As mentioned in previous columns, an improvement in water clarity also improves the health of bay grasses and the entire ecosystem. At their peak, the number of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay could filter all the water in the bay in one week. It takes the current population one year to filter the entire bay. Oysters are only at 10% of their goal population with relatively no trends up or down since the mid 90’s.

Shad, or bay sardines, historically were a big part of the diet and culture of the people in the region. However, they suffered very low populations in the 70’s due to overfishing and dams. Shad spawn upstream so if dams are erected in the streams and rivers that feed the bay the shad have no place to spawn. In recent years fish passage systems have been installed in streams and rivers to provide the shad a way around the dams. The Susquehanna is less than 1% of its goal for shad spawning. Shad serve as a food source for striped bass and other larger fish so a decline in their population will impact other species.

Although this series has been a slight departure from the normal agriculture topics I think it is important to have an understanding of how the Chesapeake Bay as a whole is evaluated and how agriculture impacts that evaluation. The new water quality regulations being proposed for agriculture stem from these Chesapeake Bay evaluations that have been outlined in this series so although it may seem abstract the evaluation of the bay directly impacts all farmers in the watershed.

Farms Are the Solution

2010-06-21T11:28:00.000-04:00

"Agriculture is part of the solution for the bay" was a statement made by Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, at a recent event highlighting the designation of the Conewago Creek as one of three "Showcase" watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This is a statement that has been echoed by local officials as well, but it is always nice to here from those higher up the chain. Farmers tend to receive a lot of blame for water quality concerns related to the bay, but for those who truly understand what impacts the water quality of local streams and the Chesapeake Bay they know that land in agriculture is better than developed land. Developed lands are the only land types that have increasing nutrient and sediment loss.

However, the proof is in the pudding and agency officials and legislators need to make sure they don't unwittingly pass laws that may hurt the very sector they are trying to preserve.

4%, Dairy's Contribution to Green House Gasses

2010-06-04T16:01:00.001-04:00

In a 2006 report the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released a report stating that livestock accounted for 18% of all green house gas (GHG) production world wide. This initial report implied that livestock contributed more to GHGs than transportation. Since that report Frank Mitleohner, with the University of California-Davis, clearly pointed out a flaw in how this value was calculated. The livestock GHG production values looked at the entire picture from the fossil fuel used to power the machines to plant the crops that were used to feed the animals, to the GHG produced by the animal, and to the processing of those animals. However, on the transportation side only the GHGs produced through the actual use of the vehicles were included in the calculation. Mitleohner received numerous threats for questioning this report, but he has since been vindicated. The new FAO report and those calculates that dairies contribution to GHG is only 4%. In addition, American dairy farms emit 45% fewer GHG per unit of milk compared with the global average. This is positive news for the dairy industry and hopefully this information gets quoted as much as the previous data was.

In the future the U.S. dairy industry as pledged to reduce GHG by another 25% by 2020. Dairy and the livestock industry tend to get blamed for a lot of things, but they have consistently addressed shortcomings in the industry, improved production efficiency, and reduced environmental impact over the years. How many other industries can claim this type of progress?

Grazers Impacted by New Chesapeake Bay Regulations

2010-05-28T16:39:00.000-04:00

A draft of the guidance strategy for federal agricultural lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed) was released in March, and although the title implies that these suggestions are only relative to agriculture on federal lands the content implies otherwise. It is suggested in the first few paragraphs of this 246-page document that these suggestions should be taken into consideration by states and other agencies in the development of the local watershed implementation plans. There are twenty implementation measures outlined in this guidance, but the focus of this column will be on the three measures that would most directly impact grazers.

The one that has, and will continue to get, the most attention states: “Exclude livestock form streams and streambanks and provide alternative watering facilities and stream crossings to reduce nutrient inputs, streambank erosion, and sediment inputs and to improve animal health.” This push has been coming from the federal, state, and local level for some time and there will continue to be pressure on this issue. Research has shown that when cattle are fenced out of the streams there are significant reductions in fecal coliforms, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total solids in the streams. Also, from the cow standpoint, hoof health and udder health are generally better in cows that are not allowed to stand in water. This guidance does not specify a suggested buffer zone width, but even a simple poly wire along the bank can have benefits for water quality and animal health.

The other measure that relates directly to grazing operations states: “Minimize nutrient and soil loss from pasture land by maintaining uniform livestock distribution, keeping livestock away from riparian areas, and managing stocking rates and vegetation to prevent pollutant losses through erosion and runoff.” Many well managed grazing operations are already implementing practices that would address these issues as too high a stocking density without proper rotation will decrease pasture quality and intake. This measure also suggests that the streambank buffers, mentioned previously, should not be grazed except under specific circumstances.

The last measure directly addressing grazing operation states: “Manage runoff from livestock production areas under grazing and pasture to minimize off-farm transport of nutrients and sediment.” With properly managed pastures the vegetation should reduce and prevent a great deal of runoff, but high traffic areas and compacted soils can facilitate runoff from pasture areas. It is unclear how sacrifice lots/paddocks fit into these regulations, but the goal of all of these measures is to eliminate as much as possible all runoff from agricultural operations and that includes cultivated fields, barnyards, pastures, and sacrifice lots.

It is unclear how these specific measures will play out in Pennsylvania, but it is clear that more regulations are coming and they will impact everyone.

Pasture walks scheduled: Below are three pasture walks I will be involved with and presenting some of this information and how these new Chesapeake Bay regulations might impact you.

June 29^th Amos Ebersol at 590 Red Hill Rd, Narvon, PA. A conventional jersey operation with a thriving direct marketing business. Karl Dallefield of Midwestern Bio-Ag will be speaking. Lunch will be provided.

June 30^th Roman Stoltzfus at 1143 Gap Rd, Kinzers, PA. A highly diversified organic dairy grazing operation. Karl Dallefield of Midwestern Bio-Ag will be speaking. Lunch will be provided.

July 21^st Stephen T. Stoltzfus at 5268 Amish Rd, Kinzers, PA. An organic dairy operation. Dr. Gregory Martin of Penn State Extension will be speaking on fly control. Lunch will be sponsored by Beitzel’s Spraying.

No-Till Manure Injection

2010-05-18T14:16:00.000-04:00

The above video was taken by Jeff Graybill, Agronomy Educator in Lancaster County, of shallow manure injection into a no-till field of corn. This is new technology being tested on a corn field in Southeast Pennsylvania. If the rain stops corn will be planted on this field soon.

Normally on no-till fields manure has to be broadcast so as not to disrupt the soil, but broadcasting manure results in a significant loss of nitrogen from the manure into the air as ammonia. Injecting manure into the soil is a better option to avoid the loss of nitrogen to the air, but normal injection works up the soil and increases the risk for sediment loss.

It sill be interesting to see how the subsequent corn crop reacts to this type of application. I'll keep you posted as the season progresses.

What Do They Measure in the Chesapeake Bay? (Part II)

2010-05-11T09:46:00.000-04:00

“Habitats” and the “lower food web” are terms that are probably not familiar to many of us, but they are part of the overall health evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay. Bay grasses, phytoplankton, and bottom habitat are all measured to determine the overall habitat and lower food web score, which is then compiled into the overall bay health score. Like the water quality issues discussed in the last column, what happens on the land can directly impact habitats and the lower food web of the Chesapeake Bay.

Bay grasses are doing relatively well with 42% of the goal achieved for the number of acres of bay covered, and 99% of the goal has been reached in the upper sections of the bay that are most influenced by what happens here in Pennsylvania. There are 16 species of bay grasses and they provide shelter and food to aquatic organisms, improve water clarity, decrease shoreline erosion, and add oxygen to the water. Bay grasses, like grasses on land, need nutrients and sunlight to thrive. Therefore, you might think that the excess nitrogen and phosphorus going into the bay would be helpful to the bay grasses, but the decrease in water clarity caused by excess nutrients (discussed in last column) blocks sunlight from reaching the plants and actually leads to a reduction in grasses.

Bottom habitat is a complex measurement and, like bay grasses, is doing relatively well with 42% of goal attained. The bottom habitat score is reflective of organisms, like oysters and shellfish, which live and feed on the floor of the bay and other organisms that live above and below the sediment surface. The bottom habitat is a good measure of the health of the bay because these organisms cannot move away from pollutants like fish and other more mobile organisms can. Lack of dissolved oxygen is the main cause for a decrease in the quality of bottom habitats and low dissolved oxygen is caused by excessive nutrients in the water as addressed previously.

Phytoplankton is a type of algae and is the main algae involved in the “algae blooms” that occur in the bay during the summer months. Phytoplankton serves as the base of the food web, which means it is a primary food source for many organisms in the bay, and is a primary producer of oxygen for the bay. Although phytoplankton is a good thing for the bay, too much of it, or more than organisms can consume, leads to excessive growth or blooms. These blooms eventually die and when that happens oxygen is removed from the water leading to death of fish and other aquatic organisms. Phytoplankton is sensitive to salt so they are more prevalent in fresh water areas of the bay, i.e. the upper section of the bay closer to Pennsylvania.

The Chesapeake Bay has a very diverse population of aquatic plants and organisms but if the balance of these populations is tilted in a certain direction the consequences can be great. For you dairy farmers out there, you can best relate this to the rumen of cows. There are a number of different bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and yeast in the rumen at any one time, and just like the bay, if they are overfed certain nutrients the balance of these organisms in the rumen is negatively impacted along with productivity.

Photo by Mike Land/Chesapeake Bay Program

Respecting Science

2010-05-04T14:00:00.000-04:00

Why is there so much skepticism and animosity towards science and scientists? My guess is that it has something to do with lack of understanding. People are afraid and distrustful of things they don’t understand. The more science progresses the further away it gets from what the average person understands, which means that the public will only become more skeptical without some concerted effort by the scientific community to reach out and explain these advances.

With only 2% of the U.S. population involved in agriculture, the agricultural community has been dealing with this fear of the unknown for decades. If people don’t even know how their food gets to their plates it is very difficult to explain how scientific advancements will impact that process. Unfortunately fear is easier to propagate than understanding so misinformation spreads quickly. Therefore, agriculture, and scientists in general, spend a lot of time defending themselves instead of being proactive and telling the positive side of the story.

Scientists and people involved in agriculture can complain about the lack of understanding, but the fault is ours and we need to start taking responsibility for helping people understand and appreciate what we do. Science and agriculture have made life easier and safer for everyone in the U.S. and beyond and that story needs to be told. What are you doing to spread this story?

Spring Houses Connect People to the Land

2010-04-21T13:26:00.000-04:00

Spring houses, for those who may not know, are simply a developed spring that can be used as a water source. Depending on the flow rate of the spring they can serve as the only water source on a property. Recently I was on a dairy farm that was having problems with the quality of water from their spring. The spring provided water to the 40 dairy cows as well as the main residence on the property.

The interesting thing with springs serving as water supplies is that it forces the landowner to develop an understanding of how what happens on the land impacts the water that is supplied from the spring. For example, this farmer had walked his farm during a rain storm and observed where the water flowed off the land, he realized that spreading manure on certain low-lying areas is more likely to lead to issues with the well, and he realized that both surface water runoff and groundwater leaching can both impact the water quality of the spring. This farmer has learned how to manage his own little watershed to improve the water quality that he supplies to his family and animals.

In this age of city water supplies and wells many residents have lost that understanding of how what they do on the land impacts local water supplies. However, the impacts of practices on the land have no less of an impact on the land than they did when people were in charge of their own water supplies.

My Earth Day challenge to everyone is to take back the responsibility for your own water supply. If everyone took more ownership in local water resources many issues would solve themselves.

Guest Post: Green Infrastructure and Green Spaces

2010-04-14T11:16:00.003-04:00

by Jack Lundee with everythingleft.wordpress.com

Land conservation, clean water, and "green spaces" are amongst the most popular topics of early 2010. In particular, the addition and/or substitution of green spaces has been quite controversial as of late. Senior resident of Urban Land Institute Ed T. McMahon states "Green space adds value to property." Not only do areas of conservation drive economic trends upward, but they also improve the overall health of the community surrounding. For example, substituting things like golf courses for conservation areas would essentially increase surrounding property value while diminishing overpriced maintenance fees. The same holds true for airports and other large acre-eating developments. Recent findings have driven people like McMahon and fellow conservationists to investigate further into upgrading and expanding green infrastructure efforts.

Opponents state that this would ultimately drive up costs in the short term, however the return on investment would be substantial in the long term. The U.S. Green Building Council is a 501(3)(c) non-profit community of leaders working to make green buildings available to everybody. It’s one of the many organizations playing its role in this progression.

With recent green discussion on space travel/fossil fuel emissions, deforestation and land conservation, it’s important that we as individuals/citizens stay up-to-date on important global issues like warming. As larger organizations like the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative), AFH (Architecture for Humanity), and the USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) conducts sustainability campaigns and enforce strict green constraints, our world will continue to become a better, cleaner place. Machines behind the CGI, Doug Band and Former President Clinton have been pursuing an emission reduction plan in the San Francisco Bay area. Meanwhile, GEC (Globetrotters Engineering Corporation) is underway with green building projects in Chicago, IL. Despite these few national examples, green infrastructure, particularly in places like Haiti, has become an integral part of restoration and construction.

This aligns with the implications of "economic viability" and long term sustainability, posing the questions, "Can Haiti really make it through all the costs of repair and reconstruction?" Infrastructure can take a toll on any economy, especially if the funds aren't there. This goes hand in hand with meeting modern day LEED standards and approaching this in a "greener" sense. Organizations like Architecture for Humanity will make this possible. Architecture for Humanity (1999) is a nonprofit design services firm building "a more sustainable future through the power of professional design." It was formulated through a group of building professionals whose overwhelming passion for construction drove them to provide a way for underdeveloped, suffering countries to rebuild. Through their dedication and hard work, these people will be able to not only create new buildings and infrastructure, but make them bigger, better, and greener.

To touch on just some of the things that AFH covers:

• Alleviating poverty and providing access to water, sanitation, power and essential services
• Bringing safe shelter to communities prone to disaster and displaced populations
• Rebuilding community and creating neutral spaces for dialogue in post-conflict areas
• Mitigating the effects of rapid urbanization in unplanned settlements
• Creating spaces to meet the needs of those with disabilities and other at-risk populations
• Reducing the footprint of the built environment and addressing climate change

As polluters continue to buy their way out of Carbon Cuts globally, and large organizations continue to dump their waste into lakes, ponds and rivers, communities and must play their role in ensuring sustainability; organizations like the CGI, AFH, and USGBC provide repercussion and policy change for acts such as the above. Most of the results from warming and climate change are minuscule and unnoticeable now, but our youth and earlier generations will experience firsthand the effects of pollutants and unsustainable efforts. Feel free to visit http://www.earthday.org/ to learn more about what you can do to support your world.

The above post does not represent the opinion of myself or Penn State University.

Air and Water Quality in Pennsylvania

2010-04-09T15:59:00.003-04:00

Do Farmers Know About Feed Management?

2010-04-08T16:17:00.000-04:00

The answer unfortunately in many cases is "no". Pennsylvania has done a great job of getting buy-in from nutritionists and getting those nutritionists to become trained to write plans. However, few plans have been written. The main reason for this is that many farmers don't know the program exists and therefore aren't asking for it. In Pennsylvania farmers can get paid $1,900 per group for the first year, $1,400 per group the second year, and $1,000 per group the third group and there can be up to four groups per farm. This equates to $7,600 for the first year just for doing a better job of feeding cows with little initial investment required! I don't think too many farmers would scoff at that kind of money, especially in these economic times.

Extension is working on getting the word out, but we call on anyone who works with or know a farmer to tell them about this program. We are also open to any suggestions on how to get the word out.

What Do They Measure in the Chesapeake Bay?

2010-03-30T15:52:00.001-04:00

We hear a lot about the “health of the Chesapeake Bay”, but what does that really mean? The health of the bay encompasses three categories; water quality, habitats and lower food web, and fish and shellfish. These three categories are combined to give you the overall “Bay Health” score, which, as of 2008 is 38%, with 100% being a fully restored ecosystem. Since the dairy industry is continually asked to do more to improve the water in the Chesapeake Bay it is important that we understand how we are being evaluated.

“Water quality” gains the most attention in many bay health discussions and is directly impacted by agricultural practices. With respect to the Chesapeake Bay, water quality encompasses four specific parameters: dissolved oxygen levels, water clarity, chlorophyll a levels, and chemical contaminants. Unfortunately, the long- and short-term trends show that only 21% of the water quality goals have been reached and they are not moving in the right direction.

Dissolved oxygen is the amount of oxygen in water. Just like animals on land, fish and other aquatic organisms need oxygen to survive, especially during spring spawning in the shallow waters. Oxygen in the bay water comes from infiltration from the air, underwater grasses (which work much like plants on land), and river and ocean water. Settling and decomposition of algae is the main cause for low dissolved oxygen levels in the Chesapeake Bay. Algae are a food source for many organisms in the Chesapeake Bay, but if there is more algae than the fish and aquatic organisms can eat it will grow out of control and eventually die. When it dies it decomposes. The decomposition consumes much of the oxygen in the water creating an environment where fish and other aquatic organisms cannot survive. These algae blooms are caused by excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that enter the bay from rivers and streams. Therefore, dissolved oxygen levels are a very good indicator of nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay.

Water clarity is a measure of the amount of sunlight that can penetrate the water. Just like land plants, aquatic grasses need light to grow, and light is also important to aquatic organisms so they can see prey and avoid predators. Sediment and plankton are two of the main causes of decreased clarity, but algae blooms can also decrease water clarity. Therefore, water clarity is influenced by the amount of nutrients reaching the bay as well as the sediment that leaves the land.

Chlorophyll a is a green pigment that allows plants to grow, much like plants on land, but a is predominant in algae. Therefore, chlorophyll a is a direct measurement of algae in the bay. As mentioned previously, algae is the base of the food chain in the bay so it generally a beneficial organism, but if there is more than can be utilized it can decrease clarity and reduce oxygen in the water. It is also a very good indicator of nutrient loading.

Chemical contaminants are the last component included in the overall water quality score. Chemicals are monitored on 89 tidal water segments. Metals, like Mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hydrocarbons from gas, oil, and coal burning, and herbicide and pesticide residues are some of the major chemicals that are being monitored. Unlike the other water quality contaminants this one can have a direct impact on human health because fish and aquatic organisms tend to concentrate chemicals. Therefore, warnings are in place on the amount of fish people should eat from the bay.

Obviously not all of these water quality conditions are caused by agriculture, but agriculture does play a role and understanding the score card will make it easier to play by the rules.

Farmers Helping the Environment

2010-03-19T16:25:00.000-04:00

I've been to a number of meetings the past few months and heard farmers complaining about why they are always blamed for nutrient pollution of local watersheds and the Chesapeake Bay. Granted, agriculture does still contribute a large percentage of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay and local watersheds, but progress has been made. In Pennsylvania, agriculture has reached over 40% of the nitrogen reduction goal and 30% of the phosphorus reduction goal! This did not just happen, farmers made it happen through hard work and continuing to try to make their farms better.

I see farmers doing the right thing for the environment all the time. Just in the past few weeks I have received phone calls from producers trying to figure out the best way to reduce odor on the farm, compost manure to reduce the risk of nitrogen leaching, upgrade manure digesters, and to install solar power. All of these farmers are considering making significant investments purely for the sake of doing the right thing for the environment and their neighbors. How many of the rest of us can say that we have made the same level of investment in our own homes and lives to reduce our impact on the environment? Farmers really are the original stewards of the land and deserve our respect and appreciation for their efforts.

Focus on Small Farms for Feed Management

2010-03-11T08:45:00.000-05:00

The vast majority of farms in Pennsylvania are small enough that they only fall under the most basic of regulations. Therefore, many in the regulatory and environmental community are turning their attention to these farms. The question is often posed, "Is a 1,000-cow farm better or worse than and ten 100-cow farms?" The answer I've heard is that the ten 100-cow farms may be worse. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of very good small farms out there that are doing their best to protect the environment, but from a basic oversight standpoint they are not nearly as regulated, which leads state and federal agencies to wonder if they really are doing everything right.

I have tried to focus on smaller farms in my programming and gearing the Feed Management program towards the smaller farm would be a win win for the farmer and the plan writer. Because smaller farmers are not required to follow as many regulations as larger farms they do not have the "insurance" that oversight and regulations provide against lawsuits and other environmental inquiries. Although a Feed Management Plan is not required for any size farm, for smaller farms, it provides that oversight from a federal agency that could serve as that "insurance policy".

From the nutritionist's point of view, writing and implementing a plan on a smaller farm would be simpler (at least from a sample collection standpoint). I came to this conclusion as I was out taking manure samples from a farm with over 400 cows. This farm has graciously agreed to serve as a an example for a Feed Management plan writing workshop, and in order to have the best data available for the participants I was diligently following the manure sampling protocol. This protocol, in Pennsylvania, requires manure to be sampled from 15% of the cows in each group or a maximum of 20 cow. With three groups on this farm that turned into a whole lot of manure samples and since we try to take the samples directly from the cow to avoid contamination my arm was a little tired. After cow 25 and realizing I was only about halfway done I was wishing I had chosen a nice 40-cow farm as that would have required I only get samples from 6 cows! Since Feed Management Plan implementation requires that manure samples be taken four times a year, if I were a nutritionist I think I would focus on smaller farms and save myself a lot of manure sampling.

My last piece of advice for folks writing Feed Management plans is to focus on farms that want nothing to do with this program because those are probably the farms that need it the most. Although getting more farms involved in the program is important, the biggest impact could be gained by focusing on getting plans written for the farms that really need them instead of farms that are already doing a good job.

Can We Really Clean Up an Impaired Watershed?

2010-03-03T09:28:00.000-05:00

Below is a nice article written in the Lancaster Intelligencier/New Era newspaper that talks about a project that I am lucky to be involved with. Penn State received a grant and that money was matched by other sources to fund whatever is needed to improve the water quality in an agriculturally impaired watershed. At the most basic level this is a huge experiment to see what works and what progress can be made when all available resources are concentrated in a small area. This will be a huge learning process for everyone involved in the project, and the goal is not only to just clean up this particular watershed, but to take those lessons learned to other watersheds and hopefully clean up those as well.

Actual article:

Local watershed may be key to saving Chesapeake Bay

Conewago effort to serve as model

By AD CRABLE, Staff Writer

The Conewago Creek watershed — a sparsely populated but heavily farmed area at the junction of Lancaster, Dauphin and Lebanon counties — is being put in a big test tube.

A unique grass-roots cleanup strategy being tried here, if successful, may become a model for how to clean streams across five states and make meaningful strides in restoring the Chesapeake Bay.

And, not so coincidentally, it night help Pennsylvania farmers avoid crackdowns and residents prevent hits in the pocketbook.

President Barack Obama has issued an executive order calling for stronger action to clean up the bay. Lancaster County is in the cross hairs.

As part of that accelerated marching order, Conewago Creek, with its two-dozen tributaries, has been tabbed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Pennsylvania's "discovery watershed."

The watershed covers three townships in northwestern Lancaster County.

Two similar experiments will be tried in Maryland and Virginia, but only the Conewago is under way.

Initial funding for the three-year project totals $1.5 million, but more is expected to be funneled into the effort as it gathers steam.

An ambitious grass-roots watershed group has joined forces with local officials, Penn State and a gaggle of federal and state agencies to attempt a from-the-bottom-up approach.

At least 15 entities are aboard the public-private partnership, known as the Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative. Together, they'll try to restore an entire watershed, not by edict or mandatory regulations, but with a voluntary communitywide plan.

The hope is that communities will be infused with a sense of shared responsibility and roll up their sleeves.

The diversity of partners means the technical advice, manpower, money and rapport with landowners are already aboard.

The partners will be working with a nod toward what's happened with Lititz Run. There, Warwick Township officials, farmers, residents and groups such as the Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited have made huge progress in restoring the stream.

"We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have to take what happened in Warwick Township and transfer it to the Conewago," Kristen Saacke Blunk, director of Penn State's Agriculture and Environment Center and head of the Conewago project, said.

South Londonderry Township in Lebanon County already has begun rallying the troops.

"We welcome this involvement," township supervisor Rugh Henderson said. The township formed an environmental advisory council to encourage residents to make their properties, regardless of size, better able to store water and reduce fertilizers and pesticides.

"We have two dozen natural areas. We have wildflower gardens. We're ready," Henderson said.

To that end, the Conewago project is holding a seminar for watershed residents and municipal officials on how to protect water quality in backyards. It will be held at 9:30 a.m. Saturday, April 10, at the Lebanon Ag Center on Cornwall Road in

Lebanon

An unprecedented level of monitoring will be deployed in waterways in the Conewago watershed so that even minute improvements in water quality can be shown to each participating landowner, proving they are making a difference.

Gauges will keep close tabs on such vital signs as dissolved oxygen, sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, flow and water temperature.

Every farmer, each municipality and all 3,000 homeowners will have to want to do something on their land to make it healthier.

As Don McNutt, the Lancaster County Conservation District's administrator, said, "Anybody in the Conewago watershed is part of the problem — and part of the solution.

"Storm water needs to be treated as a resource rather than just blowing it out through pipes into these 24 streams."

Added Mike Hubler of the Dauphin County Conservation District, "It's everybody's watershed, and you have to do it down to the lowest common denominator — and that's the individual landowner."

For the homeowner, perhaps it's plugging a gutter into a barrel to catch rainwater, planting a rain garden or checking to see if the septic tank is working properly.

For township supervisors, it might be pushing for more-than-required storm-water controls with new growth.

"It's got to be a whole community approach to be successful," Blunk said.

"There are going to be things just about anybody can do that can make a difference."

Clearly, much will be expected of farmers.

Perhaps they'll fence off livestock or give up a little ground from crop fields to allow plantings of filtering trees and shrubs along creeks. Or perhaps they'll sign up for a slew of experimental cutting-edge farming techniques that are being freed from laboratories or demonstration plots to be tried here.

Among them are:

• A device that can be used in no-till farming that injects dry manure into the ground, where it won't smell, run off the fields or release ammonia, a greenhouse gas.

• Feed for cattle and poultry that uses less protein so their manure contains less nitrogen.

• Bag digesters, consisting of a cover placed over manure lagoons to capture methane, a greenhouse gas.

In addition, tried-and-true conservation techniques will be pushed, such as buffers of trees and shrubs along streams, crop rotation, cover crops and filter strips.

•••

Conewago Creek, which is the boundary between Lancaster and Dauphin counties, has a watershed that encompasses 53 square miles and 3,000 households.

In Lancaster County, the creek drains Conoy, West Donegal and Mount Joy townships. Elizabethtown gets a large portion of its drinking water from the Conewago.

Mount Gretna is the only borough within its borders, and the dammed stream forms Mount Gretna Lake. Many horse farms and stables are located there.

From its headwaters on state game lands near Mount Gretna, the stream empties into the Susquehanna between Falmouth and Three Mile Island.

Like many streams in the area, Conewago Creek is often laden with farm-related nutrients and muddy from bank erosion and runoff. It floods easily.

And like many waterways here, the stream and many of its 25 tributaries are officially designated as "impaired," meaning they can't support the fish and richness of aquatic life they could if they were healthy.

In a broader picture, the silt and nutrients that the waterways send downstream contribute to the pollution and decline of the Chesapeake Bay, the largest, richest estuary on the continent.

Most of the pollution is caused by runoff from agriculture, which accounts for just over half the land use in the Conewago Creek watershed. But housing developments, leaking septic systems, sewage treatment plants and some industrial uses in the watershed also contribute.

•••

Matt Royer grew up on a chicken farm along Conewago Creek on the Dauphin County side.

One day, he and his father, Hal Royer, were talking about how the stream's health was clearly declining.

Matt Royer began tacking up broadsides in the area, inviting anyone interested in forming a grass-roots watershed group to show up at a meeting.

Anglers, a biology professor from Elizabethtown College, the Milton Hershey Foundation — the largest landowner in the watershed — and lots of interested residents did just that.

The Tri-County Conewago Creek Association was formed in 1992 and hit the ground running. Royer is its president. He also serves as staff attorney for the Pennsylvania office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and is on the guiding committee for the Conewago project.

The new group obtained a grant and hired consultants to study the watershed extensively and map what it would take to restore it.

Some 129 projects were outlined, and the group marshaled hundreds of volunteers and signed up farmers for four major improvement projects, from planting several thousand trees for stream buffers to performing bank stabilization work.

That ability to get boots on the ground is one reason the Conewago was chosen for a centerpiece project. Another was the manageable size of the watershed and the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill targeted small watersheds to fund conservation measures. A third was Penn State's search for a place to try all the research its staff was tinkering with.

"At the end, we hope to be able to say here's how we did it and here's what it takes to make changes daily," Blunk said.

One thrust of Penn State's involvement is to help farmers, landowners and communities obtain dollar value for doing the right thing for the environment.

Increasingly, she said, land-use actions that prevent greenhouse gases are being viewed as having monetary value, called carbon credits, and markets are developing to pay those who hold credits.

Getting money should encourage more landowners to adopt conservation measures, she said.

But the trick is measuring the value.

How much value do you attach to a farmer who practices no-till farming or has a flood plain that recharges aquifers? Or to a homeowner who plants wildlife habitat rather than a carpet of grass that needs constant fertilizing?

To help develop the project's one-community goal, an Internet program will be created with a one-stop clearinghouse of information for everyone in the watershed.

"We want to show information to say (that) when you do a practice, here is an outcome that you can expect," Blunk said.

Otherwise, McNutt said, "It's like telling a farmer he needs to lose weight and not being able to tell him what he weighs or what the diet will be."

Officials working on the project admit feeling the pressure to produce. But they're also clearly energized by the fresh approach and the opportunity to try cutting-edge down-on-the-farm conservation practices.

"It is a little daunting, but it is exciting because it's an opportunity to really make this a great place to live," Royer said.

"It's an opportunity to improve the stream and make it a place everyone can continue to live and work in and make sure agriculture is an important part of the watershed."

acrable@lnpnews.com

The Susquehana is Cleaner

2010-02-22T14:24:00.001-05:00

The most recent report out of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) shows that there are less nutrients in the Susquehanna River than there has been in the past. The SRBC is a multi-state organization that monitors the river at 6 original locations (Towanda, Danville, Lewisburg, Newport, Marietta, and Conestoga, PA) and 17 additional locations that cover not only Pennsylvania, but New York and one site in Maryland. This most recent report compares 2008 loads to 1985 loads. At all of the 6 original locations the trends for total nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment are all decreasing meaning that the Susquehanna is cleaner than it was in 1985. None of the trends for any of the other nitrogen or phosphorus forms have increased at any of the 6 sites. As in the past, this report shows that winter and early spring are the worst times of the year for nutrient loading into the Susquehanna. Although the two sites in Lancaster County are trending lower for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loading these sites still have the highest loading of any of the sites monitored.

For as much as we hear about how bad things are and point fingers at each other I think this is a nice bit of good news that we are doing something right and things are getting better. We still have a ways to go to acheive our goals, but we are moving in the right direction.

Snow, Snow, and More Snow!

2010-02-12T15:47:00.001-05:00

The Mid-Atlantic region has gotten hammered by, not one, but two major storms in the past week and many are still trying to recover. My dog has loved every minute of it, the rest of us have had to deal with the inconveniences of shoveling and trying to get to work, but dairy farmers have been hit financially by these storms. Dairy producers rely on the milk truck to pick up milk at least every other day if not more often and feed trucks to deliver purchased feeds to their cows. During the past week as many as 300 farms in Lancaster County, and potentially others elsewhere, have had to dump milk because the milk trucks can not get through the roads to pick up the milk. This is a huge financial loss to the farmers, but there can also be environmental concerns related to dumping of the milk. Milk is high in many nutrients, and as much as it is a good food for us it is also a great food for bacteria and other microorganisms in local waterways. This can lead to a depletion of oxygen in the water killing fish and other aquatic organisms. Therefore, farmers are encouraged to try to dump excess milk in manure storage facilities if available. Storage facilities are sure to fill up quickly from snow, manure, and now the milk so many farmers may be forced to spread the milk on the fields. Even spreading might be difficult as gaining access to fields will be a challenge. However, whatever the situation is on the farm dumped milk should be managed appropriately. Set-backs from waterways and wells should be observed and amounts spread should be recorded and accounted for in nutrient application calculations.

EPA Visits Local Farms

2010-02-03T13:23:00.002-05:00

EPA has recently been in the county investigating a local watershed that is identified as impaired due to agriculture activity. This watershed contains 24 farms, of which, 20 are animal feeding operations (18 dairy farms). This watershed is in the heart of Amish country and 23 of the 24 farms are run by an Amish farmer.

To the pleasant surprise of EPA, all the farms used cover crops to some degree, most farms used no-till cropping practices, and most took regular soil tests. On the down side, only 4 farms had manure storage that could last more than 4 months, which means that many were spreading manure during the winter (legal in Pennsylvania, but not recommended), none followed a phosphorus based nutrient management (not required in Pennsylvania), and only three had any type of stream bank fencing or riparian buffers.

EPA also looked at the four key best management practices identified by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which are buffers, nutrient management planning, cover crops, and no-till/low-till, and found that only two of these practices were consistently utilized in the watershed. Buffers and nutrient management planning were lacking on many farms, although the farms that were required to have nutrient management plans did. Another area of concern was that only 15% of farms had a conservation plan, which is required under Pennsylvania law for all farms.

Overall, I think both the EPA and the farmers involved were relatively pleased with how the process went, and both sides deserve a lot of credit for working through the process in a constructive manner. Although there are things that still need to be addressed on these farms this exercise showed that if given the right information and guidance farmers are readily implementing conservation best management practices on their farms. For agencies that work with farmers, this exercise identified areas that we need to address further. EPA plans to investigate more watersheds in the area, but this has been an interesting insight into what they see as an ideal farm and what we should be striving for.

Spreading the Word

2010-01-25T11:05:00.001-05:00

There has been a great deal of attention paid to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, but due to the overwhelming amount of information and proposals many folks are understandably confused as to what is really going to happen and what they will be expected to do.

Here in Lancaster County, we have been under the gun for decades now, but the new Executive Order and TMDL have upped the anti on what will be expected of farmers and suburbanites in the county. However, what these new regulations might mean and what they might look like in the future is difficult to determine. However, it is clear the stricture water quality regulations will be in place and I'm working with local feed companies to update their farmer clientele on where the regulations stand now and what might happen in the future. Although it isn't possible to answer all the questions I'm getting about this issue, I'm finding the many farmers are eager to gain a better understanding of what these regulations might mean to them.

Farmers in Lancaster County are generally well read and aware of the issues facing due to the attention the county has received in the past, but the attention has been heightened recently with EPA targeting eight watersheds in the county and going door-to-door within those watersheds. This prospect can be very daunting to an unprepared farmer, but hopefully by working with them we can help them be more prepared for these visits. The Lancaster County Conservation District is doing a great job of bridging the gap between local farmers and EPA and I applaud their efforts.

I encourage others to get involved and help educate not just farmers, but the general public about what they will be asked to do. If you have any strategies that are working well for you in the area of watershed education please share.

Upcoming Water Webinars

2010-01-12T15:39:00.002-05:00

The Water Resources team at Penn State University is hosting monthly webinars on water quality and quantity concerns. More information and registration can be found at http://water.cas.psu.edu/webinars.htm There is no cost, but registration is required. To participate in the webinars a Penn State or "Friends of Penn State" account (directions on how to obtain found on above link) and a computer with access to the internet are needed. All webinars will air at 12:00 pm and 7:00 pm on the listed days. The following is a list of dates and topics through May 2010.

January 27, 2010 - Water Testing and Monitoring Strategies Near Gas Drilling Activity, Present by Bryan Swistock, Penn State University. Strategies to monitor water wells, springs, and streams in areas where gas well drilling is occurring will be covered.
February 24, 2010 - Saving Money and Your Septic System Through Water Conservation, Presented by Tom McCarty, Penn State Cooperative Extension, Cumberland County. Tips on how to reduce water use in and around your home to save money on energy and water bills while also reducing the stress on your septic system.
March 31, 2010 - Managing Your Pond and Lake, Presented by Susan Boser, Penn State Cooperative Extension, Beaver County. Assessing pond and lake structures, testing water quality, identifying and managing aquatic plants, managing wildlife and fisheries.
April 28, 2010 - Safe Drinking Water Clinic, Presented by Peter Wulfhorst, Penn Sate Cooperative Extension, Pike County. How to construct and maintain your private water well, spring or cistern to ensure safe drinking water quality including water testing strategies and water treatment methods.
May 26, 2010 - Managing Your On-Lot Septic System, Presented by Dana Rizzo, Penn State Cooperative Extension, Westmoreland County. Proper strategies to locate, construct, and maintain a home septic system to prevent costly failures.

The Water Resources Extension website contains a lot of great information with more being added all the time so be sure to check it out.

Everyone is Facing New Regulations

2010-01-07T10:39:00.001-05:00

I spent all day Tuesday at a local farm show and lost track of the number of people who came up wondering why people weren't concerned about the sewage treatment plants and/or lawn management in regard to the new regulations to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. We were at a farm show, and I'm a dairy educator, so I tend to focus on the agriculture regulations, but sewage treatment plants and lawn care are certainly on the radar of EPA and more regulations are coming to these sectors as well.

Sewage treatment plants are looking at very expensive upgrades. Also, discharge from sewage treatment plants is easy to monitor because it all comes out of one pipe, therefore, regulations are relatively easy to enforce. Because sewage treatment plants may not be able to come up with the money for the necessary upgrades there may be opportunity for farmers to get involved in nutrient trading.

As for lawn care management, EPA is very much aware that lawn care is contributing a large proportion of the nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay. There are more and more people moving into the Chesapeake Bay watershed so even though one little lawn may not be adding much, the large number of lawns really bumps up the nutrient loading.

Because the focus of this blog is agriculture and the environment I won't spend too much on this topic, but I did want to set the record straight that farming is not the only focus when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay and everyone will have to make changes.

Dairy to Reduce Green House Gases

2009-12-21T15:11:00.001-05:00

About a week ago the headlines stated that the U.S. dairy industry agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% before 2020. This reduction is estimated to come from expanding the use of methane digesters on dairy farms. Methane digesters are a technology that is currently in use on about 2% of U.S. dairies, and allows for production of energy from the digestion of manure. It is estimated that one 700-cow dairy herd can power 200 homes with electricity.

This is a lofty goal and there are a lot of questions that need to be answered on this front. For one, there is not good data on green house gas emissions from dairy farms because there are a number of factors from the diet to facilities that can impact green house gas loss from the farm. The other issue with betting all of these green house gas emissions reductions on this technology is that installing a methane digester on a farm can be pretty expensive, and, to date, has only been feasible on larger dairy farms. There is technology out there for use on small farms, but it is not widespread at this point.

I don't want to sound too down on this goal as it would be great if the dairy industry reached it. However, I'm a little concerned about how many dairy farmers out there know what they have been volunteered for, and I have concerns about whether the technology has come down in price enough for small farms.

Although we are still working on water quality concerns associated with agriculture, the powers that be are shifting the attention to the next frontier, air quality, and we need to be addressing this as much as possible.

Simple Steps to Deal With the Chesapeake Bay Regulations

2009-12-14T11:31:00.007-05:00

I’ve been to a lot of meetings lately on the new Chesapeake Bay regulations and TMDLs (total maximum daily loads), which have been very informative, yet there are still a number of details that have to be worked out. However, one thing is very clear from these meetings, with EPA taking the lead there is a great deal of will to get the bay cleaned up for good. This is a watershed-wide initiative that includes six states and Washington D.C., but Lancaster County is, and will continue to be, an area of focus. At this point I see no need to panic, but awareness of the issues at hand and realizing that stricter regulations and enforcement of current laws is likely and may impact farms in the region is a good place to start. So what can you do to prepare your farm for these new regulations? First, check with your local conservation district to confirm what current rules and regulations are on the books that may apply to your farm. Second, I have listed four simple practices that can be taken that will give you a step ahead on these regulations, whatever they might be. These practices will also improve your farm management right now and may even improve your bottom-line.

1) Measure dry matter of wet forages weekly. If the dry matter on forages changes drastically and rations are not adjusted the nutrient content of the diet will also change. Therefore, you could be feeding more protein or other nutrients than the cow needs, which is not good for the environment or your feed costs.

2) Feed what is on the sheet. Nutritionists use very precise ration formulation programs and spend a lot of time developing rations. Intentional or unintentional deviations from the ration on paper can negatively impact milk production and nutrient utilization. Checking scales and monitoring mixing more closely are simply steps to address this problem.

3) Monitor milk urea nitrogen (MUN). Milk cooperatives can monitor MUN on the bulk tank, and DHIA can monitor MUN on individual cows. Regardless of what method you use to monitor MUN, it is a good measure of how well the cows are utilizing the protein in the ration. There can be a lot of variation in this number, but trends over time can be identified. Ration and feed management issues may need to be addressed if your farm consistently has high MUN. With protein being one of the most expensive nutrients in the ration this is a must.

4) Keep cows out of the streams. This is considered very low hanging fruit from a water quality standpoint and I don’t see anyway to get around this issue other than to fence cows out of the stream. Although the current regulations require extensive buffers (35-100 ft), I think we may get some compromise on this and just a few feet might be enough. Stay tuned on this issue.

These suggestions are relatively simple on paper, in practice they may be a little more complicated, but there is help. Penn State Extension and the local conservation districts have the expertise and the tools to help implement these new management practices. The reality is that water quality regulations will only get stricter, and like other regulations in the dairy industry, these will be what you need to do if you want to continue in the dairy business.