Another Year Comes to an End

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.