Grazers Impacted by New Chesapeake Bay Regulations

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

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)

“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

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?