Quantifying the long term environmental impacts of dairy and beef production is complex due to the many interactions among the physical and biological components of farms that affect the amount and type of emissions that occur. Emissions are influenced by climate and soil characteristics as well as internal management practices. Software models are needed to perform an integrated and comprehensive assessment of all important environmental and economic effects of farm management and mitigation strategies. Related: Manure value & economics
What Did We Do?
Figure 1. The Integrated Farm System Model simulates the performance, determines the economics, and predicts the air and water emissions of farm production systems.
Software tools were created that perform whole-farm analyses of the performance, economics and environmental impact of dairy and beef production systems. The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) is a comprehensive research tool that simulates production systems over many years of weather to quantify losses to the environment and the economics of production. From the simulated performance and losses, environmental footprints are determined for carbon, energy use, water use and reactive nitrogen loss. Crop, dairy and beef producing farms can be simulated under different management scenarios to evaluate and compare potential environmental and economic benefits. The Dairy Gas Emissions Model (DairyGEM) provides a simpler educational tool for studying management effects on greenhouse gas, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions and the carbon, energy and water footprints of dairy production systems.
What Have We Learned?
Analyses with either the IFSM or DairyGEM tools illustrate the complexity of farming systems and the resultant effect of management choices. Although IFSM was primarily developed and used as a research tool, it is also used in classroom teaching and other education applications. DairyGEM provides an easier and more graphical tool that is best suited to educational use.
Future Plans
Figure 2. DairyGEM is an educational tool for evaluating management effects on air emissions and environmental footprints of dairy production systems.
Development of these software tools continues. Work is currently underway to add the simulation of VOC emissions to both models. Routines are also being implemented to better represent the performance and emissions of beef feed yards.
The IFSM and DairyGEM software tools are available through Internet download [https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/software/?modeCode=80-70-05-00] for use in individual, workshop and classroom education. Reference manuals and other detailed information on the models is also available at this website.
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to the development of these models and software tools. Although they can not all be listed here, they are acknowledged in each software program.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Be Concerned with Feed Rations and Their Environmental Implications?
During the last part of the 20th century, animal manure management became an environmental concern. In response to these concerns, legislation was enacted to control manure management and the emission of undesirable gasses (e.g., methane, ammonia, nitrous oxide) from animal production systems. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how mineral phosphorus (P) supplements, forage types and amounts, and the crude protein (CP) fed to lactating cows impact manure chemistry and the fate of manure nutrients in the environment.
What Did We Do?
Source-sink relationships have been used to illustrate relationships between feed nutrient sources (e.g., forms and concentrations of P and CP in lactating cows rations) and nutrient sinks (milk and manure), and relationships between manure nutrient sources (e.g., soluble P, urea N) and sinks [soil test P, runoff P, atmospheric ammonia, soil inorganic nitrogen (N), crop N] and the impact of these relationships on the environment.
What Have We Learned?
As mineral P concentrations in dairy rations increase, the excretion of total P and soluble P in manure also increases. The amount of cropland needed to recycle manure P and runoff of soluble P from cropland after manure application can be related back to the P excreted in manure, which in turn can be linked to the amount of mineral P in cow rations. Likewise, the type and amount of CP and forage fed to dairy cows impact manure chemistry and manure N losses as ammonia, N cycling in soil, including plant N uptake. Ammonia emissions from dairy barns and soil after manure application can be related back to the urea N excreted by dairy cows in urine, which is linked to the types and concentrations of CP and forages in cow rations, and the concentrations of urea in milk (milk urea N, or MUN). Our results demonstrate that profitable rations can be fed to satisfy the nutritional demands of healthy, high producing dairy cows, reduce manure excretion and therefore the environmental impacts of milk production.
Future Plans
We continue investigations on how the feeding of tannins to lactating dairy cows, and the use of MUN as a management tool may enhance feed CP use efficiency (more feed CP transformed into milk, less excreted in manure) and reduce losses of ammonia, nitrates and nitrous oxide from dairy farms.
Authors
J. Mark Powell, Soil Scientist. USDA-ARS U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, Wisconsin, mark.powell@ars.usda.gov
Glen A. Broderick, Dairy Scientist, USDA-ARS U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, Wisconsin
Additional Information
Powell, J.M. and Broderick, G.A. Transdisciplinary soil science research: Impacts of dairy nutrition on manure chemistry and the environment. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75:2071–2078.
Powell, J.M. Alteration of Dairy Cattle Diets for Beneficial On-Farm Recycling of Manure Nutrients. pp 21-42 In: Applied Research in Animal Manure Management. Zhongqi H. (Ed.) Nova Science Publ. Inc.
Powell, J.M., Wattiaux, M.A., and Broderick, G.A. Evaluation of milk urea nitrogen as a management tool to reduce ammonia emissions from dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 94:4690–4694.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Study Sulfur Emissions and Manure from Animals Fed Distillers Byproducts?
Odorous reduced sulfur compounds are produced during manure decomposition and emitted from confined animal feeding operations. Feeding high-sulfur distiller’s byproducts may increase the emission of these compounds. The objectives of a series of feedlot pen studies was to (i) determine if emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from fresh manure and from the feedlot surface where affected if cattle were fed varying levels of distillers byproducts, and (ii) determine the areas within a pen that emit greater amounts of reduced sulfur compounds.
Study #1–Relative emission of redued sulfur compounds from fresh feces. Cattle fed diets containing 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% WEGS.
What Did We Do?
Three studies were conducted to evaluate the relative impact of feeding high-sulfur wet distiller’s grain plus solubles (WDGS) to beef cattle. In the first study, beef cattle in sixteen small-scale pens were fed varying amounts (0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%) of WDGS, and the relative emissions of reduced sulfur from fresh feces were measured using a laboratory wind tunnel chamber. A follow up study in eight production-scale feedlot pens also examined the effect of feeding 0% or 40% WDGS on fresh manure emissions. A third study in ten production-scale pens examined emissions from the pen surface when cattle were fed 0% and 40% WDGS diets over two production cycles.
Study #2–Relative emission of reduced sulfur compounds from feces of cattle fed 0% or 40% WDGS. P values above bars indicate the significance of the difference between emissions on the four dates.
What Have We Learned?
The relative emission of reduced sulfur from fresh feces was significantly greater (4 to 22-fold) when 40% (or greater) WDGS was fed in the initial study. The follow up study confirmed this finding, but found the relative emission to be lower (2 to 4 fold higher for WDGS) in the production-scale feedlot. In the final study examining the relative emission from the whole feedlot pen surface (mixed soil and aged feces) over many months, emissions principally came from the wetter edges of the pen when animal were fed higher levels of WDGS in their diet. For the six study periods, the relative emissions from WDGS pens ranged from 0.3 to 4-fold higher than a standard ration. Consistent results from these three studies indicate that reduced sulfur emissions increase when animals are fed higher levels of WDGS.
Study #3–Relative concentration of total reduced sulfur (TRS) in the chamber for each of the seven study periods. An asterisk above the bars indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between diets.
Future Plans
The level of sulfur in WDGS varies depending upon source and production method. Feeding lower sulfur WDGS should reduce the relative emission of odorous reduced sulfur compounds. Production of the reduced sulfur compounds may also be related to water quality—some water sources high in sulfur may enhance the emission of reduced sulfur from animal production sites. Further research into the mechanism of reduced sulfur production may provide new insights into controlling the emissions of these odorous compounds.
Mindy J. Spiehs, Research Animal Scientist, USDA-ARS, Clay Center, NE
Bryan L. Woodbury, Agricultureal Engineer, USDA-ARS, Clay Center, NE
Additional Information
Miller, D. N., V. H. Varel, B. L. Woodbury, and M. J. Spiehs. 2010. Enhanced reduced sulfur emission from manures of beef cattle fed distiller’s byproducts. International Symposium on Air Quality and Manure Management for Agriculture Conference Proceedings, 13-16 September, Dallas, Texas. 711P0510cd.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the technical expertise of Todd Bowman, Alan Kruger, and Ryan McGhee. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) has been developed for the voluntary use of livestock producers and their advisors or consultants. It is intended to provide assistance to livestock and poultry producers in determining the areas in their operations where there are opportunities to make changes that result in reduced air emissions. Air emissions research from livestock production systems is increasing every year. NAQSAT is based on the most accurate, credible data currently available regarding mitigation strategies for air emissions of ammonia, methane, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide, particulates, and odor.
From the NAQSAT home page users may watch a video explaining the tool, read an overview, study the user manual or select a species to start using the program.
Purpose
The National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) was developed for livestock producers who are interested in investigating opportunities to reduce air emissions from their livestock operation. The online tool is designed to provide farmers and their advisors air emissions information explicitly for their farm in a confidential setting. The tool may be run from any computer with internet access. All information entered into NAQSAT and the corresponding results remain confidential.
What Did We Do?
NAQSAT considers the air emissions from eight management categories; animal housing, feed and water, manure collection and transfer, manure storage, land application, mortality management, public perception and on-farm roads.
On the NAQSAT Effectiveness Results page the green area indicates the effectiveness of current management practices, the white area indicates the opportunity for improvement. At the end of each session users are encouraged to select “Print My Report” to receive a paper copy of all inputs that had been entered and a copy of the Effectiveness Results page for their records.
Users of the tool are asked a series of questions under each of the eight management categories. Based on the responses to previously answered questions the program determines what additional questions need to be answered such that only questions pertaining to the operation currently being evaluated are asked. Pop-up pictures assist the user in determining the relative rating to select when questions require a visual evaluation of the existing practices.
NAQSAT addresses seven emissions of concern; odor, particulate matter (dust), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane (CH4), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O) under each of the eight management categories. Within the results page the green area in each rectangle indicates the effectiveness of current management practices, the white area indicates the opportunity for improvement.
NAQSAT allows users to save and run different scenarios providing the opportunity to compare the results of implementing new management practices.
It is easy to save NAQSAT sessions and return at a later date to make adjustments or consider additional alternatives. Each “saved” user session of NAQSAT is stored under its own URL available only to the person or persons with access to that URL. Individual URLs remain available for a minimum of 30 days before they are removed from the host computer.
The tool’s results page does not provide emissions data and/or regulatory guidance. It does identify opportunities for reducing air emissions and the ability to evaluate which practices might have the most impact. NAQSAT was developed for voluntary and educational use. The tool is designed to be used by livestock and poultry producers, however, the results may be more valuable when NAQSAT is used in cooperation with agency personnel or private consultants that can provide follow-up with suggestions for mitigation practices.
What Have We Learned?
NAQSAT has been used by members of the tool’s development committee to address odor conflicts in Colorado and in Michigan. In each case the tool confirmed the farm management teams were using acceptable management practices to limit odors from the livestock operation. In both states the local and state agencies involved in the conflict resolution were appreciative of the information provided by the tool.
Authors
Gerald May, Educator, Michigan State University Extension, mayg@msu.edu
Additional Information
The NAQSAT on-line tool is currently available at: http://naqsat.tamu.edu/. It is available at no cost from its host website (it does not download onto your computer). To assist first time users an overview of the tool, an informative video and a user’s manual are available on the NAQSAT home page.
Are there any organizations or individuals (besides the authors) that should be acknowledged?
Development of NAQSAT was partially funded by the USDA – NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant program. Over twenty partner organizations and universities contributed to the development of NAQSAT.
Partner universities:
Partner organizations:
Colorado State University
C.E. Meadows Endowment
Iowa State University
Colorado Livestock Association
Michigan State University
Iowa Turkey Federation
Oregon State University
Iowa Pork Producers
Penn State University
Iowa Pork Industry Center
Purdue University
Iowa State Univ. Experiment Station
Texas A&M University
Michigan Milk Producers Association
University of California, Davis
Michigan Pork Producers Association
University of Georgia
Michigan State Univ. Extension
University of Maryland
National Pork Board
University of Minnesota
Nebraska Environmental Trust
University of Nebraska
Western United Dairymen
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.
Abstract
Ration optimization models currently minimize the purchase price of feeds used to meet nutrient requirements. Not included in optimization models is the value of manure nutrients resulting from ration alternatives. This project extends the linear program that is used to minimize ration cost to include the value of manure excreted and stored. Microsoft EXCEL’s Solver GRG Nonlinear Add-in is used to optimize the integrated decision because of the non-linear aspects of manure excretion as a function of feed fed.
Several economic and production changes over the last 10 years warrant an investigation of the impact of optimizing both feed and manure decisions simultaneously. Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) have become a common feed high in phosphorus, lessening the need for inorganic phosphorus sources. Including DDGS in the diet also increases the manure concentration of phosphorus. If phosphorus is needed on nearby crop fields, there is potential to increase manure value while simultaneously reducing feed cost. In contrast, feeding phytase may reduce feed cost, while reducing manure value if phosphorus in manure is valued. Feeding synthetic amino acids can also reduce feed cost while reducing the amount of nitrogen excreted and available as a fertilizer in the manure. Adding to the importance of considering manure value is the increased costs of fertilizers. Manure is increasingly seen as a viable alternative to commercial fertilizers and might affect the whole farm profitability if included in the ration cost decision.
This project considers swine rations and examines how they might have changed during the past 10 years if manure value had been incorporated into the ration optimization decision. We will attempt to determine when manure fertilizer value relative to feed costs justifies integrating feed and manure optimization. Results indicate that incorporating manure value into the optimization routine would change some diet formulations.
Why Consider Manure Nutrients When Balancing Rations?
The value of manure supplied nutrients (N, P and K) has increased significantly over the past decade. Feedstuffs, such as DDGS, have been incorporated into the diets in ways that reduce the need for P supplementation. These developments have moved manure from a waste product to a co-product in livestock production. By integrating feed and manure management decisions it was hypothesized that profit could be improved.
What Did We Do?
The 2012 version of the National Swine Nutrition Guide (NSNG) ration software contains an optimization model for least cost ration formulation that calculates the potential manure value associated with different optimized diets. This recognition of the value of manure is an important contribution.
We incorporated the value of manure (as estimated by the NSNG) into the least cost ration optimization routine so that the objective function changed from minimizing the cost of feed to minimizing the net cost of feed. Net diet cost was defined as the cost of feed less the value of manure. Optimization of this equation required the use of the GRG non-linear optimization routine of Microsoft EXCEL.
This project evaluated least cost swine rations and how they might have changed during the past 10 years if manure value had been incorporated into the ration optimization decision. We specifically examined rations for 50-100 lb. and 200-250 lb. pigs. Rations were optimized with the following limitations: 1) manure was/was not included in the objective function; 2) DDGS were/were not allowed as a feedstuff in the rations.
What Have We Learned?
Assuming that the full value of the manure could be obtained, incorporating manure into the least cost ration optimization reduced net diet cost seven of the last 10 years for 50-100 lb. and 200-250 lb. pigs when DDGS were allowed in the diets. The ten-year mean improvement in net diet cost was $0.61/ton with a range from $0 to $8.41/ton of feed. More typically differences were small, exceeding $1.00/ton only in 2005 and 2006. Increasing manure value required increasing feed cost by an a 10-year average of $1.14/ton. The uncertainty in extracting manure value may make farmers hesitant to increase feed cost in hopes of capturing additional manure value. Two years may provide insight into the opportunity to incorporate manure value into the least cost feed decision. In 2006, a savings of $8.41/ton of feed fed was obtained by including 40% DDGS in the 50-100 lb. pig diet; this savings required increasing the feed cost by $1.76/ton resulting in a $10.18/ton increase in manure value in associated excreted nutrients. In 2009, a net ration savings of $.61/ton was obtained by eliminating phytase which was in the original least cost ration formulation. Phytase reduced the need for expensive phosphorus feedstuffs but not sufficiently when the value of manure was considered.
Future Plans
Non-linear optimization routines may find local optima rather than a global optimum. A procedure needs to be developed that insures that the global optimum is found before incorporating manure into the least cost ration decision will become widespread.
Authors
Dr. Ray Massey, Extension Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, masseyr@missouri.edu
John Lory, Extension Associate Professor of Extension, Division of Plant Science, University of Missouri
Marcia Shannon, Associate Professor, Swine Nutrition, University of Missouri
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST) was used to characterize the farming and livestock system in Limu-Bibilo district in Ethiopia. Prior to data collection, a Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) was conducted in August 2012. The quantitative data from individual interviews of 18 farmers were entered and analyzed using FEAST. Livestock production is an integral component of the farming system of the study area. Cattle are kept for food, cash, draught power and manure production. For the above average group grazing, crop residues, and cultivated fodder contributes 49%, 25% and 12% to the dry matter (DM) content of the total diet respectively. Similarly, grazing, crop residue, and purchased feeds contributes 33%, 23% and 20% of the DM respectively as to the below average groups. Grazing, crop residues and cultivated fodders are the major feed resources that are contributing 49%, 20%, and 14% of the metabolizable energy (ME) respectively as to the above average group and 32%, 17% and 14% respectively to the below average group. For above average group Grazing, cultivated fodder, purchased feeds, and crop residues contribute 42%, 17%, 16%, and 15% crude protein (CP) content respectively whereas purchased feeds, grazing, and cultivated fodders contribute 35%, 25%, and 15% of CP in the total diet in the case of below average groups. The problems that were raised by the farmers encompass, shortage of feed, scarcity of water, unavailability of cash or credit services, shortage of veterinary service, lack AI service, awareness and communication gap. In light of the problems the study recommends the development of herbaceous forage legumes and fodder trees species which can mitigate the constraints of feed scarcity. Training on cost effective livestock ration formulation techniques to reduce the feed shortages observed must be part of a strategy which requires attention to improve the production of the sector.
Why Study Feed Resource Availability?
The study area Lemu-Bilbilo district is located in Arsi zone in Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. It is characterized by a crop-livestock mixed farming system where dairy production contributes significantly to livelihoods of the smallholder farmers. Market-oriented dairy production based on crossbred dairy cows is also practiced in the district. However, economic benefits accruing from the livestock sector are not significant. Livestock production is constrained by ecological, technical and economic limitations which result in severe feed shortages. Thus, the objective of the current study was to assess feed resource availability and utilization using a feed assessment tool (FEAST) within the context of the overall farming and livestock production systems and to determine the potential of site-specific feed interventions in Lemu Bilbilo district.
What Will Be Learned In This Presentation?
The feed resources in the study area was primarily natural pasture, crop residue (cereals and legumes), purchased feed, cultivated fodder and naturally occurring and collected fodder. Crop residue was a major component in the diet of livestock. Animals rely on crop residues throughout the year especially when grazing pastures are scarce. Farmers who do not have adequate quantity of crop residue from cropping activities purchase additional straw from other farmers who produced cereals in surplus. The straw was usually fed to the animals without any form of processing or manipulation prior to feeding. However, some farmers were aware of mixing straws with linseed cake, wheat bran or salt as a means of improving quality and palatability. The contribution of grazing to dry matter (DM), metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein content (CP) was relatively high for the above average group farmers who reserve more land for grazing pasture through land renting. Due to limitations of grazing and crop residue resources, farmers in the below average group were forced to purchase feeds. Purchased feeds thus contribute relatively higher to the DM, ME and CP of their livestock diets compared to that of the above average farmers. Feed shortage was identified by both groups of farmers as the most important problem of livestock production. Other constraints like water problem, inefficient veterinary and AI services were similar and equally important for farmers in both groups.
Silage pit in AMAE which was used as training ground for practical feed formulation techniques
Presenters
Presenters: Mesay Yami1, Bedada Begna1, TeklemedihinTeklewold1, Jane Wamatu 2, Peter Thorne 3 and Alan Duncan
1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Kulumsa Agricultural Research center, Socio-economics, extension Research Process, P. O. Box 489, Assela, Ethiopia: 2 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Associate Scientist – Animal Nutritionist,: 3Crop Livestock Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O .Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Livestock GRACEnet is a United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service working group focused on atmospheric emissions from livestock production in the USA. The working group presently has 24 scientists from 13 locations covering the major animal production systems in the USA (dairy, beef, swine, and poultry). The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of management practices that reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions from livestock agriculture. The working group fosters collaboration among fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices; supports the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information; fosters scientific transparency and rigor and transfers new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community. Success in the group’s mission will help ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, improve vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide beneficial environmental services. Some of the research highlights of the group are provided as examples of current work within Livestock GRACEnet. These include efforts aimed at improving emissions inventories, developing mitigation strategies, improving process-based models for estimating emissions, and producing fact sheets to inform producers about successful management practices that can be put to use now.
Why Was GRACEnet Created?
The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of livestock management practices to reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and to provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions.
What Did We Do?
The Livestock GRACEnet group is comprised of 24 scientists from 13 USDA-ARS locations researching the effects of livestock production on emissions and air quality.
Our goals are to:
Collaborate with fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices
Support the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information
Foster scientific transparency and rigor
Transfer new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community
Success in our mission will help to ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide environmental services benefits.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Develop a Feed Management Certification Program?
To develop a program to train ARPAS-certified (American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists) dairy and beef nutritionists on how to prepare and evaluate Feed Management plans as it relates to the NRCS Feed Management (592) practice in Pennsylvania. The objective is to compare how formulated diets match to the consumed diets. Phosphorus is monitored through manure testing and nitrogen by milk urea nitrogen and calculating milk nitrogen efficiency. Dry matter intake efficiency is also monitored as this can affect the total manure volume excreted.
What Did We Do?
In 2007, Mid-Atlantic Water Program (MAWP) scientists applied the national feed management program to meet the needs of dairy consultants to implement feed management in the Chesapeake Basin. This program certifies consultants in precision feed management, a practice that reduces nutrient loads in animal wastes by minimizing the phosphorus and nitrogen content in the feed.
With the recent release of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Total Maximum Daily Load for the Chesapeake Bay, the agricultural community is looking for the best practices to control nutrient pollution while minimizing impacts to profit. Over the years, the work of this project team has established precision feed management as both an economically and environmentally viable best management practice. As such, state watershed implementation plans include precision feed management as a method to meet load allocations.
Pennsylvania currently has twenty-four NRCS qualified nutritionists to write feed management plans. In 2011, fifty-one operations received EQIP or CBWI funding through USDA-NRCS for feed management, with the majority consisting of dairy farms. An additional 10 farms entered into contracts with NRCS in 2012. Farms are currently in the process of being assessed on how well they implemented recommendations from the first year of quarterly reports and are working through their second year of implementation.
Additional efforts have been implemented to educate consultants about the regulations and issues affecting dairy producers. Currently, the Pennsylvania team is working with producers to monitor income over feed costs and to develop cash flow plans, which provides the opportunity to implement precision feeding practices while monitoring the economic benefits to the herd. A study of six component fed dairy herds in Pennsylvania is also being completed to evaluate the effects of the feed, forage, and manure sampling protocols along with feeding order on fecal phosphorus levels and to update current sampling recommendations.
Funding from the MAWP was critical to providing these trainings and projects and establishing precision feed management as a best management practice that farmers can realistically utilize. The infrastructure is in place to address the demand for more feed management plans and the MAWP will continue to meet the educational needs of this audience.
What Have We Learned?
There are a lot of opportunities on farms to improve feed management and nutrient balance. Challenges have been observed pertaining to nutrient reduction strategies that could impact overall nutrient balances in dairy and beef rations. Many of these challenges are greatly influenced by the volatility in today’s commodity pricing. Producers need to become more engaged in what they are feeding and how it affects their profitability. It has been observed that inorganic phosphorus is still being used in grain mixtures when rations contain high phosphorus forages or inclusion of byproduct feeds. We have also observed some challenges in obtaining test analyses for complete grain and mineral mixes on a regular basis. More education is needed for both industry professionals as well as producers.
Future Plans
As the feed management program in Pennsylvania progresses, pounds of phosphorus excreted can be tracked to monitor the effects of reducing phosphorus in dairy and beef rations. This can be used to evaluate its effect on water quality and potential phosphorus accumulations in the soil when manure is applied to crops at nitrogen-based rates. Crop rotations, inclusion of alternative forages and whole farm nutrient balance will be included in future trainings and feed management plans. The Penn State Extension Dairy team is also working on the development of a Feed Management mobile app for producers and nutritionist to be able to track and monitor their progress on nutrient reductions in their rations.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
An interdisciplinary team of Penn State and USDA-ARS researchers are evaluating a Sustainable Cropping System to test the hypothesis that a dairy farm can minimize off-farm inputs and environmental impacts, and be productive, profitable and sustainable. Established in 2010 at the Penn State Agronomy Research Farm, the farm produces grain, forage and tractor fuel at 1/20th the scale of an average sized Pennsylvania dairy of 240 acres. The farm includes two diverse 6-yr crop rotations that include manure injection, perennial legumes, cover and green manure crops; a cover crop roller, winter canola, and a straight vegetable oil tractor. Within each crop rotation two management practices for no-till crop production are compared:
1. Forage Rotation compares injected manure (IM) to broadcast manure (BM); and
2. Grain Rotation compares a combination of weed management strategies designed to reduce herbicide (RH) use relative to a “standard” herbicide (SH) weed management program.
The two diverse cropping systems are designed to provide all the forage and feed for 65 lactating cows housed in a tie-stall barn, 10 dry cows and 75 young-stock. Crops are analyzed for crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, and net energy of lactation; the production of a “virtual dairy herd” is simulated using the 2001 NRC dairy nutrition model. Performance of the two farm scenarios (BMSH or IMRH) is compared. Income-over-feed costs are monitored monthly to evaluate impact of forage quality and quantity on profitability. The economic performance of the two cropping systems: BMSH vs. IMRH will be highlighted. In 2010, the IMRH scenario had a slight trend of higher income over feed cost compared to the BMSH scenario. Related: Manure value & economics
Why Is a ‘Systems’ Approach Important for Dairies?
New agronomic management practices and technologies are often evaluated in one or two specific crops for a few growing seasons. Management practices on farms however are integrated into crop rotations, where a combination of practices can have cumulative effects on multiple aspects of the agroecosystem. This project takes an interdisciplinary approach to develop sustainable dairy cropping systems and monitor multiple indicators of systems performance. Utilizing ecological principles and innovative practices, we designed two six-year dairy crop rotations to minimize off-farm inputs and environmental impacts for a typical-sized Pennsylvania dairy farm. Within each rotation we have been comparing innovative manure or weed management strategies, as well as evaluating two green manure crops, and a tactic to sustain mycorrhizae populations in canola. The two crop rotations also compare two approaches to integrating winter canola into a dairy crop rotation.
What Did We Do?
Two cropping systems were developed to compare diverse strategies that include canola in a dairy farm rotation. The two rotations consist of 12 crop entries, each main plot being 90’ x 121’with split plots of 45’ x 121’.
Agronomy farm at Penn State University where the cropping systems are being evaluated.
The splits within the two cropping system rotations are:
Forage rotation: Corn silage/winter wheat underseeded red clover – Corn silage – canola – alfalfa (3 yr)Split plots in the forage rotation compare the use of manure shallow disk injection versus surface-applied, broadcast manure.
To reduce herbicide use, split plots evaluate a combination of mechanical and cultural weed control practices used to reduce herbicides use (banding herbicides over the crop row, inter-row cultivation, companion cropping annual with alfalfa, and one plowing event).
What Have We Learned?
By assessing the performance of the innovative practices and the dairy cropping systems from a multidisciplinary perspective, over the past three years we have gained an understanding of their performance, as well as agroecosystem interactions, benefits, and trade-offs. Overall the cropping systems and the majority of the innovative practices are providing multiple agroecosystem benefits, although a few practices need to be modified to improve their performance.
In the first three years, both of the sustainable dairy cropping systems (inject manure and reduced herbicide (IMRH) and broadcast manure and standard herbicide (BMSH)) produced almost all of the virtual dairy herd’s feeds and forage, and all of the farm’s tractor fuel needs along with some additional canola oil to sell. The economics of the virtual farm show the purchased feed costs per cow are about half of what they would be on a “typical” dairy operation.
The assumptions made for the virtual dairy farm is that it is a start-up herd with the land and buildings in place. Loans were taken out to purchase animals and to remodel the facilities. This explains why the breakeven income over feed costs is high compared to what is observed on established dairy farms in Pennsylvania. When summarizing the cash flow plans for both scenarios, the IMRH has been trending with more income per cow compared to the BMSH. Even with the high breakeven income over feed costs, the BMSH has averaged about $1.00 and IMRH about $1.85 above breakeven for 2011-2012 on average.
Future Plans
We are still simulating and analyzing the virtual dairy herd production and economic performance and plan to conduct additional advanced economic analyses over the next three years. We will continue to monitor the cropping systems, learn how to improve their performance, and share this information through scientific literature and outreach educational activities and materials.
Authors
Virginia Ishler, Dairy Complex Manager and Nutrient Management Specialist, Penn State University, vishler@psu.edu
Heather Karsten, Associate Professor of Crop Production/Ecology, Penn State University
Glenna Malcolm, Post Doctoral Researcher, Penn State University
Tim Beck, Extension Educator, Penn State University
Funding has been provided NESARE (Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension) and collaboration with USDA-ARS.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Agricultural filter strips are commonly used to treat runoff from agricultural farmstead areas. Many filter strips have been assessed in terms of surface water quality impacts but have failed to determine the fate of pollutants once they have infiltrated the soil subsurface. Two side-by-side filter strips plots were installed to assess the performance of and determine the fate of contaminants in a filter strip system. One of the two plots also contained a pretreatment system to facilitate nitrogen removal in an attempt to reduce nitrate leaching. Both plots were lined with an impermeable membrane to collect subsurface leachate as well as surface runoff. A mass balance could then be determined for these filter strip systems to assess the fate of nutrients and the ability of a low cost pretreatment system to reduce nitrate leaching.
Filter-strip Construction
Why Is It Important to Prevent Runoff from Silage Piles from Reaching Water?
Silage runoff, or the flow of surface excess water over an area containing silage or silage leachate, contains nutrients harmful to watersheds. A filter-strip, a long narrow buffer strip used in agriculture as a BMP, could be used to reduce nutrient concentrations within silage runoff. A study that investigates design storm loading and seasonal operation could benefit producers and their surrounding watershed. A pre-treatment design consisting of an aerobic and anaerobic section, is also analyzed to quantify improvements in pollutant reduction.
What Did We Do?
Before Establishment of Vegetation
Two experimental filter-strips, one control and one pre-treatment design, were applied with silage runoff at volumes and rates corresponding to a 25 year – 24 hour and a 2 year – 24 hour design storm. Design storm rates and volumes were determined from the runoff modeled from a 1:1 dairy bunker to filter strip area. Three runs of each design storm were accomplished throughout the months of October, November, and early December 2012.
What Have We Learned?
The pre-treatment filter strip design distributed higher BOD5 reduction however, nitrite concentrations increased in the effluent. Application in November and December had lower infiltration and changes in ammonia reduction were illustrated.
Experimental Filter-strip and Sampling
Future Plans
Applications in the spring and summer will determine further seasonal variation. Expanding design storms applied will help determine prescriptive loading and aid in modeling.
Authors
Michael Holly, Master’s Candidate Biological System Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison, maholly@wisc.edu
Dr. Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Acknowledgements
Zach Zopp, Lab and Field Tech
Shayne Havlovitz, Undergraduate Research Assistant
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….
