Journal of Nutrient Management (ISSN# 26902516) is published four times annually in February, May, August, and November by W.D. Hoard & Sons Company, 28 Milwaukee Ave. West, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538 Tel: (920) 563-5551. Email: info@ jofnm.com Website: www.jofnm.com. Postmaster: Send address corrections to: Journal of Nutrient Management, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538-0801. Tel: (920) 563-5551. Email: info@jofnm. com. Subscription Rates: Free and controlled circulation to qualified subscribers. For Subscriber Services contact: Journal of Nutrient Management, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538, call (920) 563-5551, Email: info@jofnm.com.
The fall before last, I tossed the pumpkins and gourds I used for front porch decorations along the side of my house in some rocky landscaping. I expected them to disintegrate over the next few months and didn’t think much about it.
But then, when I was trimming weeds in that area the following summer, I noticed plants that looked like pumpkins. I let them grow, and sure enough, pumpkin plants they were.
I know that plants will sprout from where pumpkins are composted, but I did not expect it to happen in an area that looked nothing like a desirable environment for a vegetable to thrive. And yet, these resilient plants just popped their way through the cracks in the landscaping rock and continued to grow.
I can take no credit for their development. They received no water besides rainfall, no fertilizer, and no weeding. As summer moved along, I wondered if they would actually produce any pumpkins. It was a fun surprise for my children and me when one day we saw a few pumpkins starting to grow.
To say this was a low-budget operation is an understatement, but I still worried we were going to lose our crop when in early fall, the leaves became covered with white powder. My internet research told me it was powdery mildew, so I sprayed a homemade remedy of vinegar on the leaves and hoped for the best.
Luckily, the plants survived, and a few weeks before Halloween, we harvested three beautiful pumpkins and a small gourd. The pumpkins were not big, but it didn’t matter. We were proud of our little crop.
Sometimes, we get lucky when an idea pops into our head or an opportunity falls into our lap. With little effort, these seeds can grow and become game changers. Other times, we make a decision and nurture that seed with everything we have, but in the end, it just doesn’t turn out.
Farmers are constantly nurturing seeds; not just in the field, but with their livestock, their facilities, and their people. As business owners, there is a need to invest in the areas that keep
the operation moving forward.
In the broader agriculture industry, one theme that continues to grow is that of sustainability. Interest in this topic lies all along the food supply chain, as was evidenced by the more than 1,000 people who attended the Sustainable Agriculture Summit last fall. While input from all sectors is valuable, the people closest to the roots — the farmers — must be part of the conversation. Read more on page 12.
Sometimes there will be a bumper crop. Sometimes there is a crop failure. But on our farms and in life, we will keep planting seeds, and if we are lucky, we get to watch them grow.
Five years ago, we planted the seed for this magazine, the Journal of Nutrient Management This was not the type of seed one can simply toss into rocky landscaping and hope for the best, though. It needed vision and know-how in the publishing business. It required investments of time and money by our company, our advertising partners, and our editorial team.
As our readers, you have helped nurture the seed. You gave us inspiration and a reason to head down this path of manure handling, nutrient management, and sustainability. We hope the science-based articles, boots-on-the-ground advice, current event coverage, and farm features on this subject matter have benefited your work in some way. Thank you for growing with us.
Until next time,
Abby
Let us know your thoughts. Write Managing Editor Abby Bauer, 28 Milwaukee Ave. West, P.O. Box 801, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538; call: 920-563-5551; or email: info@jofnm.com.
POLICY WATCH
DELAWARE
Following the confirmation of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) on a poultry farm, the Delaware Department of Agriculture issued a control order requiring specific handling, transport, and storage of poultry litter for the entire state. The control order was to be in effect for 30 days and with the option to renew based upon the status of HPAI in the state.
Under the control order, farms must have poultry litter in a covered manure storage structure or stockpiled and covered to reduce access to wildlife. Anyone moving poultry litter off a farm to stockpile it in a field or at another location must clean and disinfect any conveyances on and off the farm to reduce the risk of spreading HPAI. Additionally, all stockpiled poultry litter in the field must be covered so wild birds and other animals cannot gain access.
The Maryland Department of Agriculture also issued a control statement regarding the handling, transport, and storage of poultry litter due to that positive case of HPAI in poultry in neighboring Delaware.
MINNESOTA
Changes have been finalized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for two of its general permits for feedlots. One notable update is that all applicants will use a new online Nutrient Management Tool to develop their Manure Management Plan, and this will be submitted electronically. More regulations for transferring manure from one farm to another were added as well. Specific best management practices were also included for manure application during various time periods during the year. The changes will go into effect in June 2025 and February 2026.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Proposed legislation in South Dakota would strengthen existing laws that make it a crime to steal farm animals, release animals, trespass on farms, or interfere with farm operations. If passed, Senate Bill 14 would also add criminal penalties for those using deception to enter a farm or apply for a job on a farm. There would be penalties for people who use cameras or other methods to spy on a farm or agricultural research facility. It would also be a crime to interfere with or destroy crops or farm buildings. This proposal is similar to laws passed in Iowa about 15 years ago.
THE INNOVATIVE BIOSELECT FOR EFFICIENT MANURE SEPARATION.
UNITED STATES
Farmers are still waiting on a new farm bill. Late last year, the American Relief Act of 2025 was signed into law, which extended the 2018 Farm Bill for one more year. This allows programs authorized in the current farm bill to continue through September 30, 2025. Included in this list is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and all CRP initiatives. The bill also included $31 billion in natural disaster and economic loss assistance for farmers and ranchers.
The 2018 Farm Bill originally expired on September 30, 2023.
FEATURES:
+ Low Life-Cycle Costs
+ Turnkey from a Single Source: Separator Pump(s)
Control Unit Stationary or Mobile Skids
+ Large Capacities
+ Patented Profile Auger with Counter Bearing for No Auger Screen Contact
+ Continuously Variable Dry Matter Content
844-647-7867 | www.boerger.com
A FLOOD OF LOSSES
Natural infrastructure can be utilized to reduce damage to soil caused by flooding.
by Sheri Schwert
Extreme weather conditions are nothing new. However, the frequency at which communities and farmers experience extreme weather in the form of flooding has escalated.
For example, according to the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI), storms that drop 4 inches of rain in 24 hours or less will double by the year 2060 in parts of Wisconsin. These kinds of extreme events go above and beyond what the infrastructure in southwestern Wisconsin can withstand.
The West Fork of the Kickapoo River and Coon Creek watersheds have suffered badly because of this discrepancy. These watersheds are home to a number of earthen dams, five of which failed in 2018 due to the force of unprecedented amounts of water, the age of the dams, and the fact that the dams were built into fractured sandstone rock that is common to the area. The owners of the dams — local governments — have had to make difficult decisions regarding 23 of the existing structures that, should they fail like the other five, present a greater hazard compared to the flood protection they currently provide.
While dams are an engineering marvel that can provide safety and protection for many acres of land downstream, there are other ways to slow water during extreme rainfall events, such as natural infrastructure. Furthermore, the financial burden of dam renovation falls on local governments, often in rural areas, while natural infrastructure is cost effective and disperses both the benefit and the financial burden.
Natural infrastructure defined Practices that reduce downstream flooding by either expanding the total
volume of water that is held by the soil, the speed at which water infiltrates, or those that retain water temporarily can be considered natural infrastructure. In southwest Wisconsin, known for its steep grades, prioritizing natural infrastructure could help reduce flooding downstream. In-field practices that improve the soil’s ability to hold onto water (infiltration) or edge-of-field practices that retain water can aid in flood reduction and reduce soil and nutrient loss.
The benefits of natural infrastruc -
ture compared to large dams includes lower initial costs and less land use changes for agriculture production. However, the cumulative impact depends on how many acres are managed in this way.
An overview of practices
No-till farming improves water infiltration and storage by bolstering organic carbon, which enhances soil pore size and connectivity. Water moving more quickly through the soil column during rain events reduces runoff.
When several inches of rain fall in a short period of time, it can have negative effects on water quality, habitat, and soil health if steps are not taken to minimize the damage.
No-till and reduced tillage also benefit water quality by lessening the amount of soil lost from fields, which contains excess nutrients like particulate phosphorus. The soils of southwestern Wisconsin are, for the most part, well drained, so no-till systems can effectively reduce runoff during the nonfrozen season, as shown in Figure 1 using University of Wisconsin Discovery Farms’ data.
Cover crops enhance the infiltration of the soil, allowing it to absorb rainfall more quickly before it becomes saturated. It also improves the soil’s water holding capacity, increasing the overall volume of water the soil can hold before a runoff event occurs.
This longer time to runoff is extremely important for the reduction of flash flooding and peak flow. A cover crop planted after corn silage in southern Wisconsin reduced runoff volume by
50% compared to no cover crop. By reducing runoff, overall transport — a key to nutrient and soil loss — is reduced, which benefits water quality by lowering the nutrient and soil load traveling to water bodies. Furthermore, a cover crop, which provides cover during the shoulder seasons, can immobilize nitrogen and phosphorus in February, March, and April — the months when the majority of runoff occurs.
Vegetated buffer or filter strips reduce runoff by accelerating storage, evapotranspiration, and infiltration. Incorporating a perennial practice like these can boost infiltration rates by 59%. Buffers and filter strips are also stackable. The overall reduction in soil and nutrient runoff can be greater than if each of the practices were applied on their own. Stacking
conservation practices is an extremely valuable approach to addressing water quality issues in agriculture.
Water often chooses its own path through a field. When a producer makes the choice to not till that path or to plant it to grass seed, that becomes a grassed waterway. Data from ridges in the Rullands Coulee watershed located in the Driftless Area showed greater infiltration rates in grassed waterways than in other land uses, including corn, pasture, alfalfa, and fallow fields. Discovery Farms data from Kewaunee County in northeast Wisconsin also paints a clear picture that grassed waterways can reduce the volume of runoff and soil coming off of a field.
Structural conservation options
Natural infrastructure has the potential to significantly reduce flooding and
improve water quality, but the impact they have depends on management choices made every year. Grade stabilization structures and wetland restoration are two structural conservation practices that have higher initial input and require maintenance, but they can have a large impact on flood control with a single action.
Grade stabilization structures and retention ponds slow water down after it has left the field. These structures are effective at controlling erosion and reducing peak streamflow by lengthening discharge time. This practice can easily be combined with an in-field or edge-of-field practice.
Wetlands function similarly; they retain surface water and allow a small amount of that water to discharge over time. However, wetlands also contain characteristic vegetation, which contributes to both flood control and water quality benefits. Wetlands can take up and retain nutrients and pollutants in both the settled sediment and vegetation, protecting surface and groundwater resources. These are substantial benefits to water quality.
Put into practice
There are many practices and structures that can slow water to benefit water quality and flood control. Practices that have a lower initial input, like cover crops, no-till, or even agroforestry, have smaller effects on flood control but can impact water quality substantially. Structural practices like grade stabilization structures or restored wetlands have a higher initial cost and take land out of agriculture production, but they can have a greater impact on downstream flooding.
If an agriculture community’s goals include flood reduction or improved surface water quality, these are valuable practices to take into consideration. While the flood control commanded by a concrete dam is immense and potentially irreplaceable, adoption of in-field practices on a large percentage of the watershed and by many invested landowners can offer significant flood reduction while keep -
Hydrologic soil group
A - high infiltration rates
B - moderate infiltration rates
Data collected between 2004 and 2023 from row crop sites in hydrologic groups A or B. This includes 65 site-years of data from 12 sites.
Storm profile
Hydrograph w/o storage
Maximum retention
Hydrograph with storage
ing land use much the same. Furthermore, these practices can be more quickly put into place and provide water quality, habitat, and soil health benefits to the landowner and their immediate neighbors. ■
The author is a water quality outreach specialist with the University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension.
Figure 2. Peak flood reduction benefit of structural water retention practices
Figure 2 illustrates the peak flood reduction benefit of structural water retention practices. This idea can also be applied to the green infrastructure described earlier.
The number of anaerobic digesters on farms has risen steadily since the year 2000, according to AgSTAR, a collaborative program sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). As of June 2024, there were 400 manure-based anaerobic digestion systems on farms. A majority of the digesters (343) are located on dairies. The remaining systems collect manure from hog (50), beef (8), and poultry (9) operations.
Today’s dairy cows eat more, but they also produce more milk, reducing their overall environmental impact.
A century of change
When it comes to methane emissions and dairy cows, we are doing better than 100 years ago.
by Alvaro D. Garcia, D.V.M.
IN 1924 , the U.S. dairy herd consisted of approximately 21 million cows, each producing around 4,167 pounds of milk annually. At the time, the average cow consumed about 21.4 pounds of dry matter (DM) daily. Advancements in genetics, nutrition, and management have led to a dramatic improvement in intake, productivity, and efficiency today.
The U.S. dairy herd now has 9.36 million cows — a 55% reduction in herd size from 1924. Each cow produces, on average, 24,200 pounds of milk annually and eats approximately 60 pounds of dry matter (DM) daily. This shift has resulted in a three-fold bump in feed efficiency, as modern dairy cows produce significantly more milk from each pound of feed.
Despite this rise in individual productivity and intake, total methane emissions have declined since 1924 due to
the reduction in herd size and greater feed efficiency. This underscores the environmental progress achieved in dairy production as the industry produces more milk with fewer cows and less total methane emissions.
A closer look
We used the Ellis Model, a common tool in agricultural and environmental studies, to estimate daily methane emissions for dairy cows in both 1924 and 2024 based on their dry matter intake (DMI).
The model uses total feed intake to estimate methane output in megajoules (MJ) per day. Methane is measured in megajoules to reflect its energy content, as each kilogram of methane contains approximately 55.5 MJ.
This measurement is useful for several reasons. First, it enables consistent comparisons across different energy sources, such as fossil fuels, making it easier to integrate methane emissions into broader energy and environmental analyses.
Second, in livestock nutrition, it represents the energy lost as methane, which is important for assessing feed efficiency. By measuring methane in MJ, researchers can quantify how much feed energy is not utilized by the ani-
mal but instead released as methane. Lastly, using MJ aligns with greenhouse gas reporting standards, allowing methane emissions to be easily converted into carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) for standardized reporting.
The methane emissions estimate of 11.32 MJ per day (or 74.46 kg per year) provides a reasonable approximation for modern dairy cows, though it is somewhat lower than current estimates of 100 to 130 kilograms per year (or 273 to 356 grams per day). This difference likely stems from the Ellis Model relying solely on DMI without accounting for diet composition (for example, forage versus concentrate ratios), which can influence methane production.
High-yielding cows on energy-dense diets may emit more methane than the model predicts. Nevertheless, since the same model was used for 1924 and 2024, the comparison remains valid, allowing for reliable assessment of changes in emissions over the past century.
Crunching the numbers
Despite the rise in individual methane emissions in modern cows due to their greater feed intake, the total emissions have dropped substantially since 1924. This change is primarily due to a reduction in the cow population — from 21 million in 1924 to 9.36 million in 2024. Consequently, the total emissions can be estimated to be around 106 million MJ per day (9.36 million cows × 11.32 MJ), compared to 126 million MJ per day for cows from 1924 (21 million cows × 6.00 MJ). This represents a 16% decrease in total methane emissions.
Methane intensity measures the amount of methane emitted per unit of milk produced, reflecting emissions efficiency relative to productivity. In 1924, methane intensity was approximately 1.16 MJ per kg of milk, with each cow producing 4,167 pounds of milk annually. By 2024, methane intensity dropped to 0.38 MJ per kg of milk as cows now produce 24,200 pounds of milk per year. This decline in methane intensity highlights improvements in feed efficiency and productivity, resulting in lower emissions per unit of milk. While total emissions have fallen by 16%, methane intensity (emissions per unit of milk) has improved by approximately 67.2%, indicating much higher productivity efficiency relative to emissions over the century.
This allows us to examine both the growth in productivity per cow and the overall environmental impact of the dairy industry, highlighting how changes in herd size and productivity have contributed to a reduction in methane emissions from dairy over the last century. With advancements in genetics, nutrition, and management, today’s dairy industry has achieved significant environmental improvements. The analysis suggests that today’s dairy cows are much more efficient, producing substantially more milk with lower total methane emissions than a century ago. ■
METHANE EMISSIONS
(MJ/day) = 3.06 + (0.303 X DMI in kg)
In this formula:
• Methane emissions is the amount of methane produced per cow daily in megajoules.
• 3.06 is a fixed starting value (baseline amount of methane produced).
• 0.3 03 is a multiplier that predicts methane produced per kilogram of DMI.
For this analysis, we converted DMI from pounds to kg (1 pound = 0.454 kg) to input into the model.
For 1924
Feed intake of 21.4 pounds (or 9.7078 kg), so substituting it in the formula:
• Methane emission = 3.06 + (0.303 X 9.7078 kg DMI) = 5.9995 (approx. 6 MJ)
For 2024
Feed intake of 60 pounds (or 27.2155 kg), so substituting it in the formula:
• Methane emission = 3.06 + (0.303 X 27.2155 kg DMI) = 11.3161 (approx. 11.32 MJ)
The author is a retired professor of dairy science from South Dakota State University. He is now a consultant with Dellait Dairy Nutrition & Health.
AT THE CORE OF SUSTAINABILITY
These four farmers share what sustainability means to them and advocate for a broader adoption of sustainable practices.
by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor
For generations, farmers have taken steps to sustain the soil and protect the environment, but many of those actions went relatively unnoticed. That is, until terms like sustainability became buzzwords in agriculture and beyond. Suddenly, consumers and corporate companies were very interested in the environmental impact of agriculture.
To bring farmers and industry leaders together to discuss this somewhat nebulous topic, the first Sustainable Agriculture Summit was held in Minneapolis, Minn., in 2014. Around 350 attendees met to wrap their heads around the topic of sustainability.
A decade later, the 10th annual Sustainable Agriculture Summit was held once again in Minneapolis. At this
event last November, more than 1,000 attendees took part in keynote presentations, breakout sessions, and valuable networking opportunities. No one has all the answers, but it is important to keep the conversation moving forward, and it is vital that farmers have a seat at the table when decisions about sustainability are made. Farmers, after all, are at the very core of sustainable agriculture.
All photos: Andy BerndtCommunity Blueprint
A record-breaking crowd attended the 10th annual Sustainable Agriculture Summit held in Minneapolis, Minn.
A dirty word
Corporate leaders and policymakers have their thoughts and opinions on sustainability and what actions farms need to take to help meet our nation’s environmental goals. But at the end of the day, farmers are the ones who need to implement the changes and, in some cases, make investments to reach these goals. During the Sustainable Agriculture Summit, several farmers from across the country were part of panel discussions to share their insight and experiences on farming in an era focused on sustainability.
Rancher Mike Williams admitted that there was a time where he could hardly utter the word sustainable without having a bad taste in his mouth. Williams runs a cow-calf operation in California’s Los Angeles County, which at one time was one of the country’s largest agricultural counties. Today, Williams said concrete replaces many of the grazing acres cows used to roam.
His formal involvement with the sustainable agriculture movement happened somewhat by accident. Williams said when he learned that the California Cattlemen’s Association was involved in the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB), he had some concerns about their state association, as well as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, being involved in a group with sustainable in its name.
His questions about the association’s participation in USRSB led him to, in a roundabout way, volunteer to become a member of that group. While he may not have been eager to get involved, he said he was comforted at his first meeting to see other producers there, engaged in the discussion.
He was impressed at how the USRSB brought together producers and people all the way up the supply chain. “This was a really good opportunity to see some of the pressures and issues other segments of the supply chain are facing that I would not have otherwise been aware of,” he explained.
Williams served on the board of directors and today leads the work of the USRSB as the chairman of the organization.
Partners in trust
When the panel was asked how to get farmer buy-in to adopt sustainable practices, Williams said the words used to describe opportunities and requirements should be chosen carefully. He said, “Terms like standardization make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.”
He doesn’t believe one-size-fits-all regulation is the best approach to use with producers. Instead, finding ways to help farmers want to learn new practices that improve sustainability, without having to make big changes, will be most fruitful.
“If you want to make change, you have to start from a place of trust,” he said. “Work with people who producers trust. Work with organizations they trust. Then you start to see change happen.”
Williams shared an example of when there was a push in the cattle industry to give injections subcutaneously rather than in the muscle. This change did not happen overnight, but the advisers who beef producers trusted were making that recommendation, and over a period of about five years, there was a cultural shift toward subcutaneous injections.
He recommended that advisers give the farmers they work with respect and understanding. Recognize that they
are already working hard, and help them identify one practice they can implement on their ranch. “It’s a process, but it builds a level of comfort,” Williams said.
“Sometimes people get into a comfort zone. They find something that is working for them, and they are slow to make big changes because it seems like a lot of risk,” he noted. “Small changes get the ball rolling.”
He also pointed out that producers are already doing a lot of environmentally-friendly practices that are not always quantifiable. “They are doing good things. I think we need to recognize that,” he said.
A clear definition
Williams said it has been a process for the industry to determine what sustainability means for agriculture. Today, there are some key indicators in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare, and most of these expectations simply make good sense.
“Sustainability is also how a ranch stays in business, and you don’t stay in business by raising cattle the same way or breeding them the same way. When new technology comes, we need to adapt,” he said.
He added that there are half the number of cow-calf ranchers today as there were when he graduated from high school a few decades ago.
PIPE BRIDGE
Foldable and transportable, the Pipe Bridge allows the connecting of liquid manure hoses over a roadway. DRAGLINING SIMPLIFIED.
Easily clears 3 full-size trucks!
Fully self-contained hydraulics
20’ max flat height clearance
25’ top pipe length
28’ transport position wheelbase for easy manueverability
3216 Wabash Road
Fort Recovery, OH 45846 567-644-5927
www.fortequip.com
“Sustainable ranching is just good ranching,” he stated. Ranchers are not ranching the same way they were 50 years ago, or 50 years before that, and ranchers will be improving 100 years from now, said Williams.
Sustainability in practice
Williams is right; many times, sustainable practices make good business sense. But not every solution is the right fit for every farm. During another Sustainable Agriculture Summit panel, producers shared their experiences with various practices.
For panel member Lynn Boadwine from Baltic, S.D., environmentally friendly goals have touched many aspects of his family’s 5,000-cow dairy farm. They utilize manure management plans, cover crops, and different feed products to reduce enteric methane emissions from their dairy cows. They also run anaerobic digesters at four of their dairy sites. Work continues to reduce water usage and refine their manure separation systems.
The first year he attended the Sustainable Agriculture Summit, “I didn’t know anything about sustainability,” he admitted.
“It’s changed a lot over the years,” he continued. Many of the sustainable practices they are doing on their farm sites are practices they knew they needed to do. When it comes to new opportunities, they study them carefully to be sure it’s right for their situation.
“I have a rule, and it’s do no harm,” he said.
For example, Boadwine explained that they looked into investing in a digester on their own, but the return on investment just wasn’t there. Instead, by working with outside investors, they take away that risk. “If you don’t have the investment, anything you receive is a pretty good return,” Boadwine noted.
Digester research has also taken place at Cooper Farms, where Bill Knapke is the environmental manager. He has worked for the company for nearly three decades and also operates his own farm, producing pullets, nursery pigs, dairy-beef cattle, and crops. Headquartered in Oakwood, Ohio, Cooper Farms is fully integrated in the turkey business with breeders,
Panel member Mike Williams is the owner of Diamond W Cattle Ranch, located in Acton, Calif.
two hatcheries, contract growers, and processing plants. In the chicken egg business, Cooper Farms has contract growers, in-line production, and a breaking plant for liquid egg and pasteurized products. Swine production includes farrowing facilities as well as contract growers for nursery, finishing, and wean/finish production.
Knapke said there are three generations working together at Cooper Farms. Each generation has different ideas, with different thought processes and different areas where they focus their energy.
When asked what they have tried but hasn’t worked, Knapke said they have been optimistic about a digester, and they have started down that road many times, but the right fit has not been found yet.
While they have not met with the right scenario for incorporating anaerobic digesters, they are working toward other sustainability benchmarks. For instance, the company is working to recycle, reuse, and repurpose resources, with a goal to become landfill free.
As for the minimum return on investment needed to adopt a practice or technology, Knapke said it varies
from year to year. On the farm, they need to prioritize their projects and upgrades annually.
When asked the same question about a return on investment, Bob Walker of Walker Farms had a more straightforward answer. “When it comes to new practices,” Walker said, “if it’s not economically viable, we cannot do it. Period.”
“All of us had projects we were hopeful in,” he continued. “But at the end of the day, if we can’t make it positive for us on the farm, we cannot keep doing it. That’s the bottom line. We have to keep that in mind. We have to make it work for each farm.”
Walker is the co-owner and operator of Walker Farms in Yum Yum, Tenn. With his brother, he raises cattle and grows cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat, and hay, most of which is grown on land that has been in the family since the 1830s.
Walker said they do “a little bit of everything” in terms of sustainability. Most of their land is highly erodible, so they have been utilizing cover crops for years. They also do variable rate nutrient application to cut fertilizer costs and prevent over applying nutrients.
“Every year we are trying to improve on what we are doing,” he said.
A broader view
Boadwine reminded the audience that sustainability is more than what happens in the field or what greenhouse gases are produced. He shared the example of when they moved their dairy cattle barns from natural ventilation to mechanical ventilation.
They made this change to keep the manure flowing through their waste management system. This also allowed them to put in a high-pressure fogging system for heat abatement, replacing their previously used sprinkler system. Less water in the manure is better for the anaerobic digester, and as an added benefit, they cut water usage by 60%.
“Those are hidden benefits no one sold us on or told us about, but they fall into the sustainability bucket,” he said. “Changes like this are the unsung heroes of what we do in farming.”
While the general sustainability movement may focus on a few areas of agri-
In another panel discussion, Bill Knapke, the environmental manager at Cooper Farms, shared his insight.
culture, Boadwine said there are a lot of pillars of sustainability. For instance, he said he has close to 200 employees. “When I wake up in the morning, I worry about my workforce. That should be part of sustainability, too.”
As an industry, Boadwine noted the transition to more private research, but he said, “Producers still need independent research. There is a struggle to get that. It’s a piece I miss.”
Like Williams mentioned about the overall acceptance of subcutaneous injections in cattle, Knapke said a cultural shift will be beneficial for adoption and adaptation to changes. “Only a handful of people want to be the first to do something,” he said. The majority move forward when they reach a greater comfort level.
“Change is slow, but I think that ground level support and a cultural shift toward sustainability is moving forward and will make it easier,” Knapke said.
Walker reemphasized the need for trusted advisers. “We are looking for companies to work with us. We can’t continue to feed the world as cheaply as we do without trusted resources beside us,” he said.
“We know our land, so don’t take for granted what we are doing. Listen to us,” he continued.
“If we are still in business today, we have to be sustainable,” Walker emphasized. “I encourage you, as advisers, to work with farmers, not just drop things on them.”
“We want to do better. We want to be more sustainable,” Walker said. “We have families, we have generations we built into the land. We want this to be a better place for everyone. Work with us. We are willing to give you a chance.”
With more eyes on agriculture, it will take improvements all along the supply chain to meet the goals placed upon the industry. These farmers highlighted the trust they need in advisers, research, practices, and technology.
They also noted the need for producers to think proactively and look to the future of agriculture to be more sustainable in all interpretations of the word. As Walker concluded, “If we are not looking forward, we are slipping backward.” ■
MANURE SEPARATORS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.
Every dairy farm has one. Every dairy farm needs one. And you have options. But when it comes to the most efficient, highest performance, greatest cost-to-value, there’s only one option. SAVECO products are designed to be the very best. You deliver the milk. We’ll deliver you one of the best business decisions you’ll ever make. Call us at 224.441.4204, and start turning a problem into a better dry solids solution.
BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR
We typically don’t have control of who moves into our neighborhood, but we can be proactive about building good relationship with the people around us.
by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor
Maybe your farm is located in an area where you can see for miles and miles with no other farms or businesses in sight. More likely, though, there is at least one house within eye shot. Some neighbors may be retired farmers or long-time residents who know your farm well, but when new people move to the area, there can be potential gaps in communication and their understanding of general farming practices.
We know what we need to do to care for our animals and crops, but when our actions may impact other people, we need to think of our neighbors, too.
In a Virginia Cooperative Extension publication, extension specialist Jactone Arogo Ogejo offered advice on managing manure with neighbor relations in mind.
“Animal production creates several potential nuisances, including odors, flies, noise, and dust. You need to be fully aware of these nuisances and your neighbors’ possible concerns,” wrote Ogejo.
As rural America becomes more urbanized, it is more common for nonfarm communities to complain about farming practices they feel affect their quality of life. This means farmers must think about these concerns when making manure handling decisions.
Lines of communication
To help build better relations in the neighborhood, Ogejo recommended getting to know your neighbors. This includes individuals as well as schools, churches, hospitals, and golf courses that may now appear in the rural land-
scape. Work proactively to avoid tense relationships between these people or businesses in the future.
“How you handle business on your farm may impact how you resolve conflicts related to your farm,” Ogejo wrote.
Next, Ogejo said to recognize the challenges farmers can face. It is a simple fact that animals concentrated near nonagricultural residents will produce odor and visual issues that may raise concerns. Without good relationships, there may be little communication between a farmer and their neighbors.
“This can create situations for misunderstanding and a greater likelihood that conflicts will occur,” he wrote.
“Do not let issues concerning your manure management get out of con-
trol,” he advised. “Be proactive in talking to your neighbors. Implement responsible farm management practices while conducting activities that promote the benefits of the farm to neighbors and the community.”
Open the doors
To improve the perception of your farm by neighbors and the local community, consider stepping up your outreach efforts. Host tours on your farm and explain what you do and why you do it. Perhaps you have products made on your farm you can share with neighbors, or you can offer services that make their lives easier, such as mowing brush or plowing snow.
“Outreach to community, open houses, and neighborly assistance can help cultivate open communication and understanding between the farming and nonfarming communities,” Ogejo emphasized.
When it comes to manure application, Ogejo reiterated the benefit of being proactive. Let them know when you plan to apply manure, and try to avoid application when it will conflict with a special event, such as a party at their property.
“People are much more accommodat ing if issues are addressed ahead of time, even if it is something they do not particularly like,” he shared. “In most cases, people will give you more latitude with something they do not like if you make a good faith effort to deal with their concerns about your farming operation.”
It is also helpful to maintain rela tionships with local leaders. For exam ple, before starting a big project on the farm, let local authorities know the plan and answer their questions.
Once completed, Ogejo suggested hold ing an open house so neighbors and local leaders can see the new project and visit your farm. The hope is that this creates better relations down the road.
“It is more difficult to carry a disagree ment with someone you know and are friendly with or who has made a first move to get to know you,” Ogejo said.
Put your best foot forward
Lastly, Ogejo reminded, “Many times, people tend to smell with their eyes
more than their noses.” This underscores the importance of maintaining a neat facility with clean animals, welltended crops, buildings, and machinery in good repair. What meets the eye can make a lasting impression.
“It is not always possible to prevent all farm odors, but if people are presented with the picture of a clean, orderly, well-managed farm, they will tolerate more actual odor than from a farm that looks untidy,” Ogejo wrote. ■
WE BUILD TANKS
A closer look at grazing and greenhouse gases
We must understand the connections between soil, plants, animals, and the atmosphere to develop strategies that maximize productivity while minimizing environmental impacts.
by Marília Chiavegato
Pastures are highly interconnected systems where soil, plants, animals, and the atmosphere continuously influence one another. Changes in one part inevitably trigger changes in others. For example, grazing strategies directly affect plant growth, nutrient cycling, soil health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Understanding these connections is key to optimizing
grazing systems for both productivity and sustainability.
Livestock grazing determines the rate of essential ecosystem processes such as plant growth, senescence, and decomposition. These processes, in turn, influence animal-related variables like forage intake, excreta distribution, and the quantity of nutrients excreted. Animal activities, such as grazing and trampling, affect soil properties like
moisture, temperature, pH, and density, which in turn shape microbial activity. This microbial activity drives the production of key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
For example, grazing changes the structure of pastures, impacting forage quality and influencing enteric CH4 emissions during digestion. Meanwhile, nitrogen fertilization may enhance for-
age productivity and build carbon storage in soil, but it can also elevate N2O and CH4 emissions. Excess nutrients not used by plants or immobilized in the microbial community are lost.
Recycling in pastures
Nitrogen inputs in pastures come from various sources, including fertilizers, plant residues, and livestock excreta. Consider a fertilized grassland receiving 225 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year:
• This system may produce 4,500 to 7,000 pounds of dry matter per acre (DM/ac) of plant residues annually.
• Assuming an average nitrogen content of 1.7% in dry matter, this adds 75 to 125 pounds N/ac per year to the soil.
• Root decomposition contributes another 4,500 pounds DM/ac of organic material.
• Livestock excreta accounts for an
additional 175 pounds N/ac per year, with 80% of ingested nitrogen excreted.
All together, these inputs provide roughly 350 pounds N/ac per year, much of which is potentially recyclable. However, excess nitrogen that is not utilized by plants or immobilized by microbes can be lost through runoff, leaching, volatilization, or as GHG emissions.
Urine: a double-edged sword
More than 60% of nitrogen excreted by livestock is in the form of urine, where 80% is present as urea. Once deposited, urine nitrogen can be absorbed by plants, immobilized by microbes, adsorbed onto soil particles, or escape as ammonia (NH3) or N2O emissions, depending on soil conditions such as moisture, temperature, and pH.
Dietary crude protein (CP) is a major factor influencing nitrogen recycling. Higher CP content elevates urea pro-
duction, which can lead to greater losses as NH3 or N2O.
Feces: slow and steady release
Unlike urine, the nitrogen in feces is not readily metabolizable and breaks down gradually, reducing losses by leaching or volatilization. Research suggests that fecal nitrogen excretion in dairy cows averages about 132 grams of N per cow per day, regardless of CP content in their diet. This makes diet manipulation ineffective in altering fecal nitrogen cycling.
Feces decomposition depends on these two processes:
1. Physical breakdown — This is caused by trampling and precipitation, which can be influenced by stocking density. Higher densities lead to faster breakdown.
2. Biological degradation — This is driven by soil organisms like fungi, bacteria, and earthworms.
Short grazing periods, such as in rotational grazing systems, promote more uniform distribution of feces and faster nutrient release. However, factors like water availability and shade can create uneven excreta patterns.
A key greenhouse gas
Methane is emitted in two primary forms in pastures: enteric and fecal.
Feces are associated with CH4 production because they provide adequate conditions for methanogenic (microorganisms responsible for CH4 production) development, such as temperature and moisture, which raise readily-available carbon content (substrate). Methanogenic microorganisms are anaerobic, and if they do not find favorable conditions for their development, such as when feces decomposition created aerobic conditions and reduced carbon content, CH4 production ceases. Fecal CH4 emissions are short-lived, lasting four to 14 days.
As feces decompose, anaerobic conditions give way to aerobic conditions, halting CH4 production. In some cases, methanotrophic microbes oxidize atmospheric CH4, creating temporary methane sinks in the soil. Methane sequestration in spots where feces were deposited and decomposed might remain for up to one year. The amount of CH4 sequestered by pasture soils is relatively low and significantly smaller than the CH4 emitted by cows through enteric fermentation, commonly known as enteric methane.
Enteric CH4 is the primary GHG emitted from grazing systems, accounting for 30% of total CO4 -equivalent emissions in systems with high concentrate supplementation and up to 84% in predominantly pasture-based systems. Enteric CH4 production is influenced by dry matter (DM) intake and the chemical composition of the forage consumed.
Grazing strategies can be tailored to reduce CH4 emission intensity (measured as grams of CH4 per kilogram of final product) and CH4 yield (grams of CH4 per kilogram of DM intake). Grazing strategies can be designed to optimize key processes, including plant growth, the interaction between animals and plants, and the activity of microorganisms in the rumen.
Rotational grazing systems — such as adaptive multi-paddock grazing where livestock graze only the top leafy parts of forage — often improve forage quality and reduce enteric CH4 emissions. These grazing strategies lead to more frequent grazing cycles with shorter recovery periods, reduced herbage losses, a higher proportion of leaves, greater leaf accumulation, and improved grazing efficiency.
A previous study showed that although more milk production contributes to constant daily enteric CH4 emissions across pregrazing targets, the intensity of CH4 emissions (grams of CH4 per kilogram of milk) and CH4 yield (grams of CH4 per kilogram of dry matter intake) were reduced by 21%. When analyzed on a per-acre basis, the higher stocking rate associated with these systems resulted in higher enteric CH4 emissions from pastures. However, the growth in milk yield per acre (51%) outpaced the rise in CH4 emissions (29%), leading to a net mitigation of 16% in enteric CH4 emissions. This highlights the potential of well-designed grazing strategies to balance productivity and environmental impact.
Designing grazing systems
Grazing strategies can be tailored to optimize forage quality, nutrient recycling, and GHG emissions. In a study conducted in temperate pastures, two very contrasting grazing systems were designed, with different stocking rates and densities. The nonirrigated high-density stocking system consisted of 120 cow-calf pairs rotating on a total of 120 hectares (ha), with a stocking rate of one cow per ha, a stocking density of 112,000 kg of bodyweight per ha, and a rest period of 60 to 90 days. The irrigated low-density stocking system consisted of 64 cow-calf pairs, rotating on a total of 26 ha of pasture, with a stocking rate of 2.5 cows per ha, a stocking density of 32,700 kg of bodyweight per ha, and a rest period of 18 to 30 days.
We monitored carbon fluxes under contrasting grazing strategies by evaluating the three main GHGs, expressed as CO2 equivalents, as well as carbon and nitrogen stocks in pasture soils. Results showed that the high-density
stocking system led to greater organic carbon storage in the soil, to a depth of 30 centimeters, compared to the low-density stocking system. Nitrogen stocks also increased in the high-density stocking system.
The high-density stocking system, with the longer rest periods of 60 to 90 days between grazing events, allowed for decomposition of plant residues, contributing to higher levels of carbon stocks. The low-density stocking system had more frequent grazing with shorter rest periods, which promoted the physical breakdown of plant residues through trampling, accelerated decomposition, and higher organic matter in the topsoil layers.
This study highlighted how different grazing intensities and practices influence carbon and nitrogen dynamics in pasture ecosystems, emphasizing the role of management strategies in determining soil health and GHG. There was no difference in daily enteric CH4 emissions between the systems, which was associated with animal selectivity of a high-quality diet.
Low-density stocking systems, where livestock graze only the top leafy parts of plants, promotes higher forage quality and faster regrowth. These systems often lead to shorter rest periods, reduced herbage losses, and greater grazing efficiency. While higher stocking rates may increase total methane emissions, they also boost productivity. For example, one study found that milk yield per acre increased by 51%, while enteric methane emissions rose by only 29%, resulting in a 16% reduction in methane intensity.
Sustainable grazing is a balancing act. By understanding the intricate connections between soil, plants, animals, and the atmosphere, we can develop strategies that maximize productivity while minimizing environmental impacts. Considering the full spectrum of GHG emissions — alongside nutrient cycling and soil health — is essential to achieving truly sustainable livestock systems. ■
The author is an assistant professor of agroecosystem management for food system resilience at The Ohio State University.
A SEASONAL REMINDER FOR MANURE
Winter is not typically the season for manure application due to the risk of nutrient loss through runoff. During an Iowa State University Extension and Outreach podcast, Assistant Professor Dan Anderson shared insight on this topic.
First, Anderson said to be familiar with the regulations in your state, which could vary greatly depending on location. For example, in Iowa, restrictions span from December to April. “We want to make sure everyone stays
prior to winter or having a back-up plan if storage become unexpectedly full.
Still, there will be cases where winter application is necessary. “While we know that application in winter is riskier than other seasons, risk doesn’t mean we will get that nutrient movement,” explained Anderson. “It does, however, mean we have an elevated chance of causing a negative impact on water quality, which we want to avoid.”
Third, if application must take place, select the fields and timing that will
intakes on tile drainage systems so potential water runoff doesn’t make it down the tile line. In addition, expand the application setbacks to stay further away from key water features. While fields with residue or cover crops are often preferred, they can be prone to holding more snow, which presents a risk for more runoff when it melts. So, if applying manure in a snowy situation, a bare field would be preferred. However, when the snow is gone, Anderson said fields with
What happens next?
With new leaders at the helm, change is expected in terms of agricultural and environmental policy in America.
by Rich Schell
s former President John Kennedy once observed, “Change is the only constant” — and there could certainly be a lot of change for the agricultural industry in the months and years ahead. In January, President Donald Trump and a new administration with very different goals took charge in Washington, D.C.
Among the many potential changes that could affect farmers, these are three areas we will be watching closely:
1. The farm bill
2. Environmental policy
3. President Trump’s selection for Secretary of Agriculture
The state of the farm bill
Progress has been made on the farm bill in the form of House and Sen-
ate versions, but there are key differences to be resolved within them. And undoubtedly, there will be disagreements over its passage as Republicans have already expressed a desire to cut spending, including funds directed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
In addition, both bills have provisions regarding the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). USDA’s
REAP has increasingly been used to fund on-farm anaerobic digestion projects in recent years.
Both proposals would double the maximum guaranteed loan amount under this program to $50 million. The Senate bill includes a broad range of measures designed to simplify the application process for this program’s funding. It also adds greenhouse gas reduction potential as a consideration for energy efficiency improvement loan guarantees and grants.
The Senate version would raise the federal cost share to 50% for a project funded by a REAP grant. The House version would do the same, but only for
“beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers,” with others receiving up to 35% cost-share.
The environmental impacts
On another note, the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate change — again. This may affect anaerobic digesters and the farms that have them.
One aspect that is tangentially related to the U.S. leaving the agreement that could also have an impact on digester use is that changes in policy might make it impossible for California and other states to set pollution standards that promote the use of renewable natural gas in buses. This is significant because one of the key markets for renewable natural gas is its use in buses in California.
In accordance with campaign promises, President Trump would also permit more drilling on federal lands.
There’s a saying in politics that where you sit (or more specifically, where you’re from and what concerns the people who voted for you) determines where you stand on issues. President Trump was elected by many rural voters in red states. Those voters involved in biogas production can be expected to have a “wish list” of policies that will benefit them. As noted above, one of the key markets for biogas is created under The Renewable Fuel Standard, which allows for a market path for renewable energy in transportation such as ethanol in cars and renewable biogas in buses.
There is a clear market opportunity for electricity when it is put to work in transportation. Similarly, there is a clear market path for electricity generated from biogas (a form of renewable natural gas). But as electric vehicles become more and more widely used, there is a gap. Electricity generated by biogas when used in electric vehicles falls outside all of these provisions.
In another related development, the California Air Resources Board voted to amend the Low Carbon Fuel Stan dard in November, updating a sweeping transportation fuels program that incentivizes projects nationwide and seeks to decarbonize the sector. Since a large percentage of natural gas used in Californian vehicles is renewable natural gas in the form of biogas, this would be a strong market indicator for continued use of it.
One item to pay attention to is USDA’s announcement about program applications. On December 19, 2024, USDA announced it will stop accepting applications for the Inflation Reduction Act Funding under the Rural Energy for America Program, a key source of funding for some digester projects. This decision was made due to the continued overwhelming response to the funding opportunities made possible by the act. This decision does not affect 2025 fiscal year applications submitted for farm bill funding. Farm bill applications are those requesting federal grant funding of up to 25%. To learn more, people should contact their state energy coordinator.
Selecting our leaders
Last but not least is the question of who will be President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture, a position that had not yet been confirmed at the time of this writing. The nominee is Brooke Rollins, a Texan who grew up on a farm and has a law degree. She served in the first Trump Administration
as Director of Domestic Policy Council, Director of the Office of American Innovation, and Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives.
Her nomination is significant for many reasons. If confirmed, she would be just the second woman to be Secretary of Agriculture. After her post in the first Trump administration, she was the founder and CEO of the America First Policy Institute. The Institute supports the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Accord and Trump’s stated goal of increasing production of carbon fuels. And one of the biggest unknowns is what effect President Trump’s Executive Orders will have on the process.
As one can see, there are many unknowns for agriculture, but what we do know is that only change endures. The Trump administration clearly has big policy goals to scale back climate initiatives, expedite fossil fuel production, and lower gas prices. However, this will need to be balanced against the goal of greater energy independence and supporting domestic energy production. ■
Get ready to roll
Use these slower months to prepare equipment and enhance safety during the application season.
by Megan Dresbach
Spring is just around the corner and here in Ohio, we will be back into the fields soon. With all the different liquid products we handle, our operation applies every day, assuming that the field conditions are fit for them, and it is legal to do so. Those application days are extremely limited in the winter months, so most of our crew’s time is spent in the shop doing routine maintenance or upgrades on the equipment.
In my November 2024 column titled “Safety starts on the inside,” I shared that the first step of safety is protecting the human. The next step is equipment.
Under the guidance and supervision of my father and brother, all our equipment is moved into the shop for preventative maintenance and necessary repairs. These months are also utilized to make equipment modifications, if needed.
Ward off problems
Preventative maintenance is crucial for any successful operation. Spending time now to do repairs prevents most breakdowns when it’s time to run. These little things can prevent big headaches later.
As with many aspects of life, “the basics” are a good foundation for equipment fixes and preventing problems. These include checking fluids, inspecting tires and rims, making sure bearings are tight, checking brakes to ensure tolerance and that they are not overly worn, and walking around the equipment for inspection of every inch are vitally important. These steps should be done on a daily basis, but during winter downtime, this maintenance can be done in a thorough and precise manner.
All pieces of equipment in our shop are also greased and lubricated properly, above and beyond what needs to be inspected on a daily or weekly basis.
One
example of a safety feature we constructed on our farm is an open top on our frac tank to reduce the risks of dangerous gases in a confined space.
Grease is a relatively inexpensive investment to prevent many issues and repairs.
Another basic step includes painting rims. Paint helps extend the longevity of rims. A lot of our equipment also has reflective tape on it, and the tape needs to be reflective and not overly worn. It is critical that lights on equipment are functioning properly. It is imperative that agricultural equipment is lit up as much as possible to be seen by other drivers. This is especially true when other motorists are not familiar with the size and scope of the equipment that can take up more than half of the roadway.
Stay visible
You can never have enough lights. Just ask my brother, who I am convinced keeps several light suppliers
in business. Our equipment looks like UFOs, and we prefer it that way.
When moving large equipment, know your state’s requirements for agricultural equipment to be on the roadway. Some counties or townships have additional requirements for local roads. These regulations could include equipment width, lighting, markings, or even escort requirements.
I’m going to make the assumption that slow moving vehicle (SMV) signs are required in your state. In Ohio, agricultural vehicles going faster than 25 miles per hour (mph) but slower than 55 mph are also required to have a Speed Identification Symbol (SIS). These signs need to be visible and reflective, not dull or covered in debris.
Like many operations these days, our company does a lot of our own equipment modifications. “Farmer ingenuity” is responsible for a lot of innovations that have moved this industry forward. My brother is always coming up with plans to make things safer, bigger, and faster. Most of these ideas take a lot of planning and time to construct and implement, so they are reserved for the wintertime. The goal of these projects is often to make situations easier and safer for the humans doing the work. What is something you can do to make your life a little easier? Little things aren’t “little” when they are foundational pieces to the operation. Before we all get busy this spring, what change are you going to make for your operation to be safer for all? ■
The author is the vice president of W.D. Farms LLC in Circleville, Ohio, and blogs as the Ohio Manure Gal.
AGRICULTURAL CONCRETE
JP Tank
317 Kohlman Rd. Fond du Lac, WI 54937 920-948-2286
jptankconcrete@gmail.com jptank.com
Pipping Concrete
N6106 County Rd. C Rosendale, WI 54974 920-948-9661
dennis@pippingconcrete.com pippingconcrete.com
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SERVICES
Agricultural Digesters LLC
88 Holland Ln. #302 Williston, VT 05495 802-876-7877
EFFECTIVELY MANAGE SAND-LADEN DAIRY MANURE WHETHER YOU HAVE AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTER OR NOT
Why sand?
“Sand is the gold-standard bedding choice because of its cow health and milk production benefits,” says Renee Schrift, Business Line Director – Agricultural Systems at McLanahan Corporation. “It has so many advantages because it’s a forgiving, drier, comfortable surface for cows, and it’s inorganic, so the stall bacteria load is usually extremely low.”
According to researchers at the University of Wisconsin and USDA, the use of sand bedding compared to manure solids and mattresses results in higher milk production, lower mastitis treatment rates and lower somatic cell count.
Using sand bedding isn’t necessarily difficult, it is simply different to manage than using organic bedding.
Sand bedding is ideal for dairy cows, but it doesn’t always mix well with manure management systems. This is especially true with anaerobic digesters.
However, well-designed, robust sand-manure separation systems are proven to help recycle sand bedding efficiently and economically, enabling users to recoup and recycle the vast majority of sand. Plus, these sand separation systems can also increase anaerobic digestion utilization by virtually eliminating sand from the digester-feeding manure stream.
Here’s how you can create a favorable manure management environment with sand bedding on your dairy farm, even if you don’t have a digester yet.
Physics at work
How do you optimize the benefits of sand bedding while reducing challenges for manure handling systems? Separate and recycle it, of course.
“Success begins with capitalizing on physics, gravity and engineering know-how,” explains Schrift.
Keep in mind:
• Sand is abrasive, so choose equipment designed and proven to withstand the harshness of sand. This means equipment that operates at low speeds and is constructed using wear-resistant materials like abrasion-resistant steel plate or rubber. Components in high-wear situations must either be harder than sand grains or resilient enough to deflect without deforming.
• Secondly, sand is more than twice as dense as manure and therefore settles, making sand separation a realistic proposition.
“In fact, our systems can capture 95% of sand for recycling while removing an additional 3% of fines from manure,” Schrift adds.
As a result, dairies that recycle sand can cut their bedding cost significantly. For example, a 500-cow dairy using 50 pounds of sand per cow per day at $15 a ton spends $68,438 a year on sand. With a sand separation system that conservatively recovers up to 90% of sand for reuse, the dairy can save $61,594 a year by recycling their sand bedding.
These figures demonstrate that with a well-designed sand-manure separation system, high sand recovery is possible and economically beneficial for herds of all sizes.
What about digesters?
Since sand separation technology can virtually remove most sand from manure, these systems go hand-in-hand with anaerobic digesters.
Without separation beforehand, sand bedding is incompatible with anaerobic digestion systems.
With sand-manure separation, sand can be recycled for reuse as freestall bedding, and the manure effluent can be anaerobically digested for optimal digester efficiency and gas production.
The key is to collaborate with your partners to design the best system to fit your needs. Also, every farm is managed differently, so it’s important to determine the total solids in manure effluent, knowing there may be seasonal fluctuations.
“Be sure to choose an anaerobic digester partner who can design and build a digester to suit the way you manage your dairy, taking into consideration first and foremost what is best for the cows,” suggests Schrift.
Ultimately, effective sand recycling helps improve a dairy’s bottom line, whether you invest in a digester for your system or not.
