Journal of Nutrient Management - Quarter 2 - 2023

Journal of Nutr ient Management

6

10

Tankers carry more than manure

Not all manure is created equal

12 A foundation built on diversity

THE COVER

Carefully managed windrows of reclaimed sand wait to be used as bedding on this 1,000 cow dairy in Pennsylvania. Manure is flushed from the freestall barns with recycled water. Sand is separated, piled, stored, and then windrowed. Manure is applied in spring and fall using draglines and tankers

empty their storage lagoons.

Journal of Nutrient Management

Managing Editor

Abby Bauer

Art Director

Todd Garrett

Editorial Coordinator

Jennifer Yurs

Director of Marketing

John Mansavage

Advertising Sales

Beth Gierke bgierke@nutrientmgmt.com

Advertising Coordinator

Patti Kressin pkressin@hoards.com

Online Media Manager

Patti Hurtgen phurtgen@hoards.com

Digital Marketing Manager

Sam Rasmussen samr@hoards.com

Publisher

W.D. Hoard & Sons Co.

Brian V. Knox, President

CONTACT INFORMATION

Editorial Office PO Box 801 28 Milwaukee Ave. West Fort Atkinson, WI 53538

Website: www.jofnm.com

Email: info@jofnm.com

Phone: 920-563-5551

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.

Copyright © 2023 W.D. Hoard & Sons Company. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Content may not be reproduced or used for any commercial activity without express written consent from W. D. Hoard & Sons Company

Abby Bauer

Managing Editor

A SUSTAINABLE WISH

few days ago, an interesting segment on the late night news caught my attention. The reporter was stationed at John’s Disposal Facility, a Milwaukee-area recycling center that takes in about 500 tons of recycled items a day. When the collected items are unloaded, fast moving conveyer belts carry these materials past employees who must quickly pull out objects that are not recyclable and have the potential to damage the machines. Food waste, scrap metal, toys, shoes, and plastic bags were some items pulled off the conveyer belt during the interview.

Dan Jongetjes, the general manager of the facility, explained that nearly 20% of what is taken in as recycling ends up in the landfill. That means a lot of people are making mistakes when it comes to recycling.

He said some are just being careless, using their recycling bin as a trash can. More people are on the other end of the spectrum, though, individuals who are trying to do a good job. Jongetjes called these people “wishful cyclers.” They toss items into the bin they think are recyclable and hope for the best.

While Jongetjes said a lot of people mean well, these nonrecylable items can mess up the whole system and keep employees on their toes. Dozens of times a day, the conveyer belts must be stopped so employees can grab items that might ruin the machines.

The information in that segment will help me be a more careful recycler in my home. It also made me think of all the reducing, reusing, and recycling that happens in agriculture.

For generations, we have used crops that humans can’t eat and fed them to animals that convert these into meat, milk, and eggs. Those animals create manure, which has then been used to fertilize fields that produce more animal feed.

As time has gone on, farmers have also been able to incorporate systems that reuse water, reclaim bedding, reduce feed waste, and so much more. In the area of manure management, technology has emerged that can further process that by-product. Whether it is removing additional water or creating a more valuable, transportable end product, this technology is really exciting.

I think that some farmers could be considered wishful recyclers as well, but in a slightly different sense. Operators may look wishfully at these new systems, hoping to incorporate them onto their farm. This drive to do more with less benefits not only the farm business but also our reputation. In a world focused on environmental stewardship and sustainability, stories about how farms recycle fit that narrative well.

Another part of that sustainability piece, though, is viability. A process might sound cool, but it also must be good for the animals. It must be good for the land. And it must also be good for the checkbook. Some of these new technologies are extremely expensive.

When putting together this issue, a theme emerged among several of the articles. It is the idea that many factors must work in concert to achieve true sustainability. How we manage fields impacts nutrient management (page 18 and page 26). How we manage nutrients impacts the climate (page 22). And how we feed animals carries both financial and environmental risks and rewards (page 8).

What can’t be forgotten is that public-facing piece. Moving manure from the farm to the field to be used as a nutrient source is a prime example of on-farm recycling. However, one bad experience with a neighbor can ruin all the good publicity. Read more about that on page 6.

The goal of the news segment was to help turn “wishful cyclers” into better informed recyclers. Similarly, may our wish to do more with less be paired with careful decision making that helps us find new ways to make the most of what we have while incorporating changes that benefit the environment, the animals, and the business. That is where true sustainability lies.

Until next time, Abby

MISSOURI

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in April that a state law prohibiting counties from imposing regulations on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) does not violate the state’s constitution.

In 2019, the Missouri General Assembly passed a bill preventing county rules for farms that are “inconsistent with or more stringent than” state law or regulation. Two years later, they tightened the wording, establishing that country ordinances can’t be “inconsistent with, in addition to, different from, or more stringent” than state rules. Prior to this bill, 20 counties in Missouri had some sort of restrictions in place to regulate CAFOs.

WISCONSIN

Farmers in Laketown, Wis., scored a victory when a newly elected town board voted unanimously to abandon a recently passed ordinance that would have greatly impacted growing farms in their area. Last year, Laketown and five other towns in northwestern Wisconsin created ordinances that would allow for more local input and control of farms with over 500 animal units. Five farmers filed a lawsuit to block the ordinance, but now that the ordinance has been rescinded, the case will likely be dismissed.

CALIFORNIA

A man in California plead guilty to wire fraud, money laundering, and identity theft after convincing investors he was building anaerobic digesters on dairies in California and Idaho. The man stole $8,750,000 from investors who believed he was going to turn cow manure into green energy. Fake lease agreements, forged contracts, and phony construction schedules were used to hide the truth. He now faces criminal charges including jail time and more than $750,000 in fines.

THE INNOVATIVE BIOSELECT FOR EFFICIENT MANURE SEPARATION.

UNITED STATES

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is accepting applications for grants that will help agricultural producers and rural small businesses make energy efficiency improvements and invest in renewable energy systems. In total, $1 billion worth of grants are available under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) with funding from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Recipients will be chosen quarterly though September 30, 2024. To ensure small projects have an opportunity to compete for funding, at least 20% of the funds will be set aside each year until June 30 for grant requests under $20,000. The maximum grant request is $1 million for renewable energy systems and $500,000 for energy efficiency projects.

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

Tankers carry more than manure

by William Eberle

If you ever want to “trigger” a group of livestock farm managers, ask them — off the record — to discuss how potentially fraught the relationship is with their custom manure hauling crews.

Don’t get me wrong. Most dairy operators have long-established, mutually beneficial relationships with their hauling crews. A solid 97% of the time, the two sides of this coin work in a productive, professional harmony. But it’s that other 3% that sends a chill down virtually every farm operator’s spine.

In preparation for a speaking gig at the Wisconsin Custom Operators annual convention, I asked a number of large dairy managers to individually confide in me, “What do you wish your manure hauling crew knew?”

The amazing thing was a nearly universal consensus among their responses. The dairy operators cited two main concerns about their hauler relationships, and both are rooted in public relations.

First, despite the fact that the manure truck says “ABC Trucking” on its side in big, crystal-clear letters, the farm’s neighbors don’t “see” that. Instead, they only associate that truck with the farm for which it’s hauling.

That leads directly to the second distress factor: The behind-the-scenes planning of nutrient application is exponentially more complicated than it sometimes appears on the surface. And one bad driver can send a stick of dynamite into all those plans and do irreparable damage.

The general parameters of the dairy-

men’s shared nightmare are pretty easy to follow. Let me lay it out in this fictional situation that may hit close to home for some of you.

One bad move

A manure truck isn’t just a manure truck. It’s an 80,000-pound smelly, rolling billboard for the farm. If you ask most nonfarming neighbors, they’ll tell you the top complaint — by a country mile — is the presence of a stinky manure truck on their local roads. Worse yet, one neighbor’s bad experience with a manure tanker can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in future ramifications and negate a decade’s worth of good public relations efforts for the farm.

Let’s say a neighbor pulls out in front of a manure tanker and the truck driver avoids the car but loses his cool as a result. Maybe that driver lays on the air horn and flips the neighbor the “bird.” That neighbor, who never complained before, now decides to call the Depart-

ment of Natural Resources (DNR) to complain about the manure trucks.

The DNR comes out to inspect, and the dairy owner shows them the hauling log, the rate sheet, and the marked setbacks in the field. The DNR person points to an area of the field that has been incorporated with manure perfectly and asks why it isn’t marked with a setback. The dairy manager explains it is just a low spot in the field and there’s nothing ponded or running off, so everything’s fine.

However, the DNR rep just graduated with his environmental science degree last week and is looking to make a name for himself. He says that it’s a concentrated flow area and you’re in violation of your permit, despite it being incorporated, despite it being part of the field, despite it not being on the setback map, and despite there being anything that even remotely resembles “pollution.”

The neighbor who called you in now starts telling a few other neighbors about the fact that you got in trouble with DNR and, dollars to doughnuts, they start to think, “If they’re doing that, what else are they doing when no one is looking?”

Long-term impacts

A year later, that same dairy wants to expand from 700 cows to 1,200 cows since two of the sons are graduating college and want to return to the business. The family applies for a permit to add a lagoon and some manure technology. The DNR informs them that there’s been chatter from some “concerned

Farmers place a lot of trust in custom applicators to transport nutrients and uphold their reputation.

neighbors” and, as a result, there will have to be a public hearing.

In the meantime, the “concerned neighbor” has a group of five more neighbors that they’ve convinced the world will cease spinning on its axis if you’re allowed to grow your farm. At the public hearing, these neighbors use their allotted three minutes of speaking time to opine about the evils of factory farming, the environmental destruction caused by modern dairy farming, and the fact that, “If only we returned to everyone milking 35 cows in little red barns, society as a whole would prosper and we would all live forever.”

Meanwhile, a reporter is writing down everything they say, and you wake up the next morning to headlines that read, “Industrial farm coming to a neighborhood near you.”

The DNR ends up issuing you a permit — but tacked on are a few extra monitoring wells that you’ll need to install so they can “assure the locals that their groundwater is safe,” despite the fact there are three other farms in your neighborhood and none of them are required to install them.

Our reputation is at risk

You’re wondering what in the world just happened, given you’re a fourth generation farm that’s never had an environmental issue and has had a wonderful relationship with the community for the last 50 years. What happened was the loss of “social license” from one neighbor having one bad experience with one truck driver.

This really does happen. One bad interaction with one manure hauler can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, public relations costs, and additional operating expenses. Fifty years of positive community interactions can go south just like that.

This is the nightmare scenario that keeps farmers up at night.

Custom operators deserve tremendous respect for the service they provide. Not only are they performing a vital role in the operation of our dairies, but they’re also carrying with them our reputation, and arguably the future of our business.

Even as the labor market gets tighter and truck drivers become even more difficult to find and retain, we must

never lower the standards with which we operate. Having very specific rules for custom crews in regard to the code of conduct is absolutely imperative, as is a clear chain of command. Our haulers, literally and figuratively, have their hands on the wheel and can determine the direction — positive or negative —

that our farms take going forward. The future of our industry is at stake.

The author has been involved in large-scale commercial dairying in Wisconsin for more than 20 years and is now an account manager for Chr. Hansen Inc.

Reimagine youR ResouRces

High-performance separation

Maximize your manure’s potential with the new GEA SlopeScreen™ separator and OptiClean™ automatic cleaning system. The improved modularity of the SlopeScreen combined with the superior cleaning power of OptiClean delivers adaptability, reliability and efficiency using less labor.

Watch

Environomics will become a new focus area

by Alvaro Garcia

Dairy producers across the globe aim for financial sustainability amidst a sea of environmental challenges. Given that situation, a balance must be struck between the environmental concerns and the economic realities to ensure long-term solutions that are both sustainable and financially viable.

Environomics is a new concept that focuses on both the sustainable and financial impacts. From the environmental standpoint, economic benefits often center on reducing methane production for dairy producers. Reducing carbon production losses by 20% can significantly impact farmers’ bottom lines and make better use of resources. Keep in mind that carbon losses in the form of methane are carbons that have already been paid for in the form of feed. Incorporating environomics into a farm’s decision-making process can strike a balance between economic viability and environmental sustainability, ensuring both sustainable profits and environmental health.

Methane production, however, is a natural process that occurs in cows’ rumens when they consume feed. It’s not a choice for them. Methane acts as a “sink” for excess hydrogen generated during fermentation, allowing the cow to eliminate it from the system. By reducing methane emissions, farmers can redirect the carbon used for methane production into valuable nutrients such as milk protein and fat.

When dairy cows consume more feed to enhance milk production, methane

emissions also go up. Two common metrics are used to measure and compare these emissions: methane yield and methane intensity.

Yield measures the amount of methane emitted per unit of dry matter intake, typically expressed in grams of methane per kilogram of dry matter intake. This metric allows for an accurate comparison of methane emissions between cows with different intake levels.

Methane intensity, on the other hand, measures the amount of methane emitted per unit of energy-corrected milk (ECM). It’s usually expressed in grams of methane per kilogram of ECM. This metric takes into consideration that cows producing more milk may also produce more methane, allowing for

a comparison of emissions efficiency between cows or groups of cows.

Does it work?

A recent review published in the Journal of Dairy Science focused on quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing methane emissions in intensive dairy production. The authors assessed various approaches that have demonstrated an effect in vivo and estimated their maximum potential reduction.

The approaches were ranked in order of importance for their maximum potential methane reduction as follows:

1. Genetic selection (19%)

2. Management (18.5%)

3. Feeding and nutrition (15%)

4. Rumen modifiers (5%)

Efforts to reduce methane emissions can benefit the environment and farmers’ bottom lines.

Some of these approaches interact with each other, so the combined effect is not simply the sum of their individual effects. However, when all of the approaches are combined, their effect on reducing methane emissions can reach up to 30%.

Shifting losses to accretion

To reduce methane emissions in dairy production, it is important for producers to think on a herd basis, rather than focusing solely on individual cows. This means considering the amount of fat and protein being shipped from the farm, and identifying interventions from the list mentioned above that can have the greatest impact for the dairy farm.

While genetic selection holds promise for reducing methane emissions, it is still in its early stages and may not be the most practical solution for all farms. Instead, producers can prioritize interventions that address feeding and nutrition or cattle management, which have significant impact on methane emissions.

Investing in rumen modifiers, which have a smaller effect of only 5%, may not make sense for farms that are already struggling with feeding and management issues. Ultimately, reducing methane emissions in dairy production requires a holistic approach.

Effective management, particularly feeding, is crucial for reducing methane emissions and is second only to genetics. To achieve this, there are several key components to consider, such as elevating the digestible dry matter intake, aiming for a feed efficiency of 1.5, providing feed consistency, ensuring good quality silage and hay, pushing feed at least five times a day, and providing enough bunk space (at least 36 inches per cow).

Aim to produce less than 15 grams of methane per liter (57 grams per gallon) of milk produced. This can be calculated by knowing the cows’ dry matter intake and milk production on a herd basis. The methane emission formula (in liters/day) is as follows:

Methane (liters/day) = [62 (±5.5) + 25 (±0.54) x dry matter intake] / liters of milk produced.

Moving forward, dairy producers must balance environmental and economic concerns to achieve sustainable production. Environomics, a concept that focuses on the economic benefits of reducing meth-

ane production, can help prioritize sustainable practices that benefit both the environment and dairy farmers. Monitoring methane yield and intensity can assess the effectiveness of feeding and breeding approaches. Effective cattle management and feeding are key to reducing methane emissions, which

can benefit both the environment and dairy farmers financially.

The author is a retired professor of dairy science from South Dakota State University. He is now a consultant with Dellait Dairy Nutrition & Management.

Not all manure is created equal

Every livestock species has different manure characteristics that influence its value.

by Leslie Johnson

Chickens, hogs, beef cattle, and dairy cows all produce manure. These various kinds of manures are valuable, but are they equally valuable? The answer to that question is absolutely not. Ranking priority might be based on the potential for offensive odor, nutrient content, proximity to target fields, or the ability to influence soil health characteristics. This article will compare different manures and explain why not all manures are created equal.

Nutrient differences

Using a few random samples, let’s compare the nutrient concentrations across species. Note that these are not averages; they are just one sample each from various sources in Nebraska.

Using these analyses and Nebraska’s nitrogen availability factors, the following manure application rates are based on a field target nitrogen (N) application rate of 154 pounds per acre available for the 2023 crop (if applied in fall 2022):

• 4,000 gallons per acre of swine manure (injected)

• 37 tons per acre of beef manure (surface applied, no incorporation)

• 13,000 gallons of dairy lagoon slurry (injected)

• 9 tons per acre of layer manure (surface applied, no incorporation)

That means it would take four times as much beef manure to provide the same amount of nitrogen as layer manure. Four times! Yet, beef manure would provide significantly more

A visual representation of available nutrients (letters), water (droplet), and organic matter (yellow stone) content for various types of manure applied at a rate of 154 pounds of nitrogen per acre. The upper left quadrant represents layer chicken manure that has been broadcast applied and left on the surface. The upper right represents swine pit slurry that has been injected into the soil. The lower left represents beef feedlot manure that has be surface-applied, and the lower right represents dairy lagoon manure that has been injected.

organic matter than layer manure. So, depending on your goals, either source could be a good option for your specific cropping situation.

What about the other nutrients in manure? The table shows estimates of

available nutrients when each manure is applied at the target of 154 pounds of N per acre rate indicated above.

Using data from the table, we see that beef manure applied to meet 154 pounds of N per acre would supply nearly three

Pounds of nutrient availability the first year from various manures, applied at 154 lbs. of N per acre

times as much phosphorus and almost five times the amount of potash as swine manure. So, when applying manure to a field that has adequate soil phosphorus and low potassium concentrations for the next crop, more value might be assigned to swine manure if manure transportation costs are economically viable. However, if the field is needing phosphorus, beef manure might be just the ticket to build soil phosphorus while improving soil properties through additional organic matter inherently associated with cattle manure, offsetting commercial fertilizer costs for a number of years.

Manure application logistics

While balancing nutrients is important, a farmer considering manure use also must think about the availability and characteristics of the product. Swine and dairy manures are usually more costly to transport due to their high water content, whereas some poultry litters can be transported long distances based on higher nutrient concentrations and lower water content. Liquid manures are just too heavy, and therefore costly, to haul long distances, so transportation costs are an important economic factor.

Building soil health

There is not a lot of research on how different types of manure impact soil health, but research has proven that manure in general is superior to commercial fertilizer for building soil organic matter concentration, reducing soil bulk density, and improving aggregate stability and infiltration rates. Solid manures, like beef manure and poultry litter, typically contain larger concentrations of organic matter, which benefits soil health, compared to more dilute slurry and liquid forms of manure. If left on the soil surface, manures with organic matter may create a mulch-like effect, conserving soil moisture and decreasing erosion and runoff. And, the soil health hallmark benefit from manure application is that soils are more resistant to compaction — especially when they’re wet.

When balancing nutrients needed on your fields, compare manure sources and remember that not all manure is created equal. When deciding on a manure source, consider not only the availability and cost, but also the nutrient content, characteristics of the product, and how those characteristics affect the field in the long run. 

The author is an animal manure management extension educator with University of Nebraska Extension. She would like to recognize Alfredo DiCostanzo and Todd Whitney, University of Nebraska Extension educators, for their time reviewing this article.

NITROGEN AVAILABILITY IN NEBRASKA

In Nebraska, research has shown that for most manures, organic nitrogen is about 40% available the first growing season, with about 20%, 10%, and 5% becoming available in subsequent growing seasons. Ammonium nitrogen is assumed to be 95% available when injected versus completely lost to the atmosphere if surface applied without incorporation.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107577

Source: Garcia-Montealegre, J.P., C. Wortmann, J. Schepers, R. Little. 2019. Applied Organic Nitrogen: Pre-plant and in-season estimation of corn nitrogen uptake. Field Crops Res. 241.

A foundation built on diversity

A diversified business and a clear succession plan have helped Johnson’s Rolling Acres move the farm from generation to generation.

by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor

The old saying, “Don’t put your all your eggs in one basket,” is a mantra for the Johnson family of Peterson, Minn. Their farm consists of dairy cattle, hogs, and land for cash cropping, and they feel this diversity has been one of their keys to success.

The management team at Johnson’s Rolling Acres includes three senior partners – brothers Richard, Mark, and Bradley Johnson – and three junior partners – cousins Zac, Lee, and Trinity Johnson. These men follow in the footsteps of their father and grandfather, LeRoy Johnson.

More seats at the table

LeRoy and his wife, Darleen, raised 13 children on their dairy and hog farm. When several of them expressed interest in joining the farm after school, LeRoy wanted to be sure there was room for everyone in the business. So, he established a corporation in 1979 and continued to grow the farm. Over time they started milking more cows, added more hogs, and expanded their land base.

“My dad liked to buy land,” said Bradley, “and we have always been able to use land.” This land provides plenty of room to grow feed, spread manure, and served as collateral when financing future projects. With more acres and more areas of the farm to manage, several of LeRoy and Darleen’s children were able to make a career on the farm.

“They tried to set things up so there was an opportunity to enter the farm,” Richard explained. “They spent a lot of time planning their exit strategy while also creating an opportunity for the

next generation.”

Richard and his siblings carried on that way of thinking, establishing a plan so that the next generation of Johnsons could join the farm. “It is really important motivation for the next generation to know early on what they are working for,” he said.

“We felt like it was necessary for the young guys to know what their future would look like,” agreed Mark. This planning process also provides a path for the older generation to retire when they are ready. “So, there is a double benefit,” he added.

In 2000, the Johnsons built a new parlor and went from 150 to 600 cows. They reached 1,200 cows by 2012,

which is their cap based on a countyimposed limit.

Trinity’s dad was not one of the partners on the dairy, but he started working on the farm at a young age and knew he wanted to be involved. He was the first of the third generation to rejoin the operation, but before he did, he went to college, worked off the farm, and then completed a two-year internship on the dairy before being voted in as a partner.

Those are the parameters set by the farm for anyone wanting to join the team: complete at least two years of college, work two years off the farm, and then intern at the farm for two years.

Even though Trinity, Lee, and Zac all knew they wanted to farm, they agreed

The management team of Johnson’s Rolling Acres includes Richard, Bradley, Mark, and Trinity Johnson. Zac and Lee Johnson are also partners in the dairy and hog operation near Peterson, Minn.

that working somewhere else was beneficial and helped them gain more specialized skills. They would set similar expectations for the next generation if they choose to join the farm someday.

Room to specialize

The partners all agree that diversification has been a strength for their farm and family and has served them well. It provides opportunity, security, and a future for the farm.

This diversity gives each person an area to focus on. Richard is the overall farm manager. Bradley oversees the hog operation. Mark is in charge of the dairy herd, with Trinity also working in that area. Lee manages the diesel shop and crew, and Zac heads up the agronomy side of the farm.

“Diversification is part of our culture,” said Richard. “It created an opportunity for individualism while still working together.”

Today, the Johnsons are milking

1,160 cows three times a day in a double-18 parallel parlor. The Holstein herd averages 27,575 pounds of milk, with 4.6% fat, 3.3% protein, and a 160,000 somatic cell count.

The cows are housed in a 6-row tunnel ventilated barn or their newer 8-row cross ventilated barn. The stalls are sand bedded, and cooling cells and sprinklers help aid in cow cooling. Their goal is to make the cows as comfortable as possible. “If the cows are happy, we are happy,” Trinity noted. Their cropping enterprise consists of around 3,500 acres. About threefourths of that land is used to grow feed for their animals; the remaining acres are used for cash cropping.

On the hog side, they bought into a sow cooperative in 1998 and have 8% ownership. They have four swine barns and market around 10,000 hogs a year.

Manure from the swine operation is held in underground storage beneath the barns with a year’s worth of capac-

ity. On the dairy side, their freestall barn alleyways are flushed and sand is separated utilizing a flush flume system and two screw presses. They are able to reclaim 85% to 90% of the sand.

After the sand is separated and washed, it is stacked. The addition of a sand shed allows them to now wash sand 365 days a year. In the winter, Zac noted it is a relatively quick turnaround, with sand being returned to the stall beds two to three weeks after it was washed.

Extra sand is stacked on a concrete pad. A major benefit of sand washing is that they can maintain a smaller sand inventory, and the recycled sand has worked well for them in terms of cow health and performance.

Moving the manure

The Johnsons do all their own pumping and application with 4 miles of draglines. They dragline all the dairy

continued on following page >>>

manure and most of the swine manure. They will tank some swine manure to fields further away.

The first stage of their lagoon captures manure, water, and the remaining sand. It has a concrete floor, so once a year they go in with a payloader and remove that sand. They start by emptying the first pit, then move onto the second stage and finally the main storage.

About two-thirds of their manure is applied in the fall and the rest is done in the spring. With a land base that is in close proximity to the main farm, they feel fortunate to have plenty of room to spread these valuable nutrients. They also transfer some of their manure to neighbors’ fields, only charging them their application costs, so it’s a win-win for both sides, Zac said.

One unique feature is that they use idling semitrucks to run their pumps. The rear axles are removed and they worked with Chris Lindstrom of Durand, Wis., to install the specialized electronics into the trucks. “It works pretty good,” Zac said. At first, they had to have someone stationed at each pump, but now they can control the pumps through their phones, which frees up two people to do other tasks.

Another noteworthy investment was the purchase of a bigger toolbar that allows them to spread manure more evenly, which Zac said has been a positive change.

According to their nutrient management plan, they are required to take manure samples from each hog site annually. For the dairy manure, they take samples at the start of application, in the middle, and at the end. They have found that these samples don’t fluctuate much year to year.

They soil sample all of their fields on a three-year rotation, and they will supplement with commercial fertilizer as needed.

Cover crops are also a piece of their nutrient management strategy. Zac said they try to establish rye on their 650 acres of corn silage ground after harvest. Successfully establishing a cover crop can be difficult some years in their more Northern climate, but Zac feels it is worth the effort, especially in the spring when growing plants with a good root system can help prevent washouts from heavy rain. There are advantages in weed control as well.

“Overall, it is a benefit to the farm, even with the extra work,” Zac noted. They terminate the rye and work it in prior to planting.

True to their roots

Looking forward, their plans may include more diversification since they can’t grow their dairy herd size at the current location. “We could expand to another site, but is it feasible economically and environmentally to have two sites?” Richard asked rhetorically.

That environmentally friendly, sustainable piece is very important to them, and they are careful to use the products at their disposal accordingly. While some may see manure as a hassle, they don’t consider it to be, and it fits into their sustainability puzzle.

“If every ounce of waste is used as nutrients for crops, is it really a waste?” Richard asked. “We get these nutrients from our own cows and hogs. What’s better for the world?”

“Dairy is one of the most environmentally friendly, sustainable industries,” Zac added. One example of this sustainability

is how they use recycled water to flush their alleys and wash their sand, which is then reused as bedding. They also feel like they are doing good both environmentally and economically when they recycle manure as a nutrient source.

“I feel fortunate on the agronomy side to have it, especially when commercial fertilizer prices have been through the roof,” said Zac. “Any acres we can cover with manure is a benefit for us.”

Their commitment to the environment includes a close relationship with their Soil and Water Conservation District and involvement with local water quality monitoring projects. They are also very community-minded, offering tours of the dairy and hosting June Dairy Month events. For the past few years, they have been purchasing milk for a local preschool that was previously serving juice to their young students.

In addition, they also strive to help the community by serving as a valuable employer for those who work with them. Several members of their team have been with the farm for years, a testament to the quality of their workplace.

A diverse business, a management team with their own areas of strength, facilities designed with animal needs in mind, and enough land to grow crops and apply manure are all part of the Johnson family’s success. As they look to the future, they also reflect on where their farm began.

“We are always trying to find little things to do better,” Zac said. “I think we would be making LeRoy proud.” ■

Used semitrucks have been revamped to run the manure pumps that push manure through 4 miles worth of dragline.

Sand that is flushed out of the freestall barns is separated, washed, and stacked before being reused as bedding. The ability to maintain a much smaller inventory of new sand is a major benefit of this process.

MANURE CAN BE A RISKY BUSINESS

by Devon Charlier

Spring on the farm brings much to do in a short amount of time. While manure is a valuable resource, its handling can be challenging. Spring into safety this season with the knowledge you need to prevent potential hazards.

Manure work can pose health and safety risks to humans. For example, livestock manure may contain zoonotic pathogens — germs that spread between animals and people. These can be passed to people directly, during manure handling or processing, or indirectly, through contaminated food products or water. In addition, equipment utilized during manure handling and transportation may be associated with entanglement and other injuries.

Manure gas can also be a problem, especially during storage and agitation. Manure gas is a name used for several different types of gasses formed by the decomposition of manure. Hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) is particularly dangerous and lethal. At low concentrations (10 ppm), hydrogen sulfide can paralyze nerves so one can no longer smell it. Concentrations above 50 ppm will alter breathing, and concentrations over 500 ppm lead to death. Other manure gasses include ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide. At specific concentrations, all are toxic to animals and humans. In some situations, these gasses can displace enough oxygen in an environment so that a person entering the area asphyxiates (suffocates), leading to death.

In other cases, the gasses can cause long-term health issues. Many factors

influence the health and safety hazards associated with this work, like temperature, humidity, and time in storage. The real concern is that it is difficult to judge how dangerous a situation is just by looking at it, as manure gasses are invisible.

The risks are real

There have been several manure-related severe injuries and fatalities in the Upper Midwest. The “Telling the Story Project” has highlighted some of these incidents, including:

• Mike Biadasz’s devastating death due to hydrogen sulfide exposure while agitating manure in the open lagoon on his family’s Wisconsin operation.

• Jason Fevold’s exposure to manure gas while on a “tractor date” with his wife, Roxy, on their Iowa farm.

• Jerry Nelson’s close call with a manure pump on his family’s dairy farm in South Dakota.

These stories emphasize the potential for danger during manure handling. To better understand the nature of manure applicators’ experience with injuries and illnesses, the Upper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (UMASH) asked them about their work. Along with the University of Minnesota Extension, we surveyed 162 commercial manure applicators.

Out in the field

In our findings, 20% or 33 participants reported at least one symptom of gas exposure, like headache, dizziness, nausea, or vomiting while applying manure.

Those who entered confined spaces or worked with swine manure had higher odds of reporting one of these symptoms. About 14% of respondents believed they had been overexposed to manure gasses during their work, especially when manure was being agitated, stored, or when working with little ventilation or air movement. While these symptoms may have other work-related causes, toxic gas inhalation is a major hazard of any work involving confined spaces.

Injury was reported by 9% or 14 participants. The injuries were mostly minor, but a handful required emergency room and doctor office visits. Folks indicated various causes, including being struck by equipment, cuts, fatigue from long hours, and poor ergonomics while applying manure.

Manure applicators said that they worked long hours. Survey respondents worked an average of 18.3 hours per day during the busy season. Of this, 17 hours were applying manure. Application timing depends on environmental conditions. There can be busy seasons and short windows when conditions are appropriate for applying manure. We also received multiple responses specifically sharing concerns about long hours and fatigue. These findings are worrisome as fatigue and reduced sleep can be associated with impairments and even injuries at work.

Steps for safer handling

Managing manure can certainly be a dangerous job. However, steps can be

A survey of manure applicators highlighted the biggest hazards they face.

taken to handle it safely.

1. Limit entry to storage areas. Fencing, locked gates, and warning signs can prevent unauthorized access to storage areas. Move animals away from manure areas before agitation or pumping. Avoid entering confined spaces unless absolutely necessary. If someone is overcome with gas, do not attempt to go in after them. Call emergency responders and only allow someone to enter when they have an oxygen source.

2. Ensure ventilation before and during pumping and while working nearby.

3. Check for fire hazards. Disconnect any electrical equipment or ignition sources. Do not smoke near manure storages or while handling manure.

4. Use a gas monitoring system to help monitor the hazards relevant to your operation and take proper precautions when the system alarms.

5. Work in teams, with at least two people present during any manure handling.

6. Check all signal and brake lights on equipment used for road transportation to ensure they are working properly.

7. Use proper application techniques and follow the rules regarding setbacks to prevent spills, especially when applying manure near sensitive areas. Note that any personnel transporting manure should have biosecurity training to prevent the spread of livestock diseases between farms.

8. Plan ahead to prevent fatigue and stay prepared in case of an emergency.

UMASH offers supportive resources to help farmers do their work safely. Our “Farm Safety Checklists” provide a quick review to identify and fix potential hazards before they cause harm to you, your family, or your employees.

UMASH offers checklists for over 40 topics, including manure management. This information can be found at umash.umn.edu.

Consider these tips and resources as you work this spring. Share them with someone you know and care about! ■

Want to learn even more? Here are some of our favorite resources from our partners to help you stay safe during manure work:

• Webinar: Worker Safety in Animal Production Systems — Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community (LPELC); https://bit.ly/farmworkersafety

• Resource: Manure Gas Safety — Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health; https://bit.ly/manuregas

• Resource: Safety Considerations for Manure Handling — University of Wisconsin Extension; https://bit.ly/manuresafety

Cornell’s 81022MPL with the robust, yet compact EM19DBK Frame and Run-Dry™ Option tackles the toughest manure slurries. Featuring:

ƒ 6000 GPM / 420’ TDH at BEP at 1800 RPM

ƒ 7500 GPM max flow

ƒ High Efficiency

ƒ Low NPSHr

ƒ Proven Cornell construction for handling sand laden manure

ƒ Hard face seal with run-dry seal protection

With an 8” discharge, 10” suction and 3.5” solids handing, and built for high-operating pressures, MP pumps are specifically designed for coarse-abrasive slurry applications. Constructed of high chrome iron, with a Brinell hardness rating above 650.

Talk with your authorized Cornell dealer about finding the best model for your application.

The author is the evaluation and communications manager in the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health.

Cornell now offers cell connect monitoring of temperature, vibration, GPS, pressure and more.

WEIGHING THE IMPACTS OF TILE DRAINS ON NUTRIENT LOSSES

Data shows how nutrient losses and water quality differ in fields with or without tile drainage.

by Lindsey Hartfiel and Laura Paletta

The use of tile drainage is becoming more popular in Wisconsin. Installing a tile drain system can be a great tool to dry soil out faster, improving timeliness of field operations throughout the cropping season. However, how do tile systems influence water movement off of the field, and what are the water quality implications?

The University of Wisconsin-Madison and Minnesota Discovery Farms Programs on-farm research has included many fields that have tile drainage systems installed. With this data, comparisons between field surface runoff to tile discharge can be made to understand the differences in nutrient losses and dynamics. It is important to be aware of any changes in hydrology or negative impacts tile systems might create.

UW-Madison Discovery Farms has edge-of-field monitoring stations through a partnership with the United States Geological Survey that calculate total runoff while collecting samples to be analyzed for sediment and nutrient content for surface runoff. Minnesota Discovery Farms uses a similar system for edge-of-field monitoring from surface runoff. For tile drainage monitoring, both programs use a similar system to document total tile flow volumes and to collect water quality samples.

Runoff and soil loss

Surface runoff sees a handful of large events each year, whereas tile drains are typically running more often with smaller amounts. Discovery Farms observed eight days as the median annual number of days of flow for surface runoff at any given site. In tile systems, runoff was seen 174 days out of the year.

Data also show that surface runoff occurs on fields with tile when tile lines are flowing at maximum capacity. This

suggests that runoff on field surfaces occurs during large precipitation events when the soil is fully saturated or when tile lines cannot keep up with the large amount of water.

As seen in Figure 1, surface runoff typically has higher annual soil loss compared to tile systems. The erosion potential of surface runoff is much greater due to the impact of raindrops as well as the power of water moving over the soil surface, dislodging the soil particles. Tile drainage can reduce the amount of surface runoff by limiting the length of time the soil is at saturation and, therefore, will lower soil loss.

Phosphorus losses are less

Compared to surface runoff, phosphorus losses are reduced in tile system flow. Both particulate phosphorus (bound to soil particles) and dissolved phosphorus (in the water solution) interact with precipitation at the soil surface. Phosphorus generally does not move down into the soil profile with water, meaning most phosphorus losses occur at the soil surface. With more runoff on the surface (as discussed above), we can expect elevated phosphorus losses.

Figure 2 shows a higher amount of total phosphorus lost via surface runoff compared to tile flow. Total phosphorus

An example of a tile blowout within an agricultural field where a direct pathway from the soil surface to the tile system was observed.

losses from surface runoff had median concentrations approximately 11 times higher than in tile systems.

Nitrogen is more worrisome

Nitrogen is a larger concern in tile systems than in surface runoff (Figure 3). From data collected by both the Wisconsin and Minnesota Discovery Farms programs, over 90% of the nitrogen in tile systems is in the form of nitrate. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate is very mobile in water and moves easily through the soil profile. Excess nitrate can contribute to eutrophication in downstream water bodies, causing algal blooms.

Water quality considerations

Being aware of the condition of your tile drainage system as well as soil conditions are critical when it comes to limiting the water quality risks associated with tile systems. During wet periods of the year, such as early spring, check known tile systems to ensure they are functioning properly.

In older or deteriorating tile systems, tile blowouts can occur where a weak spot has opened. Eventually, the soil around this weak spot will collapse and the tile blowout can be identified from the soil surface (as shown in the photo). Being aware of the condition of your tile drainage system allows for timely repairs, as blowouts can act as a direct conduit for unfiltered surface water into tile systems.

Other considerations for tile systems focus around nutrient management decisions. The soil condition prior to nutrient application is a critical consideration to lower the water quality risks with tile drainage. Avoid nutrient applications during high soil moisture conditions when tiles are flowing. During these conditions, a liquid manure application would add to the soil moisture, causing nutrients to be more susceptible to move into the tile system.

On the other hand, avoid nutrient applications on excessively dry soils. If your soil has visible cracks on the surface, nutrients have a direct pathway into the tile system or could be flushed in with the next rain event.

Utilize visual field assessments and tools such as Wisconsin’s Manure Advisory System (www.manureadvisorysystem.wi.gov) to guide your decision-making process.

Soil test phosphorus (STP) levels can also be used as an indicator of water quality risks in agricultural systems. Looking at Figure 4, the STP levels in

the top one to two inches of soil are well correlated with the dissolved phosphorus levels leaving the field in both tile systems and surface runoff. Control and maintain STP at optimum levels to reduce the amount of phosphorus leaving the field.

continued on following page >>>

Figure 1. Comparison of soil loss observed in surface runoff versus tile drainage

Figure 2. Total phosphorus losses in surface runoff and tile drainage

There are conservation practices that can also be included in a farming system to lower the water quality risks. Add cover crops, use the “4Rs” for nutrient applications (right rate, source, placement, and timing), and follow a nutrient management plan to further reduce losses.

At the edge-of-field, engineered treatment options can be added to intercept tile drainage to reduce nitrate concentrations. These include denitrification bioreactors, saturated buffers, and controlled drainage. On fields without tile systems, utilize grassed buffer strips or grassed waterways to limit soil and nutrients losses. 

IN FEBRUARY 2023, the Discovery Farms program lost an important member of their team. Eric Cooley, Director of Discovery Farms, passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. He will be remembered for his kindness, positivity, and passion for agricultural water quality, with tile drainage being a favorite interest of his. The Discovery Farms team is dedicated to honoring and building off the legacy Eric created for water quality monitoring and education.

Paletta is an outreach specialist with the University of Wisconsin’s Agriculture Water Quality Program.

Hartfiel is with the University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension’s Discovery Farms program.

Figure 3. Total nitrogen losses from surface runoff versus tile drainage

Figure 4. Relationship between dissolved phosphorus concentrations and soil test phosphorus levels in surface runoff and tile drainage

 Surface  Tile

The spring window for manure application can be unpredictable, and a delay in manure application can lead to a delay in planting. Rather than risking yield reductions due to late planting, a growing trend is to apply manure using a drag hose on newly planted corn or soybeans.

In a recent edition of the Buckeye Dairy News, Ohio State University extension field specialist Glen Arnold offered advice for in-season manure application. He shared that 10,000 to 12,000 gallons of dairy manure on newly planted crops will not hinder germination. In fact, it can actually provide additional moisture to encourage crop emergence. Arnold cautioned that the field must be firm enough to support the drag hose so that it does

not create piles of dirt that deeply bury the seeds.

For corn, manure can be applied twice. The first application should be immediately after planting. The second application could take place a few weeks later, anytime up to the V4 stage of growth. Arnold noted that less damage will be caused by tractor tires when the corn is shorter.

A five-year study in Ohio showed that corn can be sidedressed or topdressed with liquid manure through the V4 stage without yield loss. Meanwhile, if corn was at the V5 growth stage, 60% of the plants broke off when manure was applied via a drag hose, and even though the plants regrew, they did not develop fully productive ears. For soybeans, it must be applied

before emergence and preferably a few days within planting. Arnold indicated that once plants emerge, manure can kill the plants until they reach the V3 stage. At that point, they are strong enough to handle damage caused by the manure and the drag hose.

Manure can also be applied to growing wheat. While one application at 10,000 to 12,000 gallons per acre does not provide enough nitrogen to maximize grain yield, Arnold said it will spur crop growth and can lead to better wheatlage.

Arnold pointed out that fields where manure is left on the soil surface unincorporated will not capture as much nitrogen. Collect manure samples during the application process to keep track of what nutrients were applied.

The link between nutrient management and climate change

Proper nutrient management can help fight environmental changes caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

by Marília Chiavegato

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, and it is a consequence of global warming, which is caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Greenhouse gases are produced and emitted as a result of human activities.

When the production and emission of GHG expands, they accumulate in the atmosphere. With a thicker layer of GHG in the atmosphere, higher amounts of solar radiation are maintained closer to earth, increasing heat retention. This is global warming.

Global warming does not mean that all places on earth will get warmer. Global warming causes climate to change and initiates a greater number of extreme climatological, hydrological, and meteorological events. Climate change is, therefore, a higher probability or a higher frequency of extreme temperatures (cold or hot), drought or flooding, fire, storms, tsunami, and earthquakes. It all starts with GHG emissions.

The greenhouse gases

There are 86 GHGs known so far. The three most important ones are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2 O). In agriculture, the majority of CO2 (94%) comes from land use change, such as deforestation, fire, or burning; the rest (6%) comes from soils, such as microbial respiration, or organic matter decomposition.

The CO 2 that is emitted from soils is not of concern because it is considered part of a “closed cycle” with the uptake of CO 2 from plant photosynthesis. The same is true for CO 2 from animal respiration.

Most methane (93%) is coming from enteric fermentation, which is a natural process in ruminant digestion; animal waste deposition, decomposition, and pastures; manure storage; and manure application. Nitrous oxide comes primarily from soils (95%), including animal urine deposition in pasture soils (40%), inorganic fertilization, and plant residue decomposition.

It begins with nutrient loss

Generally, nutrient cycling is highly efficient in natural or undisturbed ecosystems, such as forests and native

grasslands. In these ecosystems, the synchronization between available nutrient supply and demand by plants is high. The content of nutrients unused (and susceptible to loss) in soil solution is low because nutrient cycling between soil and plants is efficient. Compared to a natural ecosystem, a managed or agricultural ecosystem (or agroecosystem) is more complex, with a larger number of nutrient fluxes in and out of the ecosystem, lesser ability to stock nutrients and, consequently, less nutrient cycling. The ecosystem components — plant, soil, water, and atmosphere — are intimately connected, and changes in a specific part result in changes in one or more other areas. For example, in grazed pastures, the grazing management implemented establishes rates of plant growth, senescence, and decomposition. These processes, in turn, affect animal related variables, such as grazing losses, excreta distribution, and the amount of nutrients excreted by animals.

Animal variables affect soil characteristics, such as moisture, temperature, pH, aeration, and density. Soil microbial community development and activity establish the intensity of processes associated with production of CO2 , CH4 , and N2 O in the soil of grasslands. In addition, grazing changes the swards’ structure, affecting herbage quality and, consequently, enteric CH4 emissions.

Another example is the rise in forage primary productivity through the addition of nitrogen fertilization that might increase carbon (C) storage belowground, but simultaneously increase N2 O and CH4 emissions from soils.

It ends with management

In any ecosystem, excess nutrients not used by plants or by the microbial community are lost. Nutrients losses in agroecosystems might occur by runoff, erosion, leaching, volatilization,

or finally, GHG emissions. Although carbon is technically not considered a nutrient, it is an important element for ecosystems resistance and resilience. Greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2 , CH4 , or N2 O, can be seen as nutrient (or element) losses. If we consider that GHG emissions are not different than any nutrient loss, we can apply nutrient management practices to reduce their losses and, therefore, mitigate climate change.

Nutrient management considers the right amount, right source, right placement, and right timing of fertilizers, manure, amendments, and organic by-products to soils as sources of plant nutrients. By considering the “Four R’s,” nutrients taken up by crops are maximized and nutrient losses are minimized. If nutrient loss is minimized, so are the environmental impacts, such as leaching, eutrophication, and water contamination. Conservation management strategies that were designed to reduce nutrient losses to waterways, for instance, work just as well to fight climate change. For example:

• Strip tillage — reduces C loss and increases C sequestration over time.

• Low disturbance manure injection — reduces C loss, increases C sequestration over time, and reduces CH4 and N2O emissions from manure on soil surface.

• Adding grass to alfalfa or grass forage mixes — increases nutrient use and timing, reducing losses via N2 O. Also cuts back entric CH4 emissions and soil C loss, increasing sequestration.

• Reduced fertilizer input — reduces losses via N2 O.

If climate change is simply viewed as another type of environmental impact, strategies or practices that are considered conservationist and sustainable will work just as well to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change. 

The author is an assistant professor at The Ohio State University.

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

AGRICULTURAL CONCRETE

JP Tank

317 Kohlman Rd. Fond du Lac, WI 54937 920-948-2286

jptankconcrete@gmail.com

www.jptank.com

ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SERVICES

Agricultural Digesters LLC

88 Holland Ln. #302 Williston, VT 05495

802-876-7877

info@AgriculturalDigesters.com

www.AgriculturalDigesters.com

APPAREL

Udder Tech Inc.

2520 151st Ct. W Rosemount, MN 55068 952-461-2894

Dana Casto

dana@uddertechinc.com

www.uddertechinc.com

BEDDING SEPARATION

McLanahan

200 Wall Street Hollidaysburg, PA 16648

814-695-9807

sales@mclanahan.com

www.mclanahan.com/solutions/dairy

COATINGS

Industrial Solutions

5115 S. Rolling Green Ave. Ste. 211 Sioux Falls, SD 57108

605-254-6059

www.isusananoclear.com

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Future Enviroassets LLC Cincinnati, OH 45215

513-349-3844

LF@futureenviroassets.com

www.futureenviroassets.com

Hall Associates

23 Evergreen Dr. Georgetown, DE 19947-9484 302-855-0723

hallassociates@mediacombb.net

Tomorrow Water

1225 N. Patt St.

Anaheim, CA 92801 714-578-0676

info@bkt21.com tomorrowwater.com

Trident Processes Inc. 10800 Lyndale Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420

1-800-799-3740

frank.engel@tridentprocesses.com www.tridentprocesses.com

MANURE SEPARATION

Boerger LLC

2860 Water Tower Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 844-647-7867

www.boerger.com

MANURE STORAGE

Pit-King®/Agri-King® Inc.

18246 Waller Rd. Fulton, IL 61252

www.agriking.com/pit-king

1-800-435-9560

WASTE HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Cornell Pump Co. 16261 SE 130th Ave. Clackamas, OR 97015 503-653-0330

www.cornellpump.com

Doda USA

255 16th St. S. St. James, MN 56081 507-375-5577

dodausa.com

GEA Farm Technologies, Inc.

1385 N. Weber Road

Romeoville, IL 60446 + 1-800-563-4685

contact.geadairyfarming.na@gea.com

R Braun Inc.

209 N. 4th Ave. St. Nazianz, WI 54232 920-773-2143

www.RBrauninc.com

WASTE HANDLING NUTRIENT SPREADERS

Kuhn North America P.O. Box 167

Brodhead, WI 53520

Kuhn-usa.com

New Leader

1330 76th Ave. SW

Cedar Rapids, IA 52404

1-800-363-1771

www.newleader.com

Oxbo International

100 Bean St. Clear Lake, WI 54005

1-800-628-6196

oxbo.com

WATER TECHNOLOGY

Bauer North America Inc.

107 Eastwood Rd. Michigan City, IN 46360

1-800-922-8375

bnasales@bauer-at.com

www.bauer-at.com

Press Technology & Mfg. Inc.

1401 Fotler Street Springfield, OH 45504 937-327-0755

dberner@presstechnology.com

NUTRIENTS IN, NUTRIENTS OUT

by Thomas Menke

As a college student in the 1970s, I read the 1940 vintage book You are what you eat by Victor Lindlahr. I later became familiar with studies from William Albrecht at the University of Missouri relating soil fertility with the nutritional content of feeds. I practiced animal nutrition early in my career and came to the following conclusion: The information from these two authors provided the key to animal agriculture environmental sustainability.

I presented a session titled “Farm nutrient balancing” more than 20 years ago at the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference. I wanted to make nutritionists aware that their recommendations impacted not only the health of their animals but that of the environment, too. We used to take the cows to the field; now we take the field to the cows. It was instructive to consider the consequence of that longago shift.

Inputs versus outputs

In developing a spreadsheet, I was able to examine dairy farm inputs (purchased and homegrown feeds, fertilizers, replacement cows, and mineral supplements) and outputs (cull cows, calves, milk, manure, and crops). The goal was to discover if inputs versus outputs could reach equilibrium, which was my definition of “sustainability.”

I evaluated the nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium (N-P-K) content of feeds in cow diets compared to the content of their manure. I discovered that the potassium-to-phosphorus ratio was approximately 8:1 for alfalfa hay and

5:1 for corn silage. This compared to 1.4:1 for corn grain and 2.8:1 for soybeans. The potassium-to-phosphorus ratio is 4.4:1 in dairy manure. Not coincidently, the average of those four main ingredients in a typical dairy diet is 4.3:1.

The precept “you are what you eat” goes a step further: “What you eat is reflected in your digestive output.” By the way, did you know the highest mineral content in milk is potassium?

We experienced high potassium in dry cow diets causal of many health issues. Dry cows have a high-forage diet, and the source of high potassium was invariably traced to hay. Milking cows can flush potassium from their system. Interestingly, hay of identical plant species composition might contain higher potassium content than others. We could correlate this directly to higher soil test potassium levels of the fields where they were grown.

A common practice, at least back then, was to start manuring alfalfa fields as they thinned. This promoted grass growth — a typical feed for dry cows that didn’t need the higher protein alfalfa. Unfortunately, grasses can be luxury consumers of potassium, accumulating more than necessary for optimum growth. This can be bad news for dry cows.

Where feed comes from I created various scenarios with my paper quest for sustainability. These

were based upon what extent forages and grains were home grown and the proportion of those purchased. The assumption was homegrown feeds were locally produced, and those fields were manured equally over time.

It was no surprise that where all feeds are homegrown, a nice balance of nutrient application versus nutrients removed was achieved as related to production acres and crop removal. The more feeds purchased, the more mineral buildup of phosphorus and potassium resulted if the application acres were not expanded.

A very good rule of thumb for dairy cows emerged of about 1 acre per cow to balance phosphorus, with a deficit of potassium. Potassium is easily supplemented when necessary, but excesses are difficult to address. I also made the point to the nutritionists how their recommendations for dietary supplementation of phosphorus ultimately impacted the soil fertility balance.

The same exercise can be done for poultry and swine production with some impressive numbers. This is instructional to show that more feed imported means more manure that needs to be exported to sustain a balance. It only makes sense. ■

The author is the president of Menke Consulting LLC, an agronomic and environmental consulting firm in Greenville, Ohio.

We used to take cows to the field; now we take the field to the cows.

PLACES TO BE

World Pork Expo

June 7 to 9, 2023

Des Moines, Iowa

Details: worldpork.org

American Dairy Science Association Annual Meeting

June 25 to 28, 2023

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Details: adsa.org

National Pork Industry Conference

July 9 to 12, 2023

Wisconsin Dells, Wis.

Details: porkconference.com

American Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting

July 16 to 20, 2023

Albuquerque, N.M.

Details: asas.org

Wisconsin Farm Technology Days

July 18 to 20, 2023

Baraboo, Wis.

Details: wifarmtechdays.org

Empire Farm Days

August 3 to 5, 2023

Pompey, N.Y.

Details: empirefarmdays.leetradeshows. com

North American Manure Expo

August 9 and 10, 2023

Arlington, Wis.

Details: manureexpo.ca

Farm Progress Show

August 29 to 31, 2023

Decatur, Ill.

Details: farmprogressshow.com

U.S. Poultry and Egg Association’s Environmental Management Seminar

September 28 and 29, 2023

Destin, Fla.

Details: uspoultry.org/programs/ education/seminar

If you would like us to include your event on our list, please send details to info@jofnm.com.

WE GROW YOUR OPERATION

BECAUSE WE KNOW YOUR OPERATION

What’s our favorite project to bring to life? Your vision.

The future is in your hands. Whether you need a manure management solution, a connection or just a brain to pick – let’s shift manure from a challenge to a revenue stream.

MANURE SOLUTIONS FOR YOUR FUTURE mclanahan.com

PUMP UP YOUR MANURE MANAGEMENT

Pit-king

ON-FARM RESULTS

A year-by-year comparison on a large farm in eastern Iowa showed Pit-King® produced more pumpable manure and had less unpumped sludge remaining, allowing for less time and money spent on pumping.

SCAN HERE FOR MORE RESULTS