A Survey of Dairy Farming in Pennsylvania Nutrient

Document Sample
A Survey of Dairy Farming in Pennsylvania Nutrient Powered By Docstoc
					J. Dairy Sci. 84:966–973
 American Dairy Science Association, 2001.

A Survey of Dairy Farming in Pennsylvania:
Nutrient Management Practices and Implications
Z. Dou,* D. T. Galligan, C. F. Ramberg, Jr.,
C. Meadows, and J. D. Ferguson
University of Pennsylvania
School of Veterinary Medicine
Center for Animal Health and Productivity
382 West Street Road, Kennett Square, PA 19348



                        ABSTRACT                                                      INTRODUCTION
   A survey was conducted to collect information on                   Animal agriculture contributes significantly to non-
nutrient management practices on dairy farms in                    point source nutrient pollution of ground and surface
south-central Pennsylvania. Of the 994 responding                  waters. Evidence linking intensive animal farming
farms, the average farm consisted of 64 lactating cows,            and off-farm transport of excess nutrients with water
10 dry cows, 41 heifers, and 17 calves with 69.7 ha of             quality problems is plentiful. In southeastern Pennsyl-
tillable land. Manure from lactating cows was mainly               vania, an area of intensive animal and cash crop farm-
collected on a daily basis (84% of the farms) and stored           ing, nitrate concentrations exceeded the EPA drinking
as slurry or liquid (73%), while dry cow and heifer                water standard of 10 mg of nitrate-N/L in more than
manure was collected weekly or less frequently (69                 50% of the private wells surveyed (Swistock et al.,
and 85% of the farms) and stored as solid stack or                 1993). In Sussex County, Delaware, a maximum of 72
bedded pack (67 and 82%). Manure utilization fea-                  and mean of 10 mg of nitrate-N/L was found in 231
tured consistent use of on-farm spreading, with limited            wells in areas of intensive poultry operations, com-
incorporation, to corn or small grain fields before                 pared with a maximum of 18 and mean of 6 mg/L in
planting. Spreading on perennial forages or pasture                202 wells in other areas (Andres, 1995). Duda and
was also common. Irrigation or injection of manure                 Finan (1983) showed that the greatest potential for
occurred on less than 5% of the farms. Only 20% of                 accelerated eutrophication occurs in watersheds with
the farms reported manure nutrient testing, con-                   intensive animal production.
trasting to over 90% for soil testing. Farm advisors                  Various programs have been developed to help pro-
and their services can be of vital importance in helping           ducers manage the vast amount of manure nutrients
producers make conscientious management decisions                  in an agronomically sound and environmentally ac-
for enhanced nutrient utilization. For example, ration             ceptable manner. Yet, in spite of a long-term intensive
balancing involved the services of feed and mineral                effort, animal agriculture still faces the challenge of
sales representatives (85% of the farms), independent              balancing nutrients for animals, crops, and on the
consultants (12%), and veterinarians (5%). Manure                  whole farm with environmental responsibility. This is
nutrient crediting to determine manure application                 particularly true for phosphorus (P) because of wide-
rates was made by fertilizer dealers (40%), crop advi-             spread soil P buildup and the associated enrichment
sors and independent consultants (31%), and others.                of P in runoff loss in areas with intensive animal opera-
Nutrient management strategies and efforts must ad-                tions (Sims, 2000). More recently, mounting public
dress the specific needs of farms with different animal             concerns and real as well as perceived potential im-
densities and nutrient balances in order to be effective           pacts on water quality from continuous animal farm-
and applicable on the majority of farms.                           ing have prompted regulatory actions to be taken, first
(Key words: dairy farm, nutrient management,                       by several states and lately by federal agencies, to
survey)                                                            guide animal waste handling and utilization strategies
                                                                   through both mandatory and voluntary measures.
Abbreviation key: AEU = animal equivalent unit.                       Pennsylvania was the first state in the nation that
                                                                   enacted a nutrient management law (Act 6, 1993) and
                                                                   established nutrient management regulations. Ac-
                                                                   cordingly, any operations with animal density ex-
  Received September 18, 2000.
  Accepted December 6, 2000.                                       ceeding 2240 kg of live animal weight per hectare on
  Corresponding author: Z. Dou; e-mail: dou@cahp2.nbc.upenn.edu.   an annual basis are required to develop and implement

                                                               966
                                                OUR INDUSTRY TODAY                                                          967

nutrient management plans (Beegle et al., 1997). The
animal density criterion (2240 kg of live animal weight
per hectare) is equivalent to two animal equivalent
units (AEU) per acre; an AEU is defined as 1000 lb of
live weight. Farms with less than two AEU per acre
are encouraged to voluntarily develop nutrient man-
agement plans. Dairy farming, the number one ag-
ricultural industry in Pennsylvania with total milk
production ranking fourth in the nation, must comply
with the regulations.
   Farms differ greatly in terms of resources and their
allocations, management skills, and preferences. Nu-
trient dynamics and balances on individual farms are
determined by many factors associated with the char-
acteristics of farm resources and management choices.
Collecting benchmark information and identifying
current management patterns and practices is an im-
portant step in assessing how current practices affect          Figure 1. A dairy farming survey was conducted in nine counties
                                                             in south-central Pennsylvania (as highlighted). Eight of the nine
farm productivity and nutrient flows. Such informa-           counties are located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (the shaded
tion is essential for directing research and educational     area).
efforts to develop management techniques for im-
proved nutrient utilization efficiency and water
quality.                                                     mailing of the same questionnaire was sent to those
   We conducted a survey of dairy farming in south-          who had not responded. There were 994 valid returns,
central Pennsylvania to identify farm characteristics        equivalent of 25% of the initial targets. Nearly half of
and practices and to explore factors and management          the respondents expressed interest in survey results,
choices that are associated with farm productivity and       and the survey summary was subsequently sent to
nutrient balance status. The present paper reports           those who requested it.
results and discusses the implications related to nutri-        The questionnaire consisted of 48 queries, a mix of
ent management practices and relevant issues. Other          open- and closed-ended questions with multiple
data involving farm productivity and associated fac-         choices when applicable. The questions sought infor-
tors will be presented separately.                           mation on relevant management practices as well as
                                                             farm attributes involving animal numbers and feeding
             MATERIALS AND METHODS                           (25 questions), manure handling and cropping (21
                                                             questions), plus farm labor information (two ques-
   The survey targeted nine counties in south-central        tions). Questions on herds and cropping were oriented
Pennsylvania (Figure 1). These counties are in the           toward farm characteristics in general (e.g., herd de-
Susquehanna River basin, which is a major tributary          mographics, crop acreage), while questions on feeding
of the Chesapeake Bay. The number of lactating cows          and manure were reflective of management choices
in the nine counties (240,000 head) accounted for 37%        and practices (e.g., number of groups for feeding and
and milk production accounted for 41% of the state           manure collection method and frequency).
totals (Anonymous, 1997).                                       Some participants chose not to respond to every
   In September 1996, introduction letters were sent         question in the survey; hence the percentage, wher-
to all dairy operations in the designated area (a total of   ever it was used, was the percentage response to the
3790 farms), announcing that a survey questionnaire          individual question. Also, some questions allowed mul-
would soon arrive and stating that the main interest         tiple answers and thus data might not total 100%.
of the survey was to identify systemic approaches for
improved nutrient utilization and farm productivity.
                                                                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The questionnaires were sent out within 2 wk with
preaddressed and prestamped return envelopes. We                The average herd consisted of 64 lactating cows, 10
also offered the recipients an opportunity to receive        dry cows, 41 heifers, and 17 calves with a milk yield
survey results while maintaining their confidentiality.       of 27 kg/d (60 lb/d per cow). Holstein as the main breed
Nearly 600 returns had been received by the end of           was reported by 97% of the farms; other breeds were
December, 1996. At the beginning of 1997, a second           present on no more than a dozen farms. It is worth

                                                                                    Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001
968                                                              DOU, ET AL.

noting that a number of farms also raised other food                     affects the quantity of bedding or dilution water used
animals in addition to dairy cows, including poultry                     in a manure handling system, which in turn, influ-
(122 farms), beef/steer (135 farms), and pigs (67                        ences the manure characteristics and selection of col-
farms), although no question was asked about the                         lection, transfer, storage, and transport options (EPA,
number of nondairy animals present.                                      1998). On the surveyed farms in the present study,
   The average tillable area was 69.7 ha, with the most                  lactating cows were mainly housed in free-stall (35%)
common crops being corn for grain (22.8 ha), corn for                    or stanchion/tie-stall facilities (68% of the respon-
silage (16.8 ha), and alfalfa (16.4 ha). Most farms grew                 dents), while dry cows and heifers were mostly on bed-
their own forages for the cows; 59% reported no pur-                     ded pack (61 and 74%) or pasture (57 and 64%).
chase of forages, while 18% sold forages. Grain pur-                        Other collection methods for lactating cow manure
chases were reported by 70% of the respondents, while                    included gravity flow (94 farms), slotted floor (26
30% also reported selling grains. On average, there                      farms), and flushing (15 farms). The lack of extensive
were fewer than two full-time workers plus one or two                    use of flushing systems on these Pennsylvania dairies
part-timers per farm. Clearly, most of the surveyed
                                                                         was perhaps due to the relatively small scale of the
dairies were primarily family-based operations grow-
                                                                         operations. Flushing systems have a primary advan-
ing forages and grains on site to meet cow re-
                                                                         tage of being automated and thus can be labor efficient.
quirements.
                                                                         However, they are mainly favored by large operations,
                                                                         perhaps due to the cost of installation and operation.
Manure Handling Before Field Spreading                                   In California, 77% of dairies in a survey used flushing
  Manure handling differed considerably between lac-                     systems to collect manure; those dairies averaged 837
tating cows and dry cows and heifers on most farms                       lactating cows (Meyer et al., 1997). Nationwide esti-
in terms of collection method, frequency, and storage                    mates of prevalence of flushing systems on dairy farms
form (Table 1). Lactating cow manure was collected                       were: 0.2% on farms of <100 head, 4% on farms of
more frequently (daily or every 2 to 3 d by 84% of                       100 to 199 head, and 27% for 200 head or greater
the farms) and stored mostly in the form of slurry to                    (APHIS, 1996).
semisolid or liquid (73% of the farms). Dry cow and                         Although no specific questions were asked about the
heifer manure was collected on a weekly or less fre-                     duration or capacity of manure storage, it appeared
quent basis (69 and 85%) and stored mainly as solid                      that the majority stored manure for a few months be-
or bedded pack (67 and 82%). Often, type of housing                      cause most farms reported manure spreading in all
                                                                         four seasons: 99% reported applications in spring and
                                                                         summer, 64% in fall, and 75% in winter. Besides the
Table 1. Manure handling practices before field application on Penn-
sylvania dairy farms.                                                    conventional manure handling and storage practices,
                                                                         use of alternative methods was uncommon: only two
                                                 Animal group
                                                                         farms reported using a methane fermenter, and six
Manure handling                         Milk cow    Dry cow     Heifer   farms used aerobic or anaerobic treatment lagoons.
                                                     % 1                    Nearly 30% of the farms reported no storage for
Collection method                       (944)2      (932)       (920)    lactating cow manure, which was instead either depos-
 Scrape (gutter/alley)                    84          34          22     ited directly on pasture or hauled and spread to fields
 Bedded pack                              10          67          82
 Slotted floor                              3           1           4     on a daily basis. Manure storage is generally believed
 Water flush                                2           0.3         0.2   to improve nutrient management and thus is favored
 Gravity flow                              10           1           0.7   by public manure management programs (Nowak et
Collection frequency                    (915)       (868)       (867)    al., 1998). Yet, the potential benefits associated with
 Daily or every few days                  84          29          12
 Weekly or every few weeks                 6          38          42     having storage structures on site (e.g., conservation of
 Monthly or longer                         3          31          43     nutrients, flexibility of haul and spreading, opportu-
Storage form                            (937)       (898)       (883)    nity for testing nutrients for accurate applications)
 No storage (pasture or daily spread)     30          21          16
 Solid/pack                                9          67          82     may not be realized for the purpose of protecting wa-
 Slurry/semisolid                         32          14          13     ters unless concomitant efforts are made in all aspects
 Liquid                                   41          12           8
                                                                         of manure handling and utilization. For instance, ex-
  1
   Reported as percentage of the response to each question; data         cessive nutrient applications and elevated environ-
do not total 100% due to more than one choice checked by some
producers.
                                                                         mental losses could still occur if stored manure is
  2
   Number shown in parentheses is the number of responses to that        spread on fields without careful timing and proper
specific question.                                                        nutrient crediting.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001
                                                       OUR INDUSTRY TODAY                                                       969
Table 2. Manure application practices on Pennsylvania dairy farms:   application during nongrowing season) might also fa-
application frequency and timing of incorporation.
                                                                     vor runoff loss of P. Phosphorus concentrations in ani-
                                       Manure type (%)1              mal manure typically are many times greater than in
Application practice          Solid        Semisolid       Liquid    soils. Moreover, recent studies found that 50 to 70%
                                   2
                                                                     of total P in various manures was water extractable
Spreading frequency           (686)        (382)           (486)
 Daily haul and spread           3           11               2      (Dou et al., 2000a, 2000b). With manure containing a
 Weekly                          9           20               4      high concentration of total P and a large proportion of
 Monthly                        37           27              17      water soluble P applied and left on the soil surface,
 4 times per year               28           20              27
 3 times per year               11           11              24      rainwater interacts with the manure, dissolving and
 2 times per year               11            9              21      extracting P. The dissolved P can be either leached
 Once a year                     2            1               2      into the underlying soil, contributing to the pool of
Timing of incorporation       (625)        (386)           (482)     plant available soil P or, if rainfall exceeds the infil-
 No incorporation               23           23              18
 7 d or more after              56           41              22      tration rate and slope and soil characteristics are fa-
 Within 5–6 d                    5            8               5      vorable, it can be transported in surface runoff. Ma-
 Within 2–4 d                   11           14              31      nure treatments to “stabilize” the most vulnerable P
 Within 1 d                      4           10              17
 Same day                        1            4               7      fraction prior to field spreading are clearly desirable.
  1
                                                                     For instance, amending manure with alum or coal com-
   Reported as percentage of the response to each question; data
do not total 100% due to more than one choice checked by some
                                                                     bustion power plant fly ash materials reduced the wa-
producers.                                                           ter-soluble fraction of P in manure (Moore et al., 2000;
  2
   Number shown in parentheses is the number of responses to that    Toth et al., 2000).
specific question.

                                                                     Other Relevant Issues
Manure Utilization and Field Spreading
                                                                       Nutrient testing and record keeping. When
   Manure was largely utilized on the same farm where                asked about manure testing for nutrients, 77% of the
it was generated. Only 98 farms (10%) reported selling               respondents checked “None”; about 20% reported test-
or giving away manure, which included 10 out of the                  ing of total N, P, and K; a small number of farms
19 farms in the high animal density category (i.e. > 2               also tested for ammonia-N. Record keeping of fields
AEU/ac). Meanwhile, 115 farms reported receiving or                  receiving manure was reported by less than 35% of
importing manure, of which none were in the high                     the farms. An interesting contrast was that 75% of the
animal density category. For on-farm use, manure was                 farms reported soil nutrient testing every 1 to 3 yr
applied to fields of corn or small grains before planting             with an additional 20% every four or more years; only
on almost all farms (99%). Manure spreading on other                 about 4% of the farms “Never” had soil tested for nutri-
crops was also common: on legume and alfalfa by 343                  ents. Moreover, 81% kept their soil test records. The
farms, grass by 356 farms, cover crop by 517 farms, and              absence of manure nutrient testing appeared to be
pasture by 285 farms. Most applications were made                    widespread rather than local. A North Carolina survey
by surface spreading; alternative methods (spray and                 reported manure testing by 37% of the dairy farms
irrigation or injection) were reported by fewer than                 compared with soil testing by 86% of the farms (Hoban
5% of the respondents.                                               and Clifford, 1995). A California study reported that no
   Incorporating manure in a timely fashion to con-                  producers tested manure for nutrients and few tested
serve the ammonia-N for crop utilization and prevent                 soils on any regular basis (Meyer et al., 1997). Nation-
volatilization loss was not practiced by many farms.                 wide, manure testing was estimated to be only 14%
Depending on the forms of manure (solid, semisolid,                  on dairy operations (EPA, 1998).
or liquid), incorporation within 1 d of spreading was                  Farmers generally understand the nutrient values
reported by 5 to 24% of the farms, while no incorpora-               and other beneficial effects of manure application on
tion or incorporation after 7 d of spreading occurred                soils. Yet, being able to recognize these values does
on 40 to 78% of the farms (Table 2). Meisinger and                   not necessarily mean that the nutrients are taken into
Jokela (2000) estimated ammonia volatilization loss                  account properly when manure is land applied. An
from spring-applied dairy manure to be 35% of the                    extensive Wisconsin study of 1179 dairy and beef oper-
ammonia-N in the first day, and 100% if no incorpo-                   ations concluded that, although farmers recognized
ration.                                                              the nutrient value of manure, few were attempting to
   In addition to the high potential of ammonia volatil-             credit manure nutrients; and fewer still were doing so
ization loss, the prevalent field practices on these                  in an accurate fashion (Nowak et al., 1998). Of those
farms (surface spreading, limited or no incorporation,               farms, 30% tried to credit manure N, of which merely

                                                                                        Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001
970                                                 DOU, ET AL.

6% did so accurately, while 66% underestimated and          be reflected by the survey results of who balanced the
28% overestimated manure N by 11% or more com-              rations for animals and who determined fertilizer and
pared with the local guidelines. In sum, fewer than         manure application rates on the surveyed farms.
2% of all survey participants spreading manure on              On most of the farms, ration formulation for dairy
corn ground were crediting manure N with any degree         cows was made by representatives of feed suppliers
of accuracy (Nowak et al., 1998).                           (66% of the farms) or mineral dealers (19%). Others
   Some farmers and their advisors might have cred-         providing ration formulation service included indepen-
ited manure nutrients by using standard book values         dent consultants (12%), veterinarians (5%), and pro-
in the absence of manure testing. Although a better         ducers themselves (13%). Also, feed sampling for nutri-
choice than ignoring or ambiguous crediting of manure       ent testing was conducted by off-farm personnel on
nutrients, relying on book values can still be problem-     90% of the farms.
atic because manure nutrient characteristics are often         Ration balancing can be a very useful tool in manag-
determined by many site-specific factors. Substantial        ing nutrients on animal farms. Rations may be formu-
discrepancies between book values and direct farm           lated based on animal requirements for maintenance
measurements have been reported (e.g., Lindley et al.,      and production while minimizing excessive N and P
1988; Peters, 2000; Rieck-Hinz et al., 1996).               in the diets. Such balanced rations would enhance ani-
   Perhaps a major concern hindering some farm advi-        mal efficiency and minimize nutrient excretion in ma-
sors from recommending manure nutrient testing as           nure (Kohn, et al., 1997), benefiting both the farm
a routine practice is the common belief that manure         economy and the environment. On the other hand,
is heterogeneous in nature and nutrient concentra-          rations may be formulated with a wide ‘safety margin’,
tions can vary a great deal. Hence, the potential bene-     resulting in excess amounts of nutrients compared
fits in savings on fertilizer costs and (or) reduction of    with animal requirements. Excessive nutrients in
environmental nutrient losses may be obscured by the        diets often have neither positive nor negative impact
uncertainty of testing results; the expenses in labor,      on animal performance but will be excreted in manure
time, and laboratory analysis associated with manure        with environmental consequences.
sampling and testing may appear unjustifiable. This             Balancing rations for optimal dietary P intake is
logistic concern may be addressed by some recent find-       especially significant for P management. Recent sur-
ings. Through intensive and systematic sampling and         veys have indicated that dairy producers routinely
testing, Dou et al. (2001) demonstrated that manure         overfed cows with P by 20 to 50% (Shaver and Howard,
nutrient variation was largely macro-scale, much of         1995; Sink et al., 2000; Wu et al., 2000) compared with
which could be eliminated through agitation or normal       standard recommendations by the National Research
mixing systems used on many farms. For several farms        Council (NRC, 1989). Recent studies have demon-
that used agitation or mixing before or during manure       strated that feeding lactating cows with P close to or
storage unloading (when serial samples were taken),         even slightly less than the NRC recommendations had
a composite of three to five samples was shown to be         no negative impact on milk yield, reproduction effi-
adequate for reliable and accurate testing of N and P.      ciency, or other health indices (Valk and Ebek, 1999;
Furthermore, the variation in N and P in the manure         Wu and Satter, 2000). If, for instance, ration formula-
samples for the individual manure systems was no            tion personnel on farms make their P recommenda-
greater than the variation in soil available nutrients      tions based on the NRC standards or animal require-
reported in the literature. The researchers concluded       ments, a 30% reduction on total feed P intake could
that to manage the vast amount of manure and nutri-         be achieved on an average farm. Such P reduction
ents with environmental responsibility, manure nutri-       efforts would not only save producers money (through
ent testing ought to be promoted in the same manner         decreasing or even eliminating P supplements, which
as soil nutrient testing is advocated (Dou et al., 2001).   are often the most costly feed ingredients) but also
   The stakeholders. Soil conservation service and          reduce the P management burden, especially for farms
cooperative extension personnel have traditionally          with substantial P surplus.
played a major role in providing producers with useful         The survey identified off-farm personnel assisting
information on soil and crop management for sus-            farmers in determining fertilizer or manure applica-
tained productivity and erosion and pollution control.      tion rates as fertilizer sales representatives (40% of
Modern animal agriculture involves a broader range          the farms), crop advisors or independent consultants
of professionals providing farmers with a variety of        (31%), nutrient management specialists (5%), exten-
services. These off-farm personnel can have a funda-        sion agent/conservation personnel (4%), and producers
mental influence on farm efficiency and nutrient bal-         themselves (42%). Also, for manure hauling and
ances through their management advice. This might           spreading, contract services were used on 7% of the

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001
                                                            OUR INDUSTRY TODAY                                                        971
Table 3. Estimated annual nitrogen and phosphorus flows for a unit          bility to P loss (Gburek et al., 2000). For these farms,
dairy cow [1000 lb of live weight, i.e., 1 animal equivalent unit (AEU)]
and unit removal (lb/ac) by crops most common in Pennsylvania              implementing feeding strategies with optimal dietary
dairies, and approximated field nutrient balance at different animal        P to minimize P excretion in manure is of vital impor-
densities.1                                                                tance. Exporting manure or identifying additional
                                                N             P2O5         land suitable for manure application are viable op-
Animal nutrient requirement, lb/AEU2            318           108
                                                                           tions. Treating manure before field spreading to re-
Manure nutrient for spreading, lb/AEU3          150            60          duce vulnerable P fractions may offer a temporary
Crop nutrient removal, lb/ac4                                              solution especially when surface spreading outside of
 Corn grain                                     109            40          the growing season is inevitable. There is likely to
 Corn silage                                    106            75
 Alfalfa hay                                    165            50          be an economic cost in implementing environmentally
Nutrient equivalent and balance, lb/ac5                                    sensitive nutrient management practices on these
 1.0 AEU/ac                                      53 (−)6       60 (+/−)    farms (Beegle et al., 2000).
 1.5 AEU/ac                                      79 (−)        90 (+)
 2.0 AEU/ac                                     105 (+/−)     120 (++)
                                                                              Sixty-eight percent of the surveyed farms had ani-
 2.5 AEU/ac                                     131 (+)       150 (++)     mal density lower than 1120 kg of live weight per
 3.0 AEU/ac                                     157 (+)       180 (+++)    hectare of cropland (i.e., <1 AEU/ac), with the re-
  1
   English units are used in this table to be consistent with other        maining 30% falling between 1120 and 2240 kg of live
relevant references (e.g., AEU/ac in PA NM regulations, crop yields,       weight per hectare (i.e., 1 to 2 AEU/ac). As indicated
and nutrient removal in lb or bu/ac, etc.).                                in Table 3, field N balance was estimated to be in
  2
   Estimated for the average herd of the survey farms with consider-
ation of the relative components of 1 AEU (0.65 lactating cow, 0.08 dry
                                                                           deficit or near to balance depending on the animal
cow, 0.23 heifer, and 0.03 calf); nutrient requirements are calculated     density of individual farms, while P would be near to
based on NRC standards for the relevant animal groups.                     balance or in slight deficit if animal density was close
  3
   Based on Penn State Agronomy Guide (1999 to 2000): 82 lb of             to 1 AEU/ac. Substantial P surplus would occur if ani-
manure/AEU per day, manure containing 10 lb of N and 4 lb of
P2O5 per ton. These are estimated quantities of manure and manure          mal density departed significantly from 1 AEU/ac.
nutrients for field application, not fresh excretions.                      Management tactics that conserve manure N, such as
  4
   Average crop yield for the nine counties from 1988 to 1996 (corn        incorporating manure soon after surface spreading,
grain 99.3 bu/ac, corn silage 15.1 ton/ac, alfalfa hay 3.3 ton/ac) times   and manure testing for accurate nutrient crediting are
nutrient removal per unit harvest crop from The Agronomy Guide
(1 to 1.1 lb of N and 0.4 lb of P2O5 per bushel of corn grain, 7 lb of     likely to enhance the economic and agronomic effi-
N and 5.0 lb of P2O5 per ton of corn silage, 50 lb of N and 15 lb of       ciency and improve farm profitability with environ-
P2O5 per ton of alfalfa hay).                                              mental benefits. Ration balancing to eliminate excess
  5
   Assuming fertilizer equivalent of 0.35 for total N and 1.0 for total
P in manure.
                                                                           dietary P and reduce P in manure would not only gen-
  6
   Minus(−) and plus (+) symbols refer, respectively, to the estimated     erate savings for the farmers but also favor long-term
relative deficit or surplus of N and P2O5 for each AEU/ac level.            soil P balance.
                                                                              A point may be made based on the simplified nutri-
                                                                           ent flow estimates in Table 3. Even with animal den-
farms; another 15% reported using both contract ser-                       sity as low as 1 AEU/ac, substantial amounts of off-
vices and farm employees. Clearly, educating off-farm                      farm nutrients would still be needed to meet animal
advisors along with producers and encouraging the                          requirements because feeds produced on the farm
full participation of all stakeholders is a key to success                 would supply only one third to one half of the require-
in sustaining animal agriculture and protecting the                        ments (106 to 165 lb of N and 40 to 75 lb of P2O5
environment (Beegle et al., 2000).                                         contained in homegrown feeds compared to 318 lb of
  Animal density and nutrient balances. Only 2%                            N and 108 lb of P2O5 as animal requirements; Table
(19 operations) of the surveyed farms fell into the man-                   3). Inevitable nutrient losses occur on farms through-
datory category (i.e., >2 AEU/ac) for nutrient manage-                     out the production processes since dairy cows typically
ment planning and implementation according to Penn-                        capture only 25 to 35% of dietary N and P, while the
sylvania’s nutrient management regulations. Con-                           rest is excreted in manure which, in turn, is subject
cerning manure nutrient supply and crop nutrient                           to various losses. As more demand for accountability
needs in the field, N is likely to be near balance on                       is placed on farmers, society should recognize the
these farms unless the animal density far exceeded 2.0                     tradeoffs between a bountiful and inexpensive supply
AEU/ac. However, P surplus likely would be twofold or                      of high quality animal products and inevitable envi-
even higher on this category of farms as indicated in                      ronmental consequences. Another point worth men-
Table 3. Clearly, an N-based management approach                           tioning is that, of the off-farm nutrients brought to
on such farms would lead to P accumulation in soils                        farms as purchased feeds, a large portion were in by-
with elevated potential of P runoff loss, especially if                    products or “wastes” of other industries. Examples of
the site is in a critical source area with a high vulnera-                 such byproducts being used on the survey farms were

                                                                                              Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001
972                                                 DOU, ET AL.

cottonseeds (35% of the farms), soybean meal (65%),                                REFERENCES
soybean hulls (15%), distiller’s grain (31%), corn glu-
                                                           Andres, A. S. 1995. Nitrate loss via groundwater flow, coastal Sussex
ten meal (9%), and blood/fish meals (12%). The dairy           County, Delaware. Pages 69–76 in Animal Waste and the Land-
industry and other food animal production sectors             Water Interface. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL.
should be credited for processing these byproducts and     Anonymous. 1997. Statistical summary and Pennsylvania Depart-
                                                              ment of Agriculture annual report. PA Agric. Stat. Service, Har-
transforming some of the nutrients into high quality
                                                              risburg, PA.
food products.                                             APHIS. 1996. National Animal Health Monitoring System, Part
                                                              III: Reference of 1996 Dairy Health and Health Management.
                                                              Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/. Accessed
                INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY                          January 2001.
                                                           Beegle, D. B., L. E. Lanyon, and D. D. Lingenfelter. 1997. Nutrient
   Survey information on nutrient management prac-
                                                              management legislation in Pennsylvania: A summary of the final
tices and farm characteristics was obtained from 994          regulations. Agronomy Facts 40. Penn State Univ., College of
dairies in south-central Pennsylvania. The typical            Agric. Sci., Coop. Ext. Service, University Park, PA.
farm was a family-based operation with an average of       Beegle, D. B., O. T. Carton, and J. S. Bailey. 2000. Nutrient manage-
                                                              ment planning: Justification, theory, practice. J. Environ. Qual.
64 lactating cows fed with homegrown corn and alfalfa         29:72–79.
plus off-farm sources of grains and supplements. Ma-       Dou, Z., J. D. Toth, D. T. Galligan, C. F. Ramberg, Jr., and J. D.
nure handling on most farms differed between animal           Ferguson. 2000a. Laboratory procedures for characterizing ma-
                                                              nure phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 29:508–514.
groups, due largely to different housing systems. Lac-     Dou, Z., J. D. Toth, C. F. Ramberg, Jr., and J. D. Ferguson. 2000b.
tating cow manure was collected on a daily basis (84%         Phosphorus fraction distributions in animal manures. Pages 1-
of the farms) and stored as slurry or liquid (73% of the      9 in Animal Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes. Proc. 8th
farms), while dry cow and heifer manure was collected         Intern. Symp., Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
                                                           Dou, Z., R. D. Allshouse, J. D. Toth, D. T. Galligan, C. F. Ramberg,
weekly or less frequently and stored as solid stack or        Jr., and J. D. Ferguson. 2001. Manure sampling for nutrient
bedded pack on over two-thirds of the farms, indicating       testing: Variability and sampling efficacy. J. Environ. Qual.
higher potential of nutrient losses, especially for N.        vol. 30.
                                                           Duda, A. M., and D. S. Finan. 1983. Influence of livestock on nonpoint
Manure utilization, largely on-farm based, featured
                                                              source nutrient levels of streams. Trans. ASAE 26:1710–1716.
applications to both annual and perennial crops by         EPA. 1998. EPA Office of Water. Preliminary data summary: Feed-
surface spreading with limited incorporation. There           lots point source category study. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
appeared to be a general neglect of accounting for ma-        ostwater/guide/feedlots/.
                                                           Gburek, W. J., A. N. Sharpley, L. Heathwaite, and G. J. Folmar.
nure nutrient value, as indicated by the prevalent ma-        2000. Phosphorus management at the watershed scale: A modi-
nure management patterns, as well as the fact that            fication of the phosphorus index. J. Environ. Qual. 29:130–144.
only 20% of the farms reported manure testing for          Hoban, T. J., and W. B. Clifford. 1995. Livestock and poultry produc-
nutrients, contrasting with over 90% for soil testing.        ers’ waste management practices and attitude in North Carolina.
                                                              Pages 440–448 in Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface.
   Only 2% of the farms had animal density exceeding          K. Steele, ed. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL.
2 AEU/ac; these farms face the challenge of more inten-    Kohn, R. A., Z. Dou, J. D. Ferguson, and R. C. Boston. 1997. A
sive P management. For the vast majority (68% in              sensitivity analysis of nitrogen losses from dairy farms. J. Envi-
<1 AEU/ac and the remaining 30% in 1 to 2 AEU/                ron. Manag. 50:417–428.
                                                           Lindley, J. A., D. W. Johnson, and C. J. Clanton. 1988. Effects of
ac categories), management techniques that promote            handling and storage systems on manure value. Appl. Engn.
nutrient efficiency such as manure testing, timely in-         Agric. 4(3):246–252.
corporation, and ration balancing are likely to benefit     Meisinger, J. J., and W. E. Jokela. 2000. Ammonia volatilization
                                                              from dairy and poultry manure. Pages 334–354 in Managing
farm profitability and the environment. Full participa-
                                                              Nutrients and Pathogens from Animal Agriculture. Natural Re-
tion by both farmers and off-farm advisors (feed and          source, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. NRAES-130. Ith-
mineral sales representatives, crop advisors, indepen-        aca, NY.
dent consultants, extension agents, conservation per-      Meyer, D. M., I. Garnett, and J. C. Guthrie. 1997. A survey of
                                                              dairy manure management practices in California. J. Dairy Sci.
sonnel, veterinarians, etc.) is a key to success in man-      80:1841–1845.
aging nutrients for animal agriculture sustainability      Moore, P. A., Jr., T. C. Daniel, and D. R. Edwards. 2000. Reducing
and environmental protection.                                 phosphorus runoff and inhibiting ammonia loss from poultry
                                                              manure with aluminum sulfate. J. Environ. Qual. 29:37–49.
                                                           National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Nutrient Requirement of
                   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                            Domestic Animals, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 6th
                                                              ed. Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.
  This survey was supported by a USDA-CSRS grant.          Nowak, P., R. Shepard, and F. Madison. 1998. Farmers and manure
We are grateful to the following dairy producers for          management: a critical analysis. Pages 1–32 in Animal Waste
their feedback in previewing the questionnaire: Walt          Utilization: Effective Use of Manure as a Soil Resource. J. L.
                                                              Hatfield and B. A. Stewart, ed. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Moore, Sam Shotzberger, Paul Clugston, Dan Miller,         Peters, J. B. 2000. Manure sampling and testing. Pages 369–379 in
Ken Zurin, and Tom Bollinger. We also thank John D.           Proc. Managing Nutrients and Pathogens from Animal Agricul-
Toth for technical assistance.                                ture. Camp Hill, PA.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001
                                                       OUR INDUSTRY TODAY                                                             973
Rieck-Hinz, A. M., G. A. Miller, and J. W. Schafer. 1996. Nutrient   Toth, J. D., Z. Dou, R. D. Allshouse, J. D. Ferguson, and C. F.
   content of dairy manure from three handling systems. J. Prod.        Ramberg. 2000. Phosphorus fractions in animal manure
   Agric. 9:82–86.                                                      amended with coal-combustion by products. Page 412 in Annual
Shaver, R., and W. T. Howard. 1995. Are we feeding too much phos-       Meeting Abstracts. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI.
   phorus? Hoard’s Dairyman. vol. 140, April 10, 1995 p.280–281.     Valk, H, and L.B.J. Ebek. 1999. Influence of prolonged feeding of
Sims, J. T. 2000. The role of soil testing in environmental risk        limited amounts of phosphorus on dry matter intake, milk pro-
   assessment for phosphorus. Pages 57–81 in Agriculture and            duction, reproduction and body weight of dairy cows. J. Dairy
   Phosphorus Management. Lewis Pub., Boca Raton, FL.                   Sci. 82:2157–2163.
Sink, S. E., K. F. Knowlton, and J. H. Herbein. 2000. Economic       Wu, Z., and L. D. Satter. 2000. Milk production and reproductive
   and environmental implications of overfeeding phosphorus on          performance of dairy cows fed two levels of phosphorus for two
   Virginia dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. (Supp.1) 83:143. (Abstr.)        years. J. Dairy Sci. 83:1052–1063.
Swistock, B. R., W. E. Sharpe, and P. D. Robillard. 1993. A survey   Wu, Z., L. D. Satter, and R. Sojo. 2000. Milk production, reproductive
   of lead, nitrate, and radon contamination of private individual      performance, and fecal excretion of phosphorus by dairy cows
   water systems in Pennylvania. J. Environ. Health. 55:6–12.           fed three amounts of phosphorus. J. Dairy Sci. 83:1028–1041.




                                                                                             Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 4, 2001