Manure Management on Wisconsin Farms

Manure Management on Wisconsin Farms PATS Research Report No. 15 January, 2006 Alan Turnquist, Jeremy Foltz, Carol Roth Program on Agricultural Technology Studies College of Agricultural and Life Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison Cooperative Extension University of Wisconsin-Madison

Manure Management on Wisconsin Dairy Farms by Alan Turnquist, Jeremy Foltz, Carol Roth Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS) University of Wisconsin-Madison Executive Summary Recent data collected by the Program on Agriculture and Technology Studies (PATS) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison provides an important opportunity to assess the current state of manure management on Wisconsin dairy farms. i When combined with previous studies, this data also allows for an investigation into the directions that manure management in the dairy industry has taken in recent years. Through this information, a fairly comprehensive understanding of the key aspects of nutrient management is possible. Overall, Wisconsin dairy farms with larger herd sizes are more likely to follow recommended manure management practices. The percent of farms that have lined storage facilities consistently increases with herd size. Likewise, the portion of farms spreading daily or frequently decreases as herd size goes up. Larger farms are also more likely to operate with a nutrient management plan. Current trends in the expansion and modernization of the Wisconsin dairy industry have lead to a higher percent of cows residing on larger farms. The greatest increase in cow numbers has occurred in farms of over 200 cows, which now hold 31% of the state s cows as compared to 14% in 1997. Because large farms behave differently than small farms, this structural change in the Wisconsin dairy industry has significantly changed manure management practices in the state. As a result of changes in manure management practices, one out of every five pounds of manure that was put directly into the spreader in 1997 is now stored by a different method. Likewise, two out of every five pounds of cow manure that was previously piled on a concrete slab is now stored differently. Perhaps the most critical result of the changes is that the quantity of manure stored in a lined facility increased by nearly one-half (44%) between 1997 and 2002. PATS data suggests that, despite the modernization trends and regulations aimed at decreasing runoff from agricultural sources, there remains significant room for improvement in employing recommended - or, in some cases, required - manure management practices on Wisconsin dairy farms. Most dairy farms still spread manure daily or frequently, and less than one-third of Wisconsin dairy farms have lined, long term, manure storage facilities. The average WI dairy farm has sufficient cultivated acres to spread its manure. Many Wisconsin dairy farms continue to spread their cow manure close to their barns, which creates further concerns for water quality. Thus, even though most farms have sufficient cultivated 2

acres to spread manure, many increase the danger of runoff by not using all of their available crop land to spread. In addition to storage and spreading issues, the amount of manure that farms actually collect, especially from outside areas used for exercise, grazing, and feeding deserves attention. Data indicates that as much as 40% of the manure generated by Wisconsin dairy cows is left to accumulate on these relatively small outside areas. Few farms rotate or collect manure from these areas, which may lead to hot spots for nutrient runoff. Thus while this report shows significant progress on Wisconsin dairy farms in managing their manure, there continues to be room for improvement in manure management for farms of all sizes. I. Introduction With over 15,000 dairy farms and 1.2 million cows, Wisconsin continues to be a state whose landscape is dominated by family run dairy farms. As of 2002, approximately one-fourth of Wisconsin s total land area was covered by corn, soybeans, forages, or small grains the vast majority of which are used as feed for livestock. Both the economic and cultural importance of the dairy industry in rural Wisconsin communities is undisputable. However, the potential for farming activities to significantly impact water quality in Wisconsin is a reality. Currently, an estimated 40% of the state s rivers and 90% of the lakes are degraded by non-point source pollution, the primary source of which is considered to be agriculture. The deteriorating quality of Wisconsin s ground and surface water has led to a growing public awareness of the effects of non-point source pollution ii on Wisconsin s water quality. Because agriculture is a primary source of non-point pollution, the degradation of the state s waters has also led to more stringent regulations that will affect manure management practices on many farms. While all farms will be subject to the new runoff rules, most are entitled to cost sharing of at least 70% if they are required to change an existing practice to comply with the new runoff regulations. iii Because most Wisconsin farms are diversified crop-livestock operations, the primary emphasis of research and the new manure management regulations designed to address water quality has been on storing and spreading in accordance with crop nutrient requirements. Among other things, farms have been encouraged, and often offered financial assistance, to build lined storage facilities, and apply manure in optimal times in the spring and fall. In order to best asses the contribution of agriculture (specifically, dairy farms) to water quality concerns, we address a number of key questions. Our first fundamental inquiry describes the current state of manure management on Wisconsin dairy farms. Further insight can be gained from understanding the dynamics of manure management, that is: how are farms changing the way that they manage manure over time? Because farms of different sizes are subject to different financial and regulatory constraints, it is also helpful to ask: how does manure management change in relation to farm (herd) size? Finally, given the way that the dairy 3

industry is changing - that is, expanding and modernizing two other important questions arise: how does this structural change affect the portion of the state s cows on farms of different sizes? What is the corresponding effect of this change on their overall manure management scenario? This report seeks to answer these and other key questions about manure management on Wisconsin dairy farms. The bulk of the data for basic manure management issues, such as storage and spreading practices, comes from a farm poll of a random sample of Wisconsin dairy operations in the fall of 2003. This information is also compared with data from previous years to show changes in management practices. Finally, we use supplementary data concerning outside areas used for grazing, feeding, and exercise, as well as information on manure collection from other, ongoing, PATS projects. This report organizes the findings from these various data sources in the following manner. The first three sections outline: (1) basic concepts in manure management, (2) typical practices on Wisconsin dairy farms, and (3) likely reasons why many dairy farms still engage in daily or frequent spreading of manure. The report next moves on to examine how farms with various herd sizes manage manure differently. This information is then related to the current expansion in the dairy industry which reveals the state s manure management in a different light in terms of the portion of manure is managed using specific practices, rather than the portion of farms engaging in those practices. After examining the current state of manure management on Wisconsin dairy farms, this report looks at the changes in management practices between 1997 and 2002. Included in this investigation of the manure management trends is information on the changes in land-toanimal ratios on dairy farms of various sizes. The remainder of the report examines the amount of manure that Wisconsin dairy farms actually collect and the portion of land used to spread manure. We highlight in this section the important role that outside feeding, grazing, and feed lots may play in assessing overall manure management practices. Finally, a summary section concludes this report. Manure Management Basics Most Wisconsin dairy farms are diverse in that they raise both crops and livestock. In principle, this can be a self-sustaining system where the crops are used as feed for the animals, and the animal manure is then spread back on the fields as fertilizer for future crop rotations. In reality, however, there are some losses in the crop-livestock cycle and farms often must supply their cows diet with purchased foods and supplements. Likewise, many farms purchase additional commercial fertilizer to replenish soil nutrients. Not all the nutrients contained in manure and fertilizers remain in the crop-livestock cycle. A portion exits the system through natural processes such as runoff or wind erosion. At times, 4

these lost nutrients can infiltrate local surface or groundwater sources. If the quantity of lost nutrients is too high, considerable environmental damages can occur. Choices that farms make regarding the type and quantity of nutrients that they feed their livestock, or the methods of manure storing and spreading can affect the quantity of nutrients that escape the crop-livestock cycle. In addition, the physical characteristics of a farm or its location in relation to neighboring streams or groundwater sources will have a significant impact on whether or not a particular practice will actually lead to an environmental problem. Given the complexity of factors that must be considered to determine appropriate manure management on any given farm, it is difficult to classify one management choice as either good or bad. Nonetheless, the scientific and regulatory communities have focused on a particular set of practices that they perceive to be generally recommended for protecting water quality. Table 1 classifies various manure management practices as recommended or discouraged. Generally, the recommended practice is to spread manure so that crop nutrient requirements are met, but not exceeded. To accomplish this, manure must be spread at appropriate times of the year and in appropriate amounts. As Table 1 indicates, spreading is optimal when the manure can quickly be incorporated into the soil or crops can utilize the nutrients. Because this may necessitate spreading in the spring or fall when tillage is taking place, a long-term waste storage facility to store manure until it can be optimally incorporated is preferred. Type of storage Time of application Table 1 : Recommended and Discouraged Storage and Application Practices Recommended Discouraged Storing manure in lined storage structure Hauling mostly in the spring or fall when tillage is taking place Incorporating manure into the soil shortly after spreading Placing manure directly into the spreader Piling manure in unlined structure (i.e. on feedlots, on the ground) Hauling and spreading daily Spreading manure on frozen ground that is steep or close to waterways The practice of storing manure in an unlined structure, or spreading daily, is generally discouraged as these practices can lead to runoff and nutrient loss. Frequent spreading is of particular concern when the ground is frozen. Melting snow or spring rains can be especially harmful, as nutrients can travel easily over the still frozen ground and move quickly to the nearest surface water source. Because of the complexities of balancing crop needs with manure nutrient quantities, many farmers work with UW-Extension agents and other trained experts to create and follow a nutrient management plan (NMP). These plans often integrate many aspects of farm management to optimize the use of nutrients found in animal waste. A NMP often encompasses not only manure spreading and storage methods, but also outlines optimal feeding practices and matches crop nutrient requirements under specific soil and geographic conditions. Having a NMP can help a farm better use the nutrients manure provides, creating a win-win situation where runoff is reduced and crop yields are increased without the use of costly commercial fertilizer. 5

Typical Manure Management Practices on Wisconsin Dairy Farms We analyze the storing and spreading practices of Wisconsin dairy farms as a first step in understanding current manure management practices. Chart 1-A summarizes the state-wide manure storage and spreading practices. iv As the chart indicates, just over one-fourth of all dairy farms have long-term storage facilities. Additionally, about 10% of dairy farmers delay spreading by storing manure in the barn, other buildings, or in unlined storage facilities. As a consequence of their inadequate manure storage, most farms must spread manure frequently. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all farms pile manure directly into the spreader and spread daily or frequently. As stated previously, this practice is of most concern when the ground is frozen and nutrients are not incorporated into the soil. Most dairy farmers do not have structures for long term manure storage. Thus, because of storage constraints the vast majority of dairy farms spread manure daily or frequently rather than storing it until the spring or fall when manure spreading can be done with the least environmental risk. According to these findings, the most common manure management practices on Wisconsin dairy farms are those which regulations generally discourage. Chart 1-A: Percent of Farmers Using Manure Management Practices Put manure directly into spreader and/or spread daily 61% Leave manure in barn/buildings (for more than a few days 2% Other 2% Store manure in lined structure (concrete pit, slurry system) 28% Pile manure on the ground, or store in unlined structure 7% 6

Why do most farms spread daily or frequently? Dairy farmers spread manure frequently largely because of the combined effect of a lack of long term manure storage, and the relentless work schedule of a dairy farmer during planting and harvesting seasons. With only 28% of Wisconsin dairy farms having lined manure structures, effectively storing manure until spring or fall is difficult, if not impossible. That it is particularly hard to free up labor during the spring and fall puts further pressure on farms to deal with manure spreading on a frequent basis throughout the year. An additional pressure stems from dairy farms need to comply with statutory sanitation guidelines. Dairy cows are brought indoors at least twice a day for milking, creating a greater need to clear and dispose of manure on a regular basis to maintain a clean facility. With little long-term storage, most farmers must spread their manure daily or frequently. Table 2: Effect of Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) on manure handling and storage practices Put manure directly into the spreader and/or spread daily Leave manure in barn/buildings (for more than a few days) Pile manure on ground, slab or store in unlined structure Store manure in lined structure (concrete pit, slurry system) Farms WITHOUT a NMP Farm WITH a NMP 67% 50% 1% 2% 8% 6% 21% 40% A final consideration is that only about one third of the dairy farms in the state have a nutrient management plan (NMP). Such a plan could serve to emphasize the importance of spreading during times of tillage. Though one cannot conclude that merely having a NMP will cause farms to change their manure management practices, Table 2 shows that those farms that do have an NMP are less likely to spread daily, and more likely to store manure in lined storage facilities. Most farms find these plans helpful. As Chart 1-B indicates, 90% of all dairy farms with nutrient management plans find them at least somewhat useful. Chart 1-B: Do farmers find Nutrient Management Plans Useful? Very useful 39% Not useful 10% Somewhat useful 51% 7

Manure management relative to herd size Counting manure management practices by farm does not tell the whole story because farms of different sizes behave differently. Chart 2 demonstrates how herd size affects manure management practices across six herd size categories. As shown in the chart, farmers with larger herd sizes tend to follow more recommended manure management practices. In total, 70% of farms with less than 100 cows spread daily or frequently, while only 30% of dairy farms with more than 100 head use that practice. Note the steady decrease in daily spreading as herd size increases from 50 cows, with a steep drop-off after 100 cows. 100% Chart 2: Manure Spreading and Storage Practices by Herd Size 80% Spread daily or frequently Store manure in lined structure 60% Percent 40% 20% 0% 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 199 200 or more Herd Size Chart 2 also shows the results from dairy farms with lined, long-term, manure storage across six different herd size categories. As one might expect, these trends are opposite to those of farms that spread daily or frequently. While less than one-fourth of dairy farms with herd sizes of fewer than 100 cows have lined storage, over 60% of farms with more than 100 head have such structures. Again, as herd size increases, so does the number of farms adopting the recommended manure management practices. A similar size related trend holds for farms with nutrient management plans. Chart 3 shows data for NMPs for six different herd size categories. Of the dairy farms with less than 100 cows, 30% have nutrient management plans. In contrast 56% of farms with over 100 cows, and 81% of the dairy farms of over 200 cows, have such plans. 8

Chart 3: Percent of Dairy Farmers with Manure Management Plans by Herd Size 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 199 200 or more TOTAL Herd Size Overview of the expansion in the dairy industry v Because of the structural change in the dairy industry, the fact that larger farms tend to follow recommended practices more often than smaller farms has a profound effect on the overall manure management in Wisconsin. As Table 3 shows, a decreasing number of the state s dairy cows reside on farms with less than 100 cows, and a larger portion are on farms of more than 200 cows. In 1997 21% of the state s cows were on farms with between 25 and 49 cows, while that number had decreased to 13% in 2002. Most dramatically the majority of cows, 51%, now reside on farms of over 100 cows. Table 3: Percent of WI Cows by Herd Size (1997-2002) Herd size (number of cows) Percent of cows in 1997 Percent of cows in 2002 1 to 24 cows 1.9 1.7 25 to 49 cows 21.5 13.0 50 to 74 cows 28.4 22.9 75 to 99 cows 13.9 11.0 100 to 199 cows 19.8 20.1 200 or more cows 14.6 31.0 9

Chart 5 offers a graphical depiction of the structural change in the dairy industry. The most marked change is the declining portion of farms with herd sizes between 25 and 75 cows and the increasing share on those farms with two hundred or more cows. These large farms now hold almost one-third of the state s dairy cows. Between 1997 and 2002, the average size of a dairy herd in Wisconsin increased from 56 cows to 72 cows. Chart 5: Distribution of dairy cows on farms by herd sizes in 1997 and 2002 Percent of total cows 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 1997 2002 0 1 to 24 cows 25 to 49 cows 50 to 74 cows 75 to 99 cows 100 to 199 cows 200 or more cows Herd size Manure management based on quantity of manure Given the above structural changes, analyzing manure management by farm does not adequately characterize the industry because larger farms house an increasingly larger percent of Wisconsin dairy cows. Consequently, these larger farms handle significantly more manure than farms with smaller size herds. This effect can be captured by measuring manure management trends in terms of the portion of manure being handled using specific practices, rather than by how many farms manage manure under the various methods. Chart 6 shows the percent of cow manure being spread and stored by various methods. Whereas nearly two-thirds of all farms spread daily or frequently, only 45% of the total cow manure is being spread frequently due to farms with larger herd sizes storing manure for longer periods and spreading it less often. For the same reason, nearly half of all dairy cow manure is stored in lined facilities; despite only 28% of Wisconsin dairy farms having long term storage capacity. Finally, by accounting for herd size, one-half of all Wisconsin cow manure is currently handled with the aid of a nutrient management plan, despite only one-third of all farms having such a plan. When investigating manure management trends from this perspective, the current trends in manure management in Wisconsin are closer to the recommended practices than generally recognized. 10

Chart 6: Percent of Wisconsin Dairy Cows under Various Manure Management Practices, 2002 Pile manure on the ground or slab, or store in unlined structure 6% Store manure in lined structure (concrete pit, slurry system 46% Leave manure in barn/buildings (for more than a few days) 1% Put manure directly into the spreader and/or spread daily 45% Other 2% Changes in manure management, 1997-2002 Wisconsin dairy farms are making improvements in their management of manure. Table 4 indicates that about one out of every four Wisconsin dairy farms changed some aspect of their manure management practices between 1997 and 2002. The most frequent modification was the development of a nutrient management plan (NMP). While only 16% of all dairy farms developed a NMP during this time period, over one-half of those dairy farms with greater than 200 cows developed a NMP. Table 4: Changes in manure management practices on Wisconsin Dairy Farms 1997-2002 Herd Size 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 199 200 or more Total Type of practice changed Developed a Nutrient Management Plan 2% 8% 11% 21% 28% 56% 16% New Storage Facility 3% 3% 4% 4% 21% 48% 9% New Method of Spreading 3% 3% 7% 5% 4% 33% 7% Any Change 5% 13% 17% 25% 38% 79% 23% 11

The tendency of larger farms to change their manure management practices was especially evident in the building of new manure storage facilities. Chart 7 depicts these changes by herd size. While only 3% of dairy farms with less than 100 cows constructed a new manure storage structure between 1997 and 2002, well over one-third of all dairy farms with more than 100 cows improved their storage facilities during that time and nearly one-half of dairy farms of over 200 cows modified their storage facilities. Similarly, changes in spreading techniques were limited almost exclusively to the largest farms, where one-third of all farms of over 200 cows changed their spreading technique, as compared to less than 5% of farms with less than 200 cows. vi (See chart 8). As these changes suggest, manure storage facilities are often improved or modified to accommodate spreading the manure at more optimal times. Chart 7: Percent of farms changing their manure storage facility between 1997 and 2002 50% 50% Chart 8: Percent of farmers who changed their spreading method between 1997 and 2002 40% New storage facility 40% New Spreading Method 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 Herd Size 100 to 199 200 or more Total 0% 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 Herd Size 100 to 199 200 or more Total When combined with the structural changes described above, the changes in manure management are even greater. Table 5 summarizes these changes between 1997 and 2002. As shown, there has been a significant shift away from daily spreading toward storing manure so spreading can occur at more optimal times of the year. Twenty percent less manure is being spread daily or frequently in 2002 than in 1997. Alternately 44% more manure is being stored in a lined structure than in 1997. Table 5: Change in manure storage practices by manure production Percent of manure under various manure management practices 1997 2002 Put Directly In Spreader And Spread Daily Or Frequently 56% 45% Leave In Barn/Buildings 2% 1% Pile On Ground Or Slab, Or Unlined Structure 10% 6% Store In Lined Structure 32% 46% 12

Table 5 shows that one out of every five pounds of manure that was put directly into the spreader in 1997 is now stored by a different method. Likewise, two out of every five pounds of cow manure that was previously piled on a concrete slab is now stored differently. Though we cannot ascertain exactly where this manure is being stored, it is clear that much of it is now stored in a lined structure. As Table 5 indicates, the quantity of manure that was stored in a lined structure increased by nearly one-half (44%) between 1997 and 2002. This is a significant improvement, especially given the short time period. Animal density One possible concern with the structural change in the dairy industry - many farms exiting production, and many farms expanding - is that it leads to more livestock on less land. Concentrated dairy herds could be problematic in terms of manure management, because a given amount of soil and crops can only utilize a certain amount of nutrients. Thus, farms with inadequate quantities of land for spreading their cows manure could lead to nutrient runoff.. There is no magic number of acres per cow that is acceptable, because determining the appropriate land to animal ratio is a complex function of feed, crop, and soil types. Generally, the formula takes into account the type of feed and supplements in the cows diet, the farm s soil characteristics, and the types of crops rotated on the fields. An average benchmark figure used by the University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is 1.8 acres per cow, and we will use that as a point of comparison. 1 Table 6 summarizes the land to animal ratio for our six herd-size categories in 1997 and 2002. The table uses cow numbers (rather than a calculated Animal Unit) and cultivated acres to generate the figures. In 2002, the statewide average land to animal ratio for all Wisconsin dairy farms was 4.0 acres per cow. As Table 6 indicates, there is a significant variance in the acres of cultivated land per cow depending on herd size, with smaller farms maintaining a higher acreage per cow than larger farms. Table 6: Total Cultivated Acres per Cow by Herd Size - 1997 and 2002 1 to 24 cows 25 to 49 cows 50 to 74 cows 75 to 99 cows 100 to 199 cows 200 or more cows 1997 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.3 3.8 3.7 2002 4.6 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.6 2.7 change 1997-2002 0.7 0.5 0.2-0.2-0.2-1.0 Table 6 demonstrates that the gap in land to animal ratio between small and large farms has grown recently. Since 1997, the number of cultivated acres per cow has increased on farms of less than 75 cows, but decreased on dairy farms of greater than 75 cows. The largest change in land to animal ratio occurred on farms of over 200 cows, where the area decreased from 3.7 to 2.7 cultivated acres per cow between 1997 and 2002. 13

Even though larger Wisconsin dairy farms show decreases in cultivated acres per cow, all farm size categories remain well above the suggested minimum of 1.8 acres per cow. However, as Charts 9 and 10 indicate between 7-20% of cows in each herd size category reside on farms where land to animal ratios is below the 1.8 acre benchmark. So while smaller farms are not as likely to use the recommended manure management practices as large farms, some 20% of large farms have less than the recommended land to animal ratios for manure application. It is important to note that only about one-fifth of those farms showing land to animal ratios below the benchmark figure have a nutrient management plan (as compared to one-third of all dairy farms). Quantity of land actually used for manure spreading While the above figures indicate that most Wisconsin dairy farms have sufficient cultivated acres for effectively spreading manure, they do not show whether farms use all of their available acreage. Previous PATS data has shown that most farms, regardless of farm size, use only a fraction of their cultivated acres for spreading manure. Data from 1997 indicates that the actual spreading area was at one acre per cow for dairy farms of all sizes, well below the suggested minimum. This means that only slightly more than onethird (33-37%) of the total cropland is being spread with manure, depending on herd size. Percent Number of cows 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - CHART 9. Percent of Dairy Cows on Farms with less than 1.8 Cultivated Acres per Cow, by Herd Size (2002) 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 199 200 or more StateTotal Herd Size Chart 10: Number of cows on Wisconsin farms with inadequate cultivated acreage (<1.8 acres/cow) for spreading manure, by Herd Size (2002) 1 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 199 200 or more Herd Size 14

Farm economics are the likely reasons that farms do not spread manure on more of their cropland, despite its valuable nutrients. More specifically, studies have indicated that farms do not use a greater proportion of their land for manure spreading for two primary reasons. First, many farms cultivate fields that are a long distance from the barn, making spreading manure on this land costly and time consuming. Second, most farms do not actually collect all of the manure from their cows, and thus do not need to use as many acres to spread their manure. These two factors are discussed in greater detail below. Distance matters Differences in the distance between the barn and fields influence which fields receive manure and which do not. Spreading on distant fields may be very time and energy consuming, and hence not a financially viable option for many farms. A 1995 PATS survey indicated that over half of Wisconsin dairy farms spread 90% of their manure within 5 minutes of the barn. (Jackson-Smith et. al., 1997). Other PATS research that has analyzed how much land dairy farms use to spread manure indicates that farm layout plays a crucial role. These studies show that dairy farms in Southwestern Wisconsin use a greater portion of their cropland to spread manure than do farms in the South Central and Northeast regions (Saam, 2003). A detailed investigation of typical farm layouts shows that dairy farms in the Northeast are more fragmented, with fields dispersed at a greater distance from the barn, than in the Southwest (On Farmers Ground, hereinafter OFG, p. 6). Thus, although farms in the Northeast have sufficient cropland (1.9 acres/cow) for manure spreading based on a nitrogen or phosphorus standard (Saam et al., 2004), farms are spreading excessive nutrients on portions of their cropland, and underspreading elsewhere, due in part to the distance needed to travel to spread on some fields. Ownership patterns may also influence farms spreading methods. PATS research has found that as the percent of rented land increases, the proportion of cropland used to spread manure decreases. (Saam, 2003). This may be correlated with the above findings on spatial aspects, as rented plots are rarely located near the fields directly surrounding the barn area, resulting in greater distances to rented fields. Analyzing actual land ownership patterns helps to underscore this relationship. Dairy farms in the Southwest own a greater proportion of their cropland area than farms in the Northeast. As noted above, farms in the Southwest tend to be less fragmented and farms spread manure on a higher percentage of their total cropland compared to the Northeast. While ownership patterns may be related to the distance from barn to field and thus have a direct effect on which fields receive manure, ownership may enter the equation in a different way, as well. Specifically, the fact that land is rented versus owned may decrease the incentive for a farm to invest in manure spreading there. If the rented land is viewed as a short term choice, there is little reason for a farm to be concerned with long term soil health and productivity that may come from sound nutrient cycling patterns. 15

Actual manure collection Wisconsin dairy farms may also not use more of their cropland to spread manure because they do not collect all of their cows manure to begin with. PATS studies show that less than onefourth of Wisconsin dairy farms actually collect all of the manure produced by lactating cows. (OFG, at 7). In the Southwest region, where pastures have a particular importance, the proportion of farms that collect all manure drops to less than one-eighth. (OFG, at 7). Despite most Wisconsin dairy farms not collecting all of their cows manure, the majority of the manure is collected. Chart 11 shows the percent of manure collected, both seasonally and in total, for a random sample of 54 farms in 2002. In total, farms in this study collected an average of 72% of the manure generated by lactating cows. This portion varied by season, with the largest share being collected in the winter and spring (96% and 74%, respectively), and the smallest portion (approximately one-half) in the summer. (OFG, at 7). The probable reason for the seasonal difference is that cows spend more time outdoors in the warmer months, and farms tend not to collect manure from outside areas. The role of those outside areas is discussed in the next section. Chart 11: Percent of manure collected, by season, 2002 100 80 Percent collected 60 40 20 0 fall winter spring summer ANNUAL Season The role of outside grazing, feeding, and exercise areas Much of the uncollected manure on Wisconsin dairy farms remains concentrated in small outside areas used to exercise, graze, and feed cows. While there is a growing trend in Wisconsin toward year-round confinement of dairy cows, the vast majority of dairy farms (78%) allow some access to these outside areas. (OFG, 8). Pastures, which range in size from 13 to 21 acres, account for 45% of these outside areas. The remaining 55% of outdoor areas consist of either partially vegetated feedlots or un-vegetated barnyards between 1.2 and 4.1 acres in size. (OFG, Table 4). PATS data has suggested that, in total, these outside areas may be accumulating as much as 30-40% of the annual manure produced on dairy farms. (OFG, 8). 16

Despite the small size of most of the outdoor areas that accumulate a significant portion of the manure produced, the vast majority Wisconsin dairy farms (87%) do not collect manure from these areas. (OFG, T.4). This holds regardless of whether farms use pasture, feedlots, or barnyards as outside areas. In the South Central region, where over 83% of farms give their cows access to feedlots and barnyards of four acres or less, only 8% collect the manure in these areas. (OFG, T.4). In the Southwest, where pastures account for 87% of the outside areas, only 13% of farms collect manure from them. (OFG, T.4). Slightly more farms (17%) rotate the outside areas with crops or forage than collect manure from them. (OFG, T.4) Most of the farms that do periodically change the location of their outside areas are in the Northeast portion of the state. There, 39% of farms rotate their outside areas. In the South Central, and Southwest, very few farms (7% and 0%, respectively) rotate their feedlots, barnyards, and pastures. The above findings by PATS research on manure management in these small outside areas could be an important piece of the comprehensive manure management puzzle. While considerable time has been spent researching manure spreading and storage practices on Wisconsin dairy farms, relatively little attention has been paid on how much manure remains uncollected. Because much of this uncollected manure is likely to be concentrated in relatively small areas, there are potentially large environmental impacts tied to this aspect of manure management. Summary and Conclusion Dairy farming has provided the historical, economic, and cultural backbone of many rural Wisconsin communities. Although most people recognize the importance of the dairy industry to Wisconsin, in recent years there have been increasing public concerns about possible impacts of manure on water quality in the state. In response to these concerns, university scientists, public extension educators and state regulatory agencies have worked to develop and promote manure management systems that maximize the on-farm utilization of manure nutrients and minimize the risks of water contamination. 17

Main Findings The results of recent PATS research indicate that most Wisconsin dairy farms continue to manage manure in ways not entirely in harmony with recommended methods for preserving water quality. These prevalent, generally discouraged, practices include: 1. Hauling and spreading manure daily or frequently (especially when the ground is frozen); 2. Concentrating manure spreading in areas closest to barns; 3. Operating without the aid of a nutrient management plan; 4. Storing manure in unlined structures where it may pose a threat of nutrient runoff or leaching; and 5. Failing to collect manure from, or rotate, outside areas used for grazing, feeding, or exercising livestock. On average, larger farms tend to follow recommended practices more often than smaller farms. These differences by farm size have a particularly strong effect on the manure management picture, because an increasing portion of Wisconsin s cows reside on these larger farms. As a result of these two trends different practices on larger farms and structural changes within the dairy industry a smaller portion of the manure produced by Wisconsin dairy cows is spread daily or frequently (45%) than the portion of farms spreading daily (61%) would indicate. Similarly, nearly half of the state s manure is stored in lined, long-term structures, even though only 28% of all farms have such structures. Trends in manure management on Wisconsin dairy farms are improving. The portion of manure spread daily or frequently decreased by 20% between 1997 and 2002, and the amount of manure stored in lined, long-term structures increased by 44% during that same time period. While farms of all sizes have shown some tendency to change, PATS research shows that small farms were much less likely than large farms to have changed their manure management practices between 1997 and 2002. Because many of the larger, expanding farms were the ones to modify their manure management practices to conform to recommended practices, the significant overall changes in Wisconsin manure management between 1997 and 2002 can be seen as a side benefit of the expansion and modernization of the dairy industry. The changing structure of the dairy industry may also have an effect on ownership patterns and the spatial configurations of farms. This is important because preliminary research has shown that both of these factors can influence the manure spreading habits on farms. Because it is more costly to spread on fields that are further from the barn, a more geographically spread-out farm will likely not spread as evenly on all fields. Rented land tends to be located at a greater distance from the barn, and thus receives less manure. Likewise, rented lands can 18

be viewed by farms as temporary assets, decreasing the incentive to invest in long-term soil health through spreading manure nutrients. While spreading and storage techniques are an important piece of Wisconsin s manure management puzzle, they only account for the way that farms handle manure that is actually collected. PATS research has shown that up to (and potentially over) one-third of all manure produced by Wisconsin dairy cows is deposited and left in outside areas used for grazing, feeding, and exercising livestock. These areas are mostly between one and four acres in size. Because few farms collect manure from, or rotate these outside areas, these outside areas may result in potential hotspots for nutrient runoff. Thus, while much attention has been given to spreading and storage techniques, these results suggest that more attention to the management of these outside areas has the potential to play a significant role in improving the environmental performance of Wisconsin dairy farms. Explaining the low adoption rate of recommended practices Results of previous PATS studies have shown that Wisconsin dairy farms are more aware of environmental concerns than is often appreciated. Almost all farms agree that manure management is an important issue in the industry, and that there is room for improvement in their role of protecting the environment. (Jackson-Smith et. al., 1997). Yet, despite farmers recognition of the importance of environmental concerns, Wisconsin dairy farms have been slow to adopt recommended manure management practices. There are many potential reasons why many dairy farms have not adopted environmentally friendly manure management systems. Perhaps the most obvious is that following recommended practices can be costly, and returns on investments in this area have a long payback period. This is especially true for the small to medium sized farms that characterize the Wisconsin dairy industry. Although manure storage systems and effective spreading methods can defray costs by preserving nutrients used by crops, studies have shown that even at the maximum nutrient values the financial gains will not completely cover the costs of any longterm storage system for farms with small herds. (Holmes and Klemme 1989: 208). Because of the cost of improving nutrient management practices, efforts to address environmental issues must often be accompanied by public subsidies to absorb the private costs of changing management practices, especially when most of the social benefits of runoff reduction are not realized by the producers themselves. While State and Federal cost-share funds are available, they are only sufficient to assist a small portion of Wisconsin farms in adopting new manure management technologies. Increased public funds and, perhaps more importantly, more effective use of available funds, will be a crucial part of the success of improving the environmental performance of Wisconsin dairy farms. Achieving environmental goals is further complicated by environmental performance being only one of a complex set of goals that farms attempt to pursue. Without a doubt, farms are first and foremost business enterprises, thus they must generate a reasonable return on investments to remain in operation. Furthermore, because most Wisconsin farms still rely principally on family labor, they are often constrained from pursuing practices that are optimal 19

from an environmental, or economic, perspective. In the context of manure management, it is very difficult for a family run dairy farm to free up labor and concentrate manure spreading in the spring and fall when nutrients can quickly be incorporated into the soil. This effectively adds an ongoing cost to the up-front cost of improving manure storage structures. Larger farms appear more able to make changes towards improving their manure management practices. The increased use of lined manure storage and handling facilities on bigger dairy farms in part stems from economies of scale that make such systems more cost effective on larger operations (Holmes and Klemme, 1989). Similarly, larger farms tend to hire seasonal labor more than smaller farms, so spreading directly before tilling may be more practical on these larger farms. This, coupled with the availability of public funds to subsidize the construction of manure storage facilities, means that larger operations will continue to be more likely than smaller ones to invest in such structures. Since the costs incurred in improving manure management practices are likely to have relatively long pay-back periods, farmers who are uncertain how long they will stay in operation are also less likely to invest. Recent PATS surveys have shown that farms on smaller operations are exiting or planning to exit more often than operators of larger farms (Barham, Foltz and Aldana, 2005). This could at least partially explain why smaller farms were less likely than larger farms to change their manure management practices in recent years. Given that most of these smaller farms do not have lined facilities now, it seems unlikely that they will choose to invest in them with a short time horizon for return. Directions for future research Much of the research and extension work on manure management in Wisconsin has centered on a few key practices thought to minimize the potential for environmental impacts from nutrient runoff through increasing the use of nutrients found in animal waste. Namely, the focus has been on improving long-term storage structures, incorporating manure into the soil shortly after spreading, and planning to best meet, but not exceed, crop nutrient requirements through land spreading of animal waste. Recent studies have shown that many of these key technologies of manure management have yet to be adopted, especially on small to medium sized dairy farms. Because the moderately sized family farm is likely to remain a major portion of the Wisconsin dairy industry for the foreseeable future, attention should be given on how to best incorporate environmentally sound practices into the management dynamic of family run dairy farms. A lack of economic incentives suggests that increased flexibility in state and federal funding programs would likely be beneficial. Given the dynamic expansion and modernization that is occurring in the Wisconsin dairy industry, more work also needs to be done to investigate how herd size expansion influences incentives for improved nutrient management. From the perspective of the farm, research has shown that as herd size increases, so does the potential for positive net economic returns from improved nutrient management. If this is the case, then from the public perspective, investing in farms that have an interest and an economic incentive to improve their nutrient management 20

strategies would lead to more sustainable, cost-effective reduction of runoff. Of course, as part of this growth in understanding, information on economic returns from improved nutrient management should be made available to farms. While it is clear that the dairy industry is changing, future efforts can and must use past research and experiences to more effectively harmonize dairy farming and water quality in Wisconsin - a state that has a great wealth of both. The positive trends in manure management are encouraging, but there is still substantial room for improvement. More work on linking the goals and capacities of farms with environmental improvement must be done to maximize the efficiency of public funds and the farms time, energy, and financial resources in attaining environmentally sustainable farming practices. References Barham, Bradford, Jeremy Foltz, and Ursula Aldana, Expansion, Modernization and Specialization in the Wisconsin Dairy Industry. PATS research report no. 7, 2005. Holmes, B.J., and R.M. Klemme, The economics of dairy cow manure long term storage, in Dairy Manure Management, Proceedings of the Dairy Manure Management Symposium, February 22-24, Syracuse, NY, 1989. Jackson-Smith, D.B., Monica Nevius, and Brad Barham, A profile of manure management on Wisconsin Livestock Farms. PATS research report no. 1, 1997. On Farmers Ground, ongoing, unpublished PATS research. Saam, H.M. Considering the Value of using animal density standards to target Manure management policy on Wisconsin Dairy Farms. MS Thesis. Land Resources. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2003. Saam, H.M., et. al., Exploring the use of animal density standards for nutrient management policy on Wisconsin dairy farms. Agricultural systems (submitted), 2004. 21

Appendix A: Overview of runoff rules vii New rules to control polluted runoff from farms and other non-point sources went into effect in 2002. viii These rules will affect both existing and new facilities by requiring new nutrient management strategies that will lead to meeting tolerable soil loss requirements on cropped fields, following a nutrient management plan, and meeting technical standards for a newly constructed or altered manure storage structure, among other things. The non-point program is administered by both the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer protection (DATCP). Counties have the primary responsibility for implementing the new standards. There are two primary administrative rules that are legislatively authorized and funded through Chapter 92 of the Wisconsin State Statutes to address non-point pollution issues. The first is NR 151 - administered by the DNR - which sets performance standards and prohibitions for farms, as well as non-agricultural sources like construction sites, new developments, and roads. As applied to farmland, these standards are designed to manage runoff through reducing erosion and requiring more precise application of manure and fertilizer on any plot greater than five acres. Specific standards and prohibitions from NR 151 include: prevention of direct runoff from feedlots or stored manure, limiting livestock access to state waters, following a nutrient management plan, and maintaining manure storage structures to meet technical standards and prevent overflow. The sister rule to NR 151 is ATCP 50, administered by the DATCP. This rule identifies conservation practices that farmers, and others, must follow to meet the standards outlined in NR 151. In addition to outlining mandated practices, this rule also specifically addresses requirements for Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs). Farmers may prepare their own NMP if they complete a DATCP-approved training course. These plans must rely on soil nutrient tests from a DATCP certified laboratory and comply with NRCS Nutrient Management Standard 590. Farms with WPDES permits may have to follow additional management practices. The WPDES program for farms is administered by the DNR and governed by NR 243. The essence of the WPDES program is that the DNR and the State of Wisconsin are required by the federal Clean Water Act to issue and enforce permits for livestock operations over 1,000 animal units. In some cases, smaller farms also fall under the permitting scheme. ix In this way, the Clean Water Act and the DNR treat these large farms as point sources, akin to that of a factory or power plant with a discrete source of emissions. Livestock operations planning to expand to 1,000 or more animal units must apply for a WPDES permit from the DNR at least one year in advance. Most farmers will be entitled to receive cost sharing if they are required to comply with the standards and practices required by the runoff rules. In almost all cases, farmers cannot be required to change an existing practice or modify a livestock facility to meet the new standards, unless they are offered cost sharing. The typical minimum cost share level is 70%, with more available in the case of economic hardship. 22