Common Misconceptions about Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Regulations and Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning in New York State

Carly Bass1,7, Kirsten Workman2,3,7, Greg Albrecht4, Ron Bush4, Brendan Jordan4, Dale Gates5, Josh Hornesky5, Sara Latessa6, Kristan Reed7, Quirine M. Ketterings3,7

1Masters of Professional Studies in Animal Science, 2PRO-DAIRY, 3Nutrient Management Spear Program (NMSP), 4New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSAGM), 5United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), 6New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and 7Department of Animal Science, Cornell University

Introduction

Farms that have more than 300 mature dairy cows (or an equivalent in other livestock animals) are required to operate under the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The permit dictates that the farms follow environmental conservation practices and meet state standards designed to maintain the highest quality of water possible by mitigating the risk of pollution to New York waters. As only a small portion of our population is involved in agricultural production, it is not always understood what farms in New York State are required to do to stay in compliance. This article highlights and addresses some of the most common misconceptions surrounding New York CAFO farms and the CAFO permit.

Misconception 1:

“New York’s permit is less strict than the federal permit” 

New York works closely with federal agencies such as NRCS and the EPA to ensure their standards and permit satisfy or exceeds the federal requirements. New York takes the minimum guidelines set forth in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) CAFO Rule and makes additional requirements for farms to follow within their Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) to meet water quality and sustainability goals of the state. The following are examples where the New York CAFO permit is more environmentally protective, and thereby restrictive, than the federal CAFO rule.

  • New York CAFOs must maintain no discharge from their production areas (farmsteads) through a 100-year, 24-hour storm compared to the federal no discharge standard which is for a 25-year, 24-hour storm.
  • New York CAFOs must utilize an AEM Certified Planner, whereas no professional certification is required by the CWA CAFO Rule.
  • New York CAFO permitted farms must follow an integrated system of NRCS Conservation Practice Standards for management of nutrients throughout their farmsteads and fields; such engineering and management standards are not required by the CWA CAFO Rule.
  • Farms must sample soil for nutrient values every three years versus every five years.
  • Farmer fields need to be planned and managed to conserve soil and reduce erosion, whereas this is not a CWA CAFO Rule.
  • New York CAFO’s must develop and maintain facility specific winter and wet weather application procedures and identify low-risk fields to be used for winter application in the case of an emergency.
  • New structural practices need to be designed considering future flood risk due to climate change.
  • Farm staff must be present and monitor active waste transfers from the production area (farmstead) while material is being transferred.
  • The NRCS-NY 590 Nutrient Management Standard and associated Land Grant University Guidelines require New York CAFOs to account for nitrogen already present on the farm (soil, manure, crop rotation credits, etc.) when developing spreading recommendations.

Misconception 2:

“Manure storages are not safe and impact drinking water”

Manure storages located and operated on New York CAFOs are required to be designed and constructed by a trained, State of New York licensed professional engineer to meet national standards (Natural Resources Conservation Practice Standard – NY 313). The NRCS-NY 313 Standard requires that manure storages are designed, built, and operated to fully contain manure nutrients and any direct precipitation for future application to crops as fertilizer while remaining isolated and protected from ground- and surface waters. These standards require geological investigations, prior to the design, to properly site these structures and ensure an appropriate liner is selected to minimize any risk of leaking. To date, there has been no evidence of a certified manure storage contributing to an impact to groundwater in New York. In addition to the groundwater protections outlined in the standards, there are measures to ensure and protect against these structures overtopping. The standards themselves require maximum fill markers to help ensure that safety volume requirements are maintained. The New York CAFO permit also requires the final as-built plans, certified by a professional engineer, be maintained on site; fill levels be monitored and recorded; and operation and maintenance measures outlined by the professional engineer be followed. Finally, no farm in New York is allowed to impact the water resources of the state, no matter the size of the farm. Any impact to Waters of the State is considered a significant violation of the Environmental Conservation Law and is subject to substantial penalties and/or fines.

Misconception 3:

“Farmers can spread manure under any weather conditions”

All CAFO farmers are required to have a current Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) developed by an AEM Certified Planner in accordance with the permit, NRCS standards, and guidelines. The CNMP must be updated annually and prescribes how much manure and fertilizer can be spread on each field, as well as the anticipated application method and timing. In addition to their individualized plans, the New York CAFO permit sets maximum single-application spreading rates. New York’s CAFO permit also contains specific requirements pertaining to winter and wet weather spreading, including a prohibition against spreading if the field is saturated or frozen-saturated.

New York does not have a calendar-based ban on winter spreading because calendar-based regulations do not take current weather and specific field conditions into account. Drivers of nutrient losses are based on specific field, soil, and weather conditions/forecasts. New York’s CAFOs must assess field conditions every time they spread and follow the specific guidance outlined in the “Revised winter and wet weather manure spreading guidelines to reduce water contamination risk”.

Misconception 4:

“New York regulations allow phosphorus to be applied to fields even when the crop does not need it”

Manure contains all 17 essential nutrients for plant growth and is a key to building soil health by providing organic matter and enhancing the soil ecosystem. Properly managed, use of manure can offset the need for purchased fertilizer, reducing the amount of imported nutrients onto farms and into a watershed. However, nutrients in manure aren’t necessarily present in the balance required by a specific crop grown on a specific field. Within a farm’s CNMP, the New York P-Index governs how much phosphorus can be applied to fields each year to ensure proper recycling of on-farm nutrients through crops and long-term, sustainable soil test levels for the benefit of water quality. In accordance with the New York P-Index, a farmer and AEM Certified Planner must assess the risk of phosphorus leaving the field. This needs to be done for all fields on the farm. Those assessments will determine how and how much manure may be applied and must be documented in the farms’ CNMP. Farmers implement beneficial management practices to further reduce P runoff risk to lower the New York P-Index rating for fields. Making the most of manure nutrients is critical for water quality, air quality, and crop production, and to reduce N and P imports into watersheds. Most soils in New York are currently deficient in phosphorus so proper phosphorus management is needed to maintain productive and healthy soils for food production.

Misconception 5:

“Farmers pay AEM Certified Planners, therefore plans are biased”

New York has strict rules for who can develop and update CNMPs. A farm’s CNMP needs to be written by a state-certified planner who has gone through extensive training, is required to keep certifications current through training sessions, and has signed a code of ethics. Such a certification is akin to other state certified professionals used across sectors, such as professional engineers, architects, accountants, etc. To become an AEM planner, an individual must first become a Certified Crop Adviser (CCA), which involves passing two exams (an international and a regional exam) and meeting further educational and experience requirements to demonstrate their knowledge in agronomy and environmental conservation in agriculture. The next step is satisfying participation in the state led CNMP Training. After completing these two steps, the individual’s first three CNMPs must be submitted to CNMP specialists at the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSAGM) for review, revision, and acceptance. Once the three plans satisfy the CNMP requirements, the individual becomes an AEM Certified Planner. Certified planners must sustain their CCA status, maintain compliant work through ongoing quality assessments by NYSAGM staff, and satisfy 40 credit hours of continuing education every two years to maintain their certification. In addition to this rigorous certification and assessment process, the NYSDEC reviews CNMPs during regular CAFO inspections and pursues enforcement if deficiencies are identified.

Misconception 6:

“Only large dairy farms are regulated”

New York State laws and regulations require all animal feeding operations (AFOs) that meet certain animal thresholds, to obtain coverage under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit prior to operation. However, per Environmental Conservation Law Article 17, Title 5, Section 17-0501, no farm, regardless of size or permit coverage, is allowed to contribute to a water quality violation and impact New York’s water resources. New York also funds several programs that are available to all farms, including smaller AFOs. The AEM program, Dairy Advancement Program (DAP), and NRCS’s program help farms with conservation plan development (including CNMPs) and implementation of best management practices. To date, 13,500 practices on over 2,500 farms have been implemented through the AEM programs, the DAP has helped more than 300 non-CAFO farms develop CNMPs, and those NYS program accomplishments can be doubled when considering projects completed through USDA NRCS and the Farm Service Agency. These programs augment the substantial investment by farmers and ensure that farms of all types and scales have the resources to implement nutrient management practices on their farms to aid with environmental management. Roughly 1,000,000 acres of cropland are impacted annually in New York by nutrient management guidelines due to the various programs in place.

Additional Resources 

Acknowledgements

The information shared in this article comes from a larger extension document that outlines regulations and comprehensive nutrient management planning in New York State (see additional resources above). We thank the members of the Nutrient Management Spear Program advisory committees for their feedback on the larger document. For questions, contact Quirine M. Ketterings (qmk2@cornell.edu) or Kirsten Workman (kw566@cornell.edu).

 

Icons for the Nutrient Management Spear Program, Cornell University, Cornell CALS, and PRO-DAIRY

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tillage Intensity Classification for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Estimations

Corrine Brown1, Olivia Godber1, Kirsten Workman1,2, Kitty O’Neil3, Josh Hornesky4, Quirine Ketterings1

1Nutrient Management Spear Program, 2PRODAIRY, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, 3Cornell Cooperative Extension North Country Regional Ag Team, 4USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, NY

Introduction

Tillage practices can impact soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil carbon (C) sequestration and overall soil health. Tools are available to estimate whole farm GHG inventories (N2O, CO2, and CH4 emissions), field-based emissions, and C sequestration or loss. These tools often require a user to classify tillage intensity. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) GHG accounting system uses the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2) to calculate a Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) that can be used to classify the intensity of various tillage practices. This tool also classifies tillage intensity based on percent residue surface cover and soil disturbed. This article explains what a STIR factor is, describes how to determine percent surface residue cover, and categorize different tillage practices into tillage intensity classifications.

Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR)

The STIR value of a field can range from 0-200 with high values for intense tillage (Table 1). The STIR is based on four components: tillage type, depth of operation, operational speed, and percent of soil surface area disturbed.

    • Tillage type: This describes how a tillage pass mixes soil and crop residue. Tillage disturbance operations can include inversion and some mixing of soil, mixing and some (limited) inversion, lifting and fracturing, mixing only, and soil compression.
    • Depth of operation: The depth to which soil disturbance and residue incorporation occur.
    • Operational speed of tillage: This is the recommended operating speed of each tillage operation. The forward speed of a tillage implement impacts soil disturbance and mixing; faster speeds result in more significant forces and broader disturbance.
    • Percent of soil surface area disturbed: The percentage of surface soil disturbed by the tillage pass.

Estimating Percent Residue Cover

Percent residue cover remaining on the surface following a tillage operation can be determined using the RUSLE2 equation or measured in the field using the line transect method. The line transect uses a line measuring tool (a rope or tape measure) that has 100 equally distributed and easily viewed marks (Figure 1). Typically, the measuring tool is 100 feet long with markings at 1-foot intervals or 50 feet long with marking at 6-inch intervals. To determine the percent residue surface cover of a field, stretch the tool diagonally across crop rows in a direction that is at least 45 degrees off the row direction and count the number of markings that have crop residue directly present beneath. Residue smaller than 1/8 inch in diameter should not be counted. The total count (markings with residue beneath them) is the percent residue cover for the field. This process should be repeated at least three times in different areas of the field and percentages should be averaged.

Agricultural field with residue and tape measure
Fig. 1: A simple measuring tape can be used to easily determine percent residue surface cover of a field (Picture credit:
https://www.sdsoilhealthcoalition.org/ soil-health-assessment-card/).

NRCS Tillage Intensity Classes

The NRCS tool groups tillage practices into six categories; intensive, reduced, mulch, ridge, strip, and no-till:

    • Intensive tillage is full width tillage that inverts soil with high disturbance. Common equipment includes a moldboard plow.
    • Reduced tillage occurs at full width without soil inversion, using a point chisel plow, field cultivator and/or tandem disk.
    • Mulch tillage a single pass across the field using tools such as a tandem disk followed by field or row cultivator or similar implement.
    • Ridge tillage creates soil ridges in the field that are rebuilt during cultivation by disturbing up to 1/3 of the row width. The soil is then undisturbed from harvest to planting.
    • Strip tillage leaves the soil between crop rows undisturbed (Figure 2). To create a seedbed, up to 1/3 of the row width is disturbed.
    • No-till operations plant crop seeds directly through residue of the previous crop using a no-till planter or drill.
Agricultural field with strip tillage
Figure 2: Strip tillage leaves the soil between crop rows undisturbed.

Full vs. Reduced vs. No-Till

Some GHG footprint assessment tools categorize tillage practices differently, using three main categories; full, reduced, and no-till:

    • Full tillage contributes to significant soil disturbance, fully inverting the soil (as is done with moldboard plowing) and/or performing tillage operations frequently in the same year using tools like chisel plows or row cultivators.
    • Reduced tillage also disturbs the soil but does not fully invert the soil. Examples include onetime use of chisel plows, field cultivators, tandem disks, row cultivators, or strip-tillers.
    • No-till practices directly drill crop seed through the residue layer with little to no disturbance to the soil. Minimal disturbance occurs in the area where seeds are planted. Common operations use a no-till planter.

In Summary

Tools available to assess whole-farm and field-based GHG inventories and C sequestration or loss require the user to classify tillage intensity. Choosing the tillage description that best fits the producers’ management practices is essential for accurately assessing GHG emissions.

Additional Resources

Acknowledgements

This article is available as part of the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program (NMSP) Factsheet Series: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/publications/factsheets/factsheet126.pdf. Corrine Brown was an undergraduate intern with NMSP, funded by a gift from Chobani. For questions, contact Quirine M. Ketterings (qmk2@cornell.edu) or visit the NMSP website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Manure Can Offset Nitrogen Fertilizer Needs and Increase Corn Silage Yield Value of Manure Project 2022 Update

Juan Carlos Ramos Tanchez1, Kirsten Workman1,2, Allen Wilder3, Janice Degni4, and Quirine Ketterings1
Cornell University Nutrient Management Spear Program1, PRO-DAIRY2, Miner Agricultural Research Institute3, and Cornell Cooperative Extension4

Introduction

Manure is a tremendously valuable nutrient source. When used appropriately (right rate, right timing, right placement method), it can help build soil organic matter, enhance nutrient cycling, and improve soil health and climate resilience. Sound use of manure nutrients can decrease the need for synthetic fertilizer, thus, lowering whole farm nutrient mass balances and contributing to reduced environmental footprints.

Current guidance for nitrogen (N) credits from manure recognize that N availability depends on the solids content of the manure (lower first year credits for manure with >18% solids than for liquid manure). It also recognizes that the amount of N in manure is affected by how it is collected, stored, treated (solid liquid separated, composted, digested, etc.), and land-applied (timing and method). Higher shares of manure N will be available to crops when manure is applied closer to when crops need it and if manure is injected or incorporated into the soil right after it is applied versus left on the surface.

In the past two decades since manure crediting systems were developed, many different manure treatments technologies have been implemented on farms and re-evaluation of the N crediting system for manure is needed. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that manure can increase yield beyond what could be obtained with N fertilizer only. Thanks to funding from New York Farm Viability Institute (NYFVI) and the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program (NNYADP), we initiated the “Value of Manure” statewide project to evaluate the N and yield benefits of various manure sources and application methods. Three trials were conducted in 2022. Here we summarize the initial findings.

What we did in 2022

Trials were implemented on three farms. Each trial had three strips that received manure and three that did not, for a total of six strips (Figure 1a). Strips were 1200-1800 ft long and 50-80 ft wide. When corn was at the V4-V6 stage, each strip was divided into six sub strips (Figure 1b) and sidedressed at a rate ranging from 0 to up to 192 pounds N/acre, depending on the farm. All three farms applied liquid untreated manure, ranging from 7,525 to 15,000 gallons/acre in the spring.

color coded images showing how plots were laid out in research trial
Figure 1. Layout of a Value of Manure study plot. Three strips received manure before planting (1a). At the V4-V6 corn stage each of the six strips received six different inorganic N sidedress rates (1b).

Soils on farm A were Lima and Honeoye (Soil Management Group [SMG] 2), farm B had a Hogansburg soil (SMG 4), and farm C had Valois and Howard soils (SMG 3). The farms implemented and harvested the trial. The Cornell team sampled for general soil fertility, Pre-Sidedress Nitrate Test (PSNT), Corn Stalk Nitrate Test (CSNT), and silage quality. Each trial was harvested with a yield monitor.

What we have found so far

Corn silage had a different response to manure and inorganic N sidedress in each of the study farms (Figure 2). Farm A responded to both the application of manure and inorganic N fertilizer. In that farm manure application was able to offset 58 lbs N/acre and presented a 0.6 ton/acre yield advantage at the Most Economic Rate of N (MERN), the rate of N that maximizes economic returns, compared to plots with inorganic N fertilizer application only (Figure 3). The application of inorganic N fertilizer and manure had no impact on the yield of farm B, showing that the field already had enough N and did not need any N addition (fertilizer or manure). At farm C, yield did not respond to the application of inorganic N sidedress (the field by itself provided enough N to the crop), but yield was higher when manure was applied: on average manured plots yielded 1.5 ton/acre higher than the no-manure plots. The MERN for farms B and C was 0 lbs N/acre both with manure and without it.

The PSNT and CSNT levels of the manured plots were higher than their no-manure counterparts for all three studies, showing that manure supplied N (Table 1). Both manure and no manure plots in farm A had optimum CSNT levels at the MERN, showing that manure was able to offset 58 lbs N/acre.

Figure 2. Effect of manure application and different nitrogen sidedress rates on corn silage yields in three New York farms. Error bars are standard deviations.
Figure 3. Most economic rate of N (MERN) in farm A. Without manure, the MERN was 114 lbs N/acre with a yield at the MERN of 28.5 tons/acre. With manure, the MERN was 56 lbs N/acre, with a yield at the MERN of 29.1 tons/acre.

Conclusions and Implications (and Invitation)

The trials of 2022 show the range of possible responses, with one trial not showing a yield or N benefit of the manure, one trial showing a yield increase when manure was applied that was not due to N addition, and one showing both a yield and N fertilizer benefit from manure. This shows the importance of targeting manure application to fields with low past N credits, where it will be most likely to cause a yield respond. Additional trials are needed with various manure sources (raw manure, separated liquids, solids, digestate, etc.) before we can draw conclusions about the N and yield benefits of manure. Join us for the 2023 Value of Manure project and obtain valuable insights about the use of manure in your farm! If you are interested in joining the project, contact Juan Carlos Ramos Tanchez at jr2343@cornell.edu.

Additional Resources

The NMSP Value of Manure Project website and on-farm field trial protocols are accessible at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/NYOnFarmResearchPartnership/Value_of_Manure.html  (website) and  http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/NYOnFarmResearchPartnership/Protocols/NMSP_Value_of_Manure_Protocol2023.pdf (protocol).

Acknowledgments

We thank the farms participating in the project for their help in establishing and maintaining each trial location, and for providing valuable feedback on the findings. For questions about this project, contact Quirine M. Ketterings at 607-255-3061 or qmk2@cornell.edu, and/or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Stalk Nitrate Test Results for New York Corn Fields from 2010 through 2022

Quirine Ketterings1, Sanjay Gami1, Juan Carlos Ramos Tanchez1, and Mike Reuter2
Cornell University Nutrient Management Spear Program1 and Dairy One2

Introduction

The corn stalk nitrate test (CSNT) is an end-of-season evaluation tool for N management for corn fields in the 2nd year or more that allows for identification of situations where more N was available during the growing season than the crop needed. Research shows that the crop had more N than needed when CSNT results exceed 2000 pm. Results can vary from year to year but where CSNT values exceed 3000 ppm for two or more years, it is highly likely that N management changes can be made without impacting yield.

Findings 2010-2022

In 2022, 43% of all tested fields had CSNT-N greater than 2000 ppm, while 35% were over 3000 ppm and 21% exceeded 5000 ppm (Table 1). In contrast, 29% of the 2022 samples were low in CSNT-N. The percentage of samples testing excessive in CSNT-N was most correlated with the precipitation in May-June with droughts in those months translating to a greater percentage of fields testing excessive. Because crop and manure management history, soil type and growing conditions all impact CSNT results, conclusions about future N management should take into account the events of the growing season. This includes weed and disease pressure, lack of moisture in the root zone in drought years, lack of oxygen in the root zone due to excessive rain in wet years, and any other stress factor that can impact crop growth and N status.

Note: Data prior to 2013 reflect corn stalk nitrate test submissions to NMSP only; 2013, 2014, and 2017-2022 data include results from NMSP and Dairy One; 2015-2016 includes samples from NMSP, Dairy One, and CNAL. Yield data are from the USDA – National Agricultural Statistics Service. Rainfall data obtained from CLIMOD 2 (Northeast Regional Climate Center).

Within-field spatial variability can be considerable in New York, requiring (1) high density sampling (equivalent of 1 stalk per acre at a minimum) for accurate assessment of whole fields, or (2) targeted sampling based on yield zones, elevations, or soil management units. The 2018 expansion of adaptive management options for nutrient management now includes targeted CSNT sampling because of findings that targeted sampling generates more meaningful information while reducing the time and labor investment into sampling. Two years of CSNT data are recommended before making any management changes unless CSNT’s exceed 5000 ppm, in which case one year of data is sufficient.

Figure 1: In drought years more samples test excessive in CSNT-N while fewer test low or marginal. The last 11 years include six drought years (2012, 2016, 2018, and 2020 through 2022), three wet years (2011, 2013, and 2017), and four years labelled normal (2010, 2014, 2015, 2019) determined by May-June rainfall (less than 7.5 inches in drought years, 10 or more inches in wet years).

Relevant References

Acknowledgments

We thank the many farmers and farm consultants that sampled their fields for CSNT. For questions about these results contact Quirine M. Ketterings at 607-255-3061 or qmk2@cornell.edu, and/or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Farmers Produce More Milk with Less Phosphorus and Nitrogen!

Olivia Godber1, Mart Ros1, Agustin Olivo1, Kristan Reed2, Mike van Amburgh2, Kirsten Workman1,3, and Quirine Ketterings1

1Nutrient Management Spear Program, 2Department of Animal Science, 3PRODAIRY, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

The Cornell whole farm nutrient mass balance (NMB) is an assessment tool that farms can use to calculate their nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) use efficiency at the farm level. By calculating the difference in the amount of nutrients imported into and exported out of the farm in a given calendar year, the amount of nutrients remaining on the farm or lost to the environment can be estimated (Figure 1).

Figure 1: A whole farm nutrient mass balance is derived by subtracting exports of nutrients in milk, animals leaving the farm, crops sold, and manure exported from nutrients imported with feed, fertilizer, animals, and bedding/manure/food waste, and dividing this difference by the total acreage of the farm (balance per acre) and by the total amount of milk produced (balance per cwt).

The balance per acre indicates how well the farm is putting nutrients to use on the farm, and the risk of losing nutrients to the environment. The balance per cwt milk indicates how efficiently the farm is using nutrients to produce milk. A positive P and K balance indicates soil buildup and potential losses for those nutrients over time. Nitrogen is more difficult to retain from one year to the next so a large portion of the N balance will be lost to the environment. Negative balances are undesirable as that can lead to yield losses and soil mining of P and K. Feasible balances were set for New York, Table 1: Feasible balances for New York dairy farms. Whole Farm Nutrient Mass Balances 	(lb/acre)	(lb/cwt) Nitrogen	0-105	0-0.88 Phosphorus	0-12	0-0.11 Potassium	0-37	0-0.30based on data from 102 dairy farms (Table 1). Feasible limits are positive (>0) to account for unavoidable losses, inevitable in all biological systems.

The ideal situation is for a farm to fall within the optimal operational zone (or “Green Box”; Figure 2). A farm falls within the Green Box when both the balance per acre, and the balance per cwt of milk are within the feasible limits. When this is the case, there is a lower risk of losing nutrients to the environment, greater nutrient use efficiency, and being within the Green Box can have both economic and environmental gains for the farm.

Key drivers of excessive balances include animal density, the proportion of feed produced on the farm, feed use efficiency, and fertilizer use. Fine-tuning fertilizer use and the amount of crude protein (CP) and P in animal feed, as well as increasing the production of homegrown feed, can help to improve balances. When animal density increases above one animal unit (AU) per acre (where 1 AU = 1000 lb; a cow and her replacement is roughly two animal units), manure exports become increasingly important to meet the feasible balances, especially for P.

scatter plot of results
Figure 2: The “Green Box” signals farms that meet the feasible balances per acre (blue zone) and per cwt (yellow zone). Grey dots represent farms across New York that participated in the whole farm nutrient mass balance (NMB) assessment (2003-2021).

The Good News!

There has been great progress in the reduction of P balances of New York dairy farms. Farmers who conducted the NMB assessment in 2017-2019 had balances of 0.07 lb P/cwt (Table 2). Farms in the assessment in 2005-2007, had balances of 0.11 lb P/cwt. This shows tremendous improvement in P use efficiency while the P balance per acre only slightly increased (0.1 lb P/acre) and still below the feasible balance of 12 lb P/acre established for New York.

Dairy farms participating in whole-farm nutrient mass balance assessments in recent years: •	Produced over 50% more milk per acre than farms participating in earlier years; •	Produced this milk with a 36% improvement in phosphorus use efficiency; •	Fed diets with a lower crude protein content, improving nitrogen efficiency; •	Are actively engaged in identifying more opportunities for improvement in nitrogen efficiency.Did farmers give up milk? No! The average milk production per acre was 9,500 lb/acre in 2005-2007 (0.81 AU/acre), compared to 14,900 lb/acre in 2017-2019 (1.10 AU/acre). Overall, farms participating in 2017-2019 produced more milk, on less land, with no major change in the environmental impact (in terms of P) compared to farms participating in 2005-2007.

For N, the balance per cwt decreased from 0.89 to 0.82 lb N/cwt (CP of the diet went from 16.1% to 15.5%). The footprint per acre increased by 26 lb N/acre, reflecting both the higher animal density, and increased N fertilizer use of the farms in the 2017-2019 dataset. However, if no progress had been made in N management, particularly the lower CP content of the diets and increased milk yields, the increase in animal density of the more recent summary would have placed the farms even further outside of the Green Box for lb N/acre (closer to 128 lb N/acre, based on the performance of the farms in 2005-2007). Thus, for N this is also a good news story, but continued effort in management of N imports, exports and efficiency of use is needed for the N balance to be within the Green Box.

Next Steps?

It is clear from the data collected by the farmers in these NMB assessments that there has been tremendous progress in lowering the amount of N and P used to produce milk by dairy farmers in New York. Future work should focus on further reducing the CP content of cow diets without compromising performance, and optimizing manure storage and land application systems (e.g. timing, injection or incorporation) to minimize N losses from manure and reduce the reliance on fertilizer imports. For higher density farms, exploring options for cost-effective manure export should also be a focus. Improving N management on the farm will not only have the potential to improve N balances and farm economics, but also reduce nitrous oxide (N­2O) emissions, a potent greenhouse gas.

Acknowledgements

We thank the farmers and farm advisors as well as many past and current NMSP team members who worked on the whole farm nutrient mass balance project with us over the past 15+ years. This research is funded primarily by a gift from Chobani, in addition to Federal Formula Funds, and grants from the Northern New York Agriculture Development Program (NNYADP), Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture and Education (NESARE), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). For questions about these results, contact Quirine M. Ketterings at qmk2@cornell.edu, and/or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Homegrown Feed for Dairy Farms in New York

Olivia Godber1, Mart Ros1, Agustin Olivo1, Kristan Reed2, Mike van Amburgh2, Kirsten Workman1,3, and Quirine Ketterings1

1Nutrient Management Spear Program, 2Department of Animal Science, 3PRODAIRY, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Introduction

Between 2017 and 2019, 110 New York dairy farms completed their whole farm nutrient mass balance assessment. Of the feed fed to the animals on the farms, almost 70% was homegrown, which means it was produced on the land-base operated by the farm itself (Figure 1a). Almost all this homegrown feed was forages such as corn silage, alfalfa, and grass. The farms averaged 0.56 mature cows per acre (weighted by tillable acres). How does this compare to average values in the United States and why is this important?

Comparison with Dairies in New York and Nationally

The share of homegrown feed for the New York farms was considerably high than typically reported across the US. The number of mature cows per acre was higher across the US (Figure 1b), while farmers in the assessment spent considerably less on feed costs per unit of milk produced than reported for the US (Figure 1c).

graphical representation of study results
Figure 1: (a) The share of homegrown feed on New York dairy farms participating in the 2017-2019 nutrient mass balance assessment (histogram); (b) the average number of mature cows per acre of cropland on dairy farms in the US (boxplot) and on New York dairy farms (blue diamond) according to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, and the average number of mature cows per tillable acre for New York dairy farms participating in the 2017-2019 nutrient mass balances (green diamond); (c) the average amount spent on purchased feed per ton of milk sold for US dairy farms (boxplot) and New York dairy farms (blue diamond) according to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture.

Importance of Optimizing Homegrown Forage Production

The more feed that is homegrown, the greater the opportunity for the farm to: •	Reduce feed imports and fluctuation in associated costs; •	Control and adjust for changes in forage quality; •	Reduce the need for synthetic fertilizer by enhancing nutrient recycling on the farm through manure application to the land base; •	Maintain/improve soil test phosphorus levels; •	Improve soil health, crop production and climate resiliency with use of manure;  •	Enhance carbon sequestration; •	Avoid costs associated with manure export off the farm; •	Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer production and transport of feed; •	Implement practices that promote biodiversity on the farm-base through crop rotation and management.For most dairy farms, feed purchases are the largest annual expense, so growing forages on the farm’s land base reduces the costs of feed. However, there are also other reasons why optimizing homegrown feed is key.

    • Reducing the amount of feed that needs to be imported helps to avoid the carbon and energy footprint that imported feeds have (production elsewhere plus transport to the farm).
    • By minimizing feed imports, farms are also minimizing the risk of feed price fluctuations and economic uncertainty.
    • Farmers that grow feed have greater control over the quality of that feed. They can select what crops are needed and in which quantities to meet the needs of their animals.
    • Farmers can, to a certain extent, alter crop management practices as needed, and optimize nutrient use, thereby reducing nutrient losses to the environment.
    • By increasing nutrient recycling with the use of manure on the farm itself, farms are reducing their reliance on fertilizer use. This results in a smaller environmental footprint for feed production. Optimizing the use of manure over synthetic fertilizer can also help with managing volatile fertilizer prices and with the farm’s overall economic sustainability.
    • Farms with insufficient land base will need to export manure. By optimizing feed production and animal density, a farm can reap the benefits of using manure, thereby avoiding extra expenses incurred with manure export (if feasible at all) and avoiding carbon emissions associated with the transport of manure beyond the farm boundaries.

Acknowledgements

We thank the farmers, farm advisors and past and current NMSP team members who worked on the whole farm NMB project with us over the past 15+ years. This research is funded primarily by a gift from Chobani, in addition to Federal Formula Funds, and grants from the Northern New York Agriculture Development Program (NNYADP), Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture and Education (NESARE), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). For questions, contact Quirine M. Ketterings (qmk2@cornell.edu) or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email