Journal of Nutrient Management – Qtr 1 – 2024

j.dewitt@bauer-at.com

t.poteat@bauer-at.com

j.moeggenberg@bauer-at.com

r.francis@bauer-at.com

r.hultgren@bauer-at.com

Managing Editor

Abby Bauer

Art Director

Todd Garrett

Editorial Coordinator

Jennifer Yurs

Director of Marketing

John Mansavage

Advertising Sales

Beth Gierke bgierke@nutrientmgmt.com

Advertising Coordinator Patti Kressin pkressin@hoards.com

Online Media Manager Patti Hurtgen phurtgen@hoards.com

Digital Marketing Manager Sam Rasmussen samr@hoards.com

Publisher W.D. Hoard & Sons Co. Brian V. Knox, President

CONTACT INFORMATION

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

Website: www.jofnm.com Email: info@jofnm.com Phone: 920-563-5551

About

Journal of Nutrient Management (ISSN# 26902516) is published four times annually in February, May, August, and November by W.D. Hoard & Sons Company, 28 Milwaukee Ave. West, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538 Tel: (920) 563-5551. Email: info@ jofnm.com Website: www.jofnm.com. Postmaster: Send address corrections to: Journal of Nutrient Management, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538-0801. Tel: (920) 563-5551. Email: info@jofnm. com. Subscription Rates: Free and controlled circulation to qualified subscribers. For Subscriber Services contact: Journal of Nutrient Management, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538, call (920) 563-5551, Email: info@jofnm.com.

Copyright © 2024 W.D. Hoard & Sons Company. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Content may not be reproduced or used for any commercial activity without express written consent from W. D. Hoard & Sons Company

Abby Bauer Managing Editor

A sense of community

During a lunchtime discussion at a recent conference, my tablemates and I were sharing our backgrounds and what brought us to our careers in agriculture. The gentleman to my left recently started a role in dairy product processing, coming from another food manufacturing industry before that.

A bubbly woman sitting across the table who initiated the conversation offered him an enthusiastic welcome to the agriculture industry. Unlike those of us who grew up immersed in some form of livestock or crop production, she was also a “newbie” of sorts. After growing up in a metropolitan area, she embarked on a political career before joining the cheese manufacturing world.

She raved about the sense of community she felt working in the agriculture industry. She compared conferences to family reunions, as a place where people could reconnect with friends, old and new.

Whether you have been living and working in the agriculture field for a short time or your whole life, most would agree that a special group of people make up this industry. These are the people we work with to complete day-to-day tasks and reach long-term goals. These are the people with who we celebrate success and also trudge through hard times.

If we work together, we can achieve more. Sometimes, a problem that can’t be solved alone can be tackled by a larger group and bring positive change for the greater good.

When a county in Wisconsin faced water quality issues, they looked for solutions that included teaming up with local farmers. One option to tackle soil phosphorus build up and loss from repeated manure applications was the use of anaerobic digesters, but the installation of these systems is not feasible for many livestock operations. By creating a community digester, several dairy farms, the county, and its residents could realize the benefits from this investment. Read more about one of the participating dairies on page 14.

Environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are all over the

news these days. There is a lot of finger-pointing as to who is to blame, and livestock production is unfortunately considered a culprit. The thing is, within agriculture, we can’t accuse just one species, one type of farming, or one region. And looking at it with a broader lens, we can’t fault just one industry, or one country, or one bad decision for the current state of the world. Collectively, our actions as a modern society have slowly taken a toll on the environment.

Now, we are hyperfocused on finding solutions, and every step we take in the right direction is a good one. Consumers can be less wasteful with their food; farms can strive to shrink their carbon footprint. Auto companies can work toward vehicles that are more environmentally friendly, and the list goes on.

Still, one action, one farm, or one industry can’t change the tide alone. It will take collaboration between the businesses producing the goods, the companies selling the goods, and the people consuming them. For us in agriculture, we can use that strong sense of community along the entire food production chain to do our part to help better the world, now and in the future.

Until next time, Abby

Let us know your thoughts. Write Managing Editor Abby Bauer, 28 Milwaukee Ave. West, P.O. Box 801, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538; call: 920-563-5551; or email: abauer@jofnm.com.

POLICY WATCH

MICHIGAN

State agriculture groups and attorneys representing more than 100 farmers pleaded their case to the Michigan Supreme Court, contending that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) overstepped its authority when new rules were written into the permit by EGLE in 2020 without going through the required legislative process. The permit was updated with lowered phosphorus application limits, banned the transfer of manure to other farms from January to March, and expanded reporting requirements, among other changes. This led agricultural groups to first bring the case to lower courts in 2020. Michigan Farm Bureau does not expect a decision to be made by the Supreme Court until late spring or early summer.

CALIFORNIA

The California Dairy Research Foundation and the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation awarded $15.65 million in grant funding to 11 projects in the Dairy Digester and Research Development Program and $3.74 million to three projects in the Dairy Plus Program. Together, these projects are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 198,196 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. The grants cover large-scale projects that improve water quality, nutrient management, and methane reduction.

FRANCE

Manure was used as a prop by protestors last month in the French city of Toulouse. Farmers there were angered by agricultural policies, rising taxes, and social charges that put further hardship on their operations on top of rising prices for fuel and animal feed.

More than 1,000 farmers from across the region were part of the protest, bringing 400 tractors into the city before dawn. Manure, hay, and rotting fruit were dumped in piles in front of the regional authority building and in supermarket parking lots across the city.

THE INNOVATIVE BIOSELECT FOR EFFICIENT MANURE SEPARATION.

OREGON

All dairy farms in Oregon will be required to have a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permit, the state’s Department of Agriculture decided. Under state rules, livestock and poultry operations qualify as a CAFO if they confine animals, discharge into waterways, or rely on wet systems for waste treatment.

Earlier last year, the Oregon Department of Agriculture aimed to permit about 100 raw milk producers who met those criteria but were not properly licensed, but they offered a waiver to farms that utilized all dairy products produced on-site. The waiver was later revoked based on criticism that a farm’s end use of its milk is not relevant to how it impacts water quality.

FEATURES:

+ Low Life-Cycle Costs

+ Turnkey from a Single Source: Separator Pump(s)

Control Unit

Stationary or Mobile Skids

+ Large Capacities

+ Patented Profile Auger with Counter Bearing for No Auger Screen Contact

+ Continuously Variable Dry Matter Content

844-647-7867 | www.boerger.com

Estimating carbon balance on farms

The ability to achieve environmental and economic goals starts with tools that accurately assess a farm’s carbon baseline.

by Alison Duff, Kristan Reed, and Peter

Vadas

Climate change is a growing risk for the agricultural sector, and livestock producers are looking for ways to improve the resilience of their operations while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The U.S. Dairy Net Zero Initiative has pledged to achieve net-zero dairy by 2050, which will require that GHG emissions generated by dairy production are offset by carbon dioxide (CO2) that is removed from the atmosphere.

At the same time, the federal government is investing in a nationwide strategy for measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) of GHGs and carbon storage in the agriculture and forestry sectors. In order to track progress toward net zero agriculture, we need to understand farm carbon balance and how new innovations and alternative management practices will affect emissions and carbon storage.

The complete picture

Farm carbon balance provides a snapshot of a farm’s GHG emissions after subtracting carbon storage in soil and plants. In dairy operations, major GHG emissions include methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation and manure management, nitrous oxide (N2 O) from field emissions and manure management, and CO2 from farm energy and fertilizer use. Permanent perennial cover (grasslands, woodlands, and wetlands) provides long-term carbon storage in agricultural landscapes, while integrat-

ing pasture or perennial forages into the farm system may add opportunities for soil carbon accumulation.

Significant research investment has been directed at reducing enteric CH4 emissions from ruminant livestock. Promising strategies include herd genetic selection, new feed additives, precision feeding for animal age classes, and management practices that enhance herd health and longevity.

A growing number of dairy producers are transitioning their replacement heifers to pasture to reduce feed costs and improve animal health. Although grazing may elevate herd enteric CH4 emissions, conversion of underperforming croplands to well-managed pasture elevates soil organic carbon while reducing the contributions of young stock to manure storage facilities.

Manure management is a major challenge for livestock operators who want to reduce their GHG emissions while faced with the constraints of manure storage infrastructure and spreadable acres. For confinement dairies, manure emissions are second only to enteric methane as a source of farm GHGs and may be greater on farms with large storage lagoons. At the same time, managing manure as a valuable nutrient resource can bolster farm profitability while improving farm carbon balance.

From livestock to crops

In the best-case scenario, livestock operations are circular systems, where

nutrients are removed from the field as biomass (forage) at harvest, and these nutrients are later returned via manure application. A 2005 review documented notable benefits of manure application, including improvements in soil structure, increases in soil organic carbon and microbial activity, and greater aggregate stability. This is in addition to the climate and economic benefits of substituting manure for expensive fossil fuel-derived fertilizers. Technologies that will better predict manure nutrient content and allow for precision application are in development and have potential to make the substitution of manure for synthetic fertilizers less risky for crop production.

Ensuring that nutrient applications are aligned with crop need is a key strategy for reducing field GHG emissions and other losses to the environment. Large confinement operations may require spreadable acres that extend beyond the footprint of their land base. In this scenario, the manure generated by the herd exceeds the nutrient requirements of the operator’s croplands.

To achieve nutrient mass balance, it is necessary to transport manure to more distant croplands in need of nutrient applications. The USDA Agricultural Research Service’s Manureshed Working Group is developing innovative, cost-effective solutions for processing and redistributing manure to locations with nutrient deficits to achieve both agronomic and environmental benefits. Effective strategies for reducing GHG

emissions from manure handling vary with farm size. Composting is relatively inexpensive and can significantly reduce CH4 emissions from manure storage. Solid-liquid separation allows for handling of solid and liquid fractions that can be managed more effectively for land application. For large farms or networks of farms, it may be economically feasible to install lagoon covers or digesters.

Crunching the numbers

A number of decision support tools have been developed to process farm data and predict how new or improved practices are likely to affect farm economic and environmental outcomes. Unfortunately, they typically lack transparency and are limited in their capacity for capturing the complex dynamics of dairy farm systems.

The Ruminant Farm System (RuFaS)

decision-making on dairy farms. The model is transparent, allows the user to add variables that are relevant to an operation’s climate, soil, and production system context, and accounts for the interactions between farm subsystems.

The vision of the development team is that RuFaS will advance research and be an applied tool for the dairy industry. Thus, the envisioned path to impact for the model is illustrated in these steps:

1. Footprinting — RuFaS calculates baseline estimates of current farm outputs and environmental outcomes.

2. Planning — RuFaS identifies practices that will generate progress toward farm sustainability goals.

3. Implementation — RuFaS informs decisions to implement practices, track progress, and facilitate continuous improvement.

4. Impact — RuFaS applications

Manure-livestock systems are complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution for improving farm carbon balance. Strategies to achieve net zero, as well as other environmental and economic goals, should be adapted to the farm operation in its regional context. This begins with an accurate accounting of a farm’s baseline performance and requires effective tools for tracking farm emissions, crop and animal production, and economic and environmental outcomes. Best management practices that promote manure from waste stream to valuable nutrient resource are a key strategy for improving both farm carbon balance and profitability. 

The authors are a research ecologist with the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, an assistant professor with Cornell University, and a national program leader for land and air with USDA

PROTECT WATER AND YOUR POCKETBOOK

Careful application of manure keeps valuable nutrients where they belong, providing environmental and financial benefits.

by Chris Bandura and Laura Paletta

We know that manure is rich in many nutrients and a valuable resource when applied back onto fields that can benefit from manure application. Research has demonstrated positive impacts to soil quality and health, crop production, and overall farm management when manure is managed effectively. There are, however, water quality and natural resource concerns related to the improper handling of manure.

In states where livestock farms are prominent, large amounts of manure are produced annually; most of this manure

is applied back onto the fields for future crop production. Accounting for the nutrient content of manure and crediting that nutrient content toward the following year’s crop nutrient demand is imperative, both for farm profitability and environmental protection.

Content, availability, and value

Nutrient content of manure is dependent on several factors, including animal species, incorporation method and timing (for nitrogen), and form (solid versus liquid). Manure nutrient book values are commonly used to give

growers and nutrient management planners a “ballpark” idea as to what their manure nutrient content is. However, the best practice is to collect samples from each manure source on the farm and have them tested at an approved laboratory.

Recommended manure sampling methods can be found on the University of Wisconsin Soil and Forage Analysis Laboratory website, while a list of approved manure analysis laboratories can be found on the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection website.

Additionally, the total amount of nutrients in manure are generally not 100% available to crops; rather, a percentage of the total becomes available over a one- to three-year time period. Factors such as animal species, form, and application and incorporation practice influence nutrient availability of manure to crops. For more information related to typical nutrient content and nutrient availability of manure, please reference Chapter 9 in the UW-Extension Publication A2809 (Nutrient application guidelines for field, vegetable, and fruit crops in Wisconsin). The value of livestock manure can be determined by comparing the nutrient value to your fertilizer prices. Using data from Table 1 for liquid dairy manure, a field receiving 10,000 gallons per acre would contribute about $143.60 per acre in total nutrient value, for

example. Consider factors that can influence this monetary evaluation of manure as a resource, such as a change in fertilizer-nutrient prices, and expect fluctuations over time.

Water quality impacts

One reason to carefully manage manure is for the financial benefit, but another important reason is the potential impact it can have on water quality. Nitrates entering drinking water pose a human health risk, such as raised heart rate, nausea, headaches, and methemoglobinemia (also known as blue baby syndrome).

When excess phosphorus enters into streams, rivers, or lakes, it can cause eutrophication. This triggers plant and algae growth, negatively impacting the environment for fish and other aquatic species. A few examples where manure

can contribute to water quality issues are over application of manure, manure application before a rainfall, and manure application on frozen soil.

Advice for spreading

Having multiple options to spread manure throughout the growing season is extremely valuable for the farmer and the environment. Options that allow spreading during better weather conditions, such as late spring and summer, are also when fields have more erosion-reducing vegetation coverage (to intercept raindrops) and a growing crop to immediately use the nutrients.

Spreading manure on growing plants means that plants can immediately take up the nutrients rather than leaving them vulnerable to moving off the field. During summer months, weather conditions tend to be drier and there

Typical total nutrient content (book values) of dairy liquid and dairy solid manures, estimated monetary value of each nutrient (values in parentheses), and total estimated

values over various manure application rates

1Units for total nutrient content are: pounds per 1,000 gallons (for liquid dairy manure) or pounds per ton (for solid dairy manure). These values are from Table 9.2 in UW-Extension Publication A2809, 2012. Nitrogen content is based on estimated first-year availability (assuming injection for liquid and less than one hour to incorporation for solid) while that for P, K, and S are total nutrient values.

2Nutrient prices were based on the UW-Extension Fertilizer Price Survey from spring 2023 and are 62 cents per pound N; 69 cents per pound P2O5; 44 cents per pound K2O; and 59 cents per pound S.

is less chance of large runoff events, further reducing the risk.

Incorporating manure into a small grain or alternative forage rotation would also be a great option in summer months. Newer technologies and equipment allow spreading on standing crops without reducing yields. The Ohio State University has investigated different timings and ways to spread manure on standing corn. In a fouryear study, they found that using a dragline to spread manure did not impact corn yields if used before the V5 stage.

Spreading manure in the fall after harvest leaves manure’s nutrients untouched by plants until the following spring and susceptible to losses via erosion or runoff. If spreading manure in the fall, choose fields that have a growing cover crop or have large amounts of crop residue on the surface. Wait until microbial activity slows down when soil temperatures cool (below 50°F), but apply manure before the soil freezes to help reduce nitrogen losses.

If possible, it’s best to not spread in the wintertime, once soil is frozen. Infiltration slows down or stops when the soil is frozen, which means that any

Manure applied on a growing crop allows for a more immediate uptake of nutrients and helps prevent runoff.

rain that falls on frozen soil is more likely to run off the field. If manure must be spread, choose a location with a low slope that is well drained, far from surface water, and that has vegetative cover throughout the winter.

Over the years, many farms have fine tuned their manure handling process. If help is needed, the University of Wisconsin Soil Nutrient Application Planning Software (SnapPlus) has tools that provide recommendations on the best man-

agement practices related to manure. Ideally, manure and fertilizer should be applied as close to the crop’s nutrient uptake as possible, with application methods fine-tuned to reduce nutrient losses by erosion or to the atmosphere. 

The authors serve as the conservation cropping outreach specialist and the agriculture water quality outreach specialist, respectively, for the University of WisconsinMadison Division of Extension.

APPLYING SWINE MANURE TO HYBRID RYE

Hybrid rye can be used as a grain source for livestock while the straw can be used for bedding. Hybrid rye is also being considered as an alternative feed in swine production, so researchers at the University of Minnesota looked at the potential of hog manure as a primary nutrient source for this crop.

At the West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris, Minn., five different rates of liquid, solid, and composted swine manure were applied in early fall. Rates of application ranged from zero to 240 pounds of first-year available nitrogen per acre, assuming 75% of the total nitrogen would be available the first year for the liquid and solid manure and 40% availability for the

composted manure.

The manure was incorporated within 12 hours of application, and the hybrid rye was planted a few days later. The rye was harvested the following summer, and the grain was analyzed for crude protein.

Grain yield of 100 bushels per acre was achieved where liquid manure was applied, compared to 80 bushels per acre for the other two manure types. Crude protein was not affected by the manure source, which the researchers indicate could mean that nitrogen may not have been the main reason for the lower yield in the solid and composted manure fields. Overall, crude protein rose with the application rate, regardless of the manure type.

Yield of the hybrid rye was not significantly higher when liquid manure was applied at a rate above 120 pounds of first-year available nitrogen per acre. Similarly, yield was not significantly higher for solid or composted manure when applied above 60 pounds of first-year available nitrogen per acre. The researchers noted that higher rates of applied manure improved yield slightly but substantially overapplied phosphorus and potassium, emphasizing the need to optimize nitrogen without building up phosphorus levels.

The second year of the study is underway. The goal is to determine if integrating winter hybrid wheat into the crop rotation is a viable option for hog producers. 

Spring ahead or fall behind

Consider adopting a spring soil sampling schedule — it comes with low risk and many benefits.

by Scott Fleming

There are about two million farms in the United States according to the USDA. Each of these farms has a need for all types of agricultural testing, but soil testing is the tried and true analysis used on almost every farm.

There is no official list of soil testing laboratories in the U.S., but Robert Miller of the American Laboratory Proficiency program estimates the total number of laboratories at 175. This number breaks down to 30 university laboratories and 145 commercial laboratories. It doesn’t take long to realize that commercial laboratories bear a tremendous load when it comes to providing quality, timely analysis services to two million farms.

While not every field is tested every year, just imagine the amount of soil being shipped around the country for analysis. Then take a moment to think about when all of this soil sampling generally occurs. After all, not many people would consider walking a field of 10-foot-tall corn with a backpack and a hand probe to collect soil samples before the fall rush. The majority of soil samples are pulled in the 60 days following harvest. Obviously, various crops and geography can spread this “fall rush” out to some degree, but the main window is still the months of September through December.

The typical routine

The goal of soil analysis has always been to determine a field’s response to added fertilizer. After all, without a soil test to back up decision making, you’re just guessing what amendments a field may need. In a manure system, this may look a little different. Soil tests are likely pulled to ensure overapplications are not occurring, particularly in phosphorus management.

Regardless of why the soil tests are pulled, the process is going to look the same:

1. The crop is harvested.

2. The sampler is notified.

3. The sampler completes the task.

4. The samples are shipped.

5. The samples are analyzed.

6. The sample results are evaluated.

7. The results are delivered to the grower.

8. Fertilizer is ordered.

9. Fertilizer is applied.

10. Finally, fall tillage and manure application can take place. It seems simple when a phone call is all it takes to order soil sampling, but the entire process is all but simple. A lot of actions need to go off without a hitch to ensure all of this happens in a timely manner. A realistic time expectation is probably around two weeks to complete all 10 steps. But it doesn’t have to be this way!

What if the soil sampling timeline could look drastically different? What if we could make the process take three months instead of two weeks? What if taking longer was more efficient?

All of this and more could be yours with a transition to spring soil sampling.

The gift of spring

It sounds like a late-night infomercial, but this plan does actually work! A transition to spring sampling isn’t delaying all of the fall sampling needs until the next spring. It’s actually

quite the opposite. It’s moving up next fall’s to-do list to the spring of the year.

Soil samples can be pulled any time from when the ground is conditioned for planting up until the crop is too tall to facilitate sampling. For the majority of crops, in most locations, this allows for a month or more of time to pull samples. Then, all the logistics associated with a soil sampling event can take place during the growing season and don’t have to be performed the instant the results hit your inbox.

The next gift is one that may mean the most: the gift of money. Fertilizer prices fluctuate throughout the year. Capitalizing on these price fluctuations offers tremendous opportunities to a grower that has a plan. The problem is, most of these seasonal low prices occur during the growing season. If updated soil tests are not pulled, an accurate picture of fertilizer demand cannot be established. If samples are pulled in spring, fall fertilizer demands are already established during the growing season and you can jump on a late summer price break with confidence.

The final gift from spring sampling is the gift of freedom. Freedom from the pressure to get everything done as fast as humanly possible in the fall. Freedom from the race against rain, snow, and freezing temperatures in the fall.

There is also freedom from regulation. Regulation on all of agriculture, especially large-scale animal agriculture, is constantly increasing. If a soil sampling event gets missed in the spring, there is another opportunity to pull the samples prior to the winter nutrient management planning season. But if a fall soil sample gets missed, Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) must be submitted to the governing agencies with missing and/or out-of-date soil samples. These violations of nutrient management law sully the name of both the planner and the farm for a relatively minor infraction. Attempting to pull soil samples in the one small window after harvest, and prior to tillage or manure application, doesn’t set the nutrient management team up for success.

Tailor the plan

Farming is unpredictable enough. A change in soil sampling should be easy and fit into the long-term plan if it’s going to be successful. Most management changes associated with moving fall sampling up to spring are associated with a gradual transition. The easiest crops to adjust the sampling timeline for are forages, as most have several harvest windows. Sampling after second or third crop hay moves the sampling process up from fall harvest or winter dormancy. It is highly likely that when these forage fields are due for retest, they will be in an annual crop. This group of fields can then be transitioned all the way to spring when due for retesting. Another set of fields that are very easily moved to spring are late-harvest fields. A few quality candidates for bumping up to spring are corn fields harvested for grain, forage crops following wheat, or fields that were late planted in spring after harvesting rye. These fields are ideal for transitioning quickly, as every single day matters when a grower is up against winter weather. The late harvest creates an even greater sense of urgency when it comes to timing, especially if manure is going to be applied to these fields. Sampling late-harvest fields the preceding spring allows for unencumbered timing of yearly farming practices.

Soil sampling isn’t as exciting as chopping silage or as vital as applying manure, but it carries major weight in an operation’s overall success. Therefore, for soil sampling to be successful, there has to be a plan.

When growers sit down to develop a crop plan, soil sampling should be part of the discussion. Establish which fields are due for soil test updates and which fields may need testing beyond the norm, such as a higher quantity of samples or more frequent testing. This is the perfect time to establish which fields would be good candidates for a shift to spring sampling.

Doing something different than the crowd will always feel a little risky at first. But the jump forward to spring soil sampling carries zero risk. It’s actually quite the opposite. There is a tremendous amount of opportunity associated with the change.

Take a step back and see if your operation could benefit from more time, more money, and less regulation. When you evaluate how you could incorporate this change in timing into your operation, the choice may be easy. 

The author is a nutrient management specialist and sampling director at Rock River Laboratory in

Focused on family and the future

Ripp’s Dairy Valley centers around productive cows, healthy soil, generations of farmers working together, and a community digester that helps them reach their sustainability goals.

By Abby Bauer, Managing Editor

Nestled in a valley in south central Wisconsin is the aptly named Ripp’s Dairy Valley. Within view are rolling hills and two neighboring dairies, along with an anaerobic digester that has been part of the landscape for more than a decade now.

This digester does not belong to one of the dairies; it is a community digester, with manure coming from this trio of farms plus two others in the area. These farms are located in Dane County, the Badger State’s second most populous county and home of its capital. Concerns of high phosphorus levels in local bodies of water led county leaders to pursue opportunities to reduce runoff, improve nutrient cycling, and create value-added products. One solution on the table was to build a community anaerobic digester.

Discussions ensued, and paperwork was filed by interested farms. To be successful, the digester needed multiple dairies in close proximity that could pump manure to the digester, reducing road traffic. In the end, White Gold Dairy, Endres Dairy, and Ripp’s Dairy Valley signed on the dotted line, and a partnership began to establish the first centralized or community digester in the state. Today, there are two community digesters in Dane County, and in 2022, they processed 105 million

Three generations of the Ripp family are involved with the dairy today. Some of the family members working there on a daily basis are Jake, Gary, Chuck, Kailyn, and Riley Ripp.

gallons of manure and removed 231,000 pounds of phosphorus.

A family affair

As they do with any big decisions made on the dairy, the Ripp family of Dane, Wis., carefully thought through this opportunity. Participating in the project made sense, though, as the Ripps have operated with a philosophy to protect the land and water where they live.

“We have always thought about sustainability; now people just found a new word and ways to explain it,” said Gary Ripp, who is equal partners in Ripp’s Dairy Valley with his brothers Chuck and Troy. Another brother, Craig, works on the farm, and their youngest sister, Jackie Wheeler, is their agronomist. Their mother, Eileen, lives in the farmhouse and remains interested in what is going on at the

dairy and loves having so many family members working together.

Over time, the farm has grown, and so has their family. Each brother has a son who works on the farm: Gary’s son Jake, Troy’s son Mason, and Chuck’s son Riley. Chuck’s daughter, Kailyn, is their herdsperson. Also integral to their team are 11 full-time employees.

“We all have families that are very important to us, and some days that’s what gives us the desire to keep going,” Gary said. “It is also very rewarding seeing them grow up and work with you. It can be very challenging, but I also wouldn’t trade that experience for anything.”

Since 2000, the Ripps have milked in a double-16 parallel parlor, and today they are milking about 1,000 cows three times a day. They made upgrades to the parlor over the years, including the addition of milk meters. “That’s our way of knowing how our cows are doing daily; we watch for deviations,” Chuck explained.

The floors in the parlor and holding area are covered in rubber mats, which Chuck said keeps the cows safer and healthier. Years ago, they transitioned all stalls to sand bedding because they felt it offered the best cow comfort, and delivering top-notch care is one of their main priorities, along with incorporating environmentally-friendly practices that also help them care for their land and remain profitable.

“If you take care of your cattle and keep them as comfortable as possible, they will reward you,” noted Gary. “The same goes for your soil; apply nutrients where they are most needed, and cover crops will help keep the nutrients and rain where they are most needed.”

Working with sand

The use of sand is not often correlated with a dairy using a digester, but the Ripps are able to make it work and use recycled sand as bedding, which has had a big cost benefit.

“Recycled sand saves us,” Chuck noted. The Ripps used to buy 10 or 11 loads of sand a week to fulfill their bedding needs, but now they only need about one load a week to satisfy their needs in the stalls for the cows.

The Ripp family does their own manure hauling, which they feel gives them more control of the timing of application. They transport manure in tanker trucks from other industries that they update and repurpose for use in their nutrient management program.

To recapture the sand, two sand separators were installed in 2010, when the Ripps were expanding from 500 to 750 cows and the community digester was being built. Manure is scraped from the alleyways, travels below the barns, and then is pumped to the sand separation building that sits between the freestall barns.

The manure drops into the separator. First it goes through a screener, which sorts out foreign objects such as rocks and ear tags. Then it moves to the sand washer, which uses recycled water plus 3 gallons of clean water per minute to wash out the organic material.

They recover about 95% of the sand, which is piled in the building for a few days and then put into the stalls. The sand dries out more quickly in the summer, the brothers agree, but this system still works well in the winter. They found that if they let the sand sit too long, bacteria starts to grow, so they prefer a quick turnaround.

Gary oversees the sand separation system, along with his nephew Mason, who is their go-to person for keeping the separators operating. Gary said the first equipment they installed to separate sand didn’t work well; it was designed for municipal systems and required too much water to get the sand clean. They made adjustments and investments and are much happier with

the system they now have in place.

Jake is also involved in the manure and cropping side of the dairy. He has a talent for transitioning tanker trucks into manure hauling equipment. The Ripps use these manufactured tanks for their own manure hauling needs, and other farms have requested Jake’s services in manufacturing tankers for them as well.

The Ripps have found that doing their own manure application works best for them because they have many small fields. This way, Gary said, they are not waiting on someone else to come to get this important job done and have more control on application timing.

Manure is collected in a reception lagoon, and from there, more than 30,000 gallons of manure are pumped to the community digester daily. The manure returns from the digester to the farm and is then stored in their 14-million-gallon lagoon, which has enough capacity to give them some flexibility if they are not able to get all their manure applied in the spring or fall.

Valuing the returns

The digester is on its third owner, a California company named Brightmark. Brightmark took over ownership of the digester a few years ago and transitioned to renewable gas production, which the Ripps said has been a

positive change. Semitrucks pick up the gas daily and deliver it to a pipeline in the area.

The participating farms provide the electricity to run the pump that moves the manure to the digester; the pump, the line, and everything else is managed by the operators of the digester. The farms do not receive payment for the gas that is generated and sold, but there are other benefits that go beyond this gas production.

Gary said a big positive for their farm is the removal of phosphorus from the manure. The digester takes out 60% of the phosphorus, which allows them to apply manure with a nutrient content that is closer to what their fields need. They have also noticed less odor when manure is applied.

Removal of the phosphorus does mean that their manure has higher moisture content, returning to the farm with about 6% solids, so they needed to switch to low disturbance injection. To get manure applied, they tried different equipment before having an 18-foot tool bar built, with 24-inch spacing and 12-inch sweeps.

They appreciate that low disturbance application minimizes soil disturbance. As the years go on, they

have moved toward more minimal tillage unless a field requires them to do deeper tillage. In that case, they use an inline subsoiler.

They have also expanded their use of cover crops over time. They started using them as part of their nutrient management plan, and Gary admits that they went through a bit of a learning curve. They started out broadcast seeding oats but did not get much growth and thought it was not worth it. However, as they began experimenting more and learning from other farmers, they found what works best for them.

For example, they learned that spring barley was a good fit for their farm. It is more aggressive and grows better than oats, and it tolerates manure application well. It doesn’t overwinter, so the Ripps don’t have to worry about terminating it in the spring when they are busy trying to apply manure and get corn planted. Gary said they are happy with their current system, but they are always open to learning more and making changes when needed.

Striving for excellence

“We try to be perfectionists,” explained Gary. “We keep trying to get better at what we are doing.”

This is true out in the fields and back in the barns. The Ripps have been genomic testing their animals since it was first commercially available, and they have realized there is a very big difference in the performance of their animals depending on their genetic makeup. Animals with higher potential are bred to sexed semen to produce future members of the herd. The 15% lowest genomic-tested animals are sold or fed out for beef. The middle group of cows are bred to beef semen. Their reproductive program has earned them silver level honors in the Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council’s awards program, and every year they sell some extra young cows to other dairies.

Feed and nutrition is another priority area on the farm. “I take it seriously how we feed the cows, so I don’t get so much waste,” said Chuck. “My worst days are windy days when it comes to commodities. I would love to build a bigger commodity shed someday to load the mixer inside.”

Heifers are custom raised by a cousin who lives just a few miles away. That location has its own land for feed production, a bunker for feed storage, and manure storage, so it is a very sustainable set up, Chuck noted.

Within eyeshot of the dairy is the community digester where the Ripps and two other dairies pump their manure. Two more dairies truck manure to the site as well.

The beef crossbred calves they produce are fed milk for five to 10 days and then are either raised as beef animals or sold to another farm. Jake, Mason, and Riley raise about 50 to 60 steers a year on another site, and this group of animals is fed feed refusals from the lactating herd. “Nothing is wasted at the farm,” Chuck reiterated. This “no waste” mentality also applies

to water on the dairy. They collect dirty water in two leachate containment centers. This water goes into a pit and is used to wash down the parlor’s holding area where the cows wait to be milked. It is then pumped to the sand separation building to be reused again. It takes a lot of water to recycle sand, Chuck and Gary noted, so it is beneficial to be able to use some recycled water to help with that process.

“Stewardship has always been a focus,” Gary said thoughtfully. “It’s a win-win. We want to see nature beautiful, too.”

Of course, this family dairy is also a business, and the Ripps have found success by making decisions that also make financial sense.

“We are always trying to find things that make us more efficient and environmentally friendly,” Gary noted. “To do this, it also has to be profitable, though,

or we won’t be in business very long.”

As for the future, the Ripps will continue to make changes that benefit the dairy and their family. They were early adopters in terms of the community digester and sand separation, and Gary acknowledged that some aspects of farming require you to live and learn. He said their long-term philosophy has been to put a lot of thought into decisions before making major moves, and that has served them well, but he also noted the value in being ready for change.

“We don’t take care of our cows the same way we did in the 1980s, and we don’t handle our crops the same way either,” said Gary. They are excited about the future and are looking for ways to incorporate the next generation of Ripps into the dairy. In their quest for success, that will include additions and updates that help them best care for their cows, the land, and their people.

The cows are bedded with recycled sand. Once separated, the sand is washed, piled, and then put back into the stalls after a few days.

The environmental impact of copper sulfate

A common footbath solution, copper sulfate, helps keep lameness at bay but poses potential risks when applied to the soil through manure.

By Aerica Bjurstrom

Healthy soil is the foundation of a productive farm. Monitoring soil health and maintaining soil integrity can improve water filtration, boost crop production and health, and foster biological and physical components of soil. Applied dairy manure is likely to have a higher copper concentration than nondairy manure. That’s because copper sulfate is a common and recommended ingredient for use in footbaths to prevent causes of lameness, including digital dermatitis.

Digital dermatitis (DD) is a contagious disease that impacts a cow’s hoof health, causing lameness. It is estimated to be present in 70% of U.S. dairy herds and 95% of larger dairy herds. Digital dermatitis spread rapidly throughout the U.S. in the 1990s as herds consolidated and grew larger. While DD cannot be cured, outbreaks and the spread of the disease can be managed.

Farmers have many options to help control DD, but the most common practice is using a footbath with a copper sulfate solution. Other options are zinc sulfate, formalin, and custom premixes.

The University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine’s Dairyland Initiative recommends using a 2% to 5% concentration of copper sulfate in footbaths. A survey conducted on 45 Wisconsin dairies in 2016 found that copper sulfate was used on 67% of the farms, 40% of which used it at a 4% to 6% concentration, and 27% used it at more than three times the recommended

level at a 12% to 30% concentration.

The Dairyland Initiative also recommends offering a footbath at least three times per week. Forty percent of respondents reported offering a footbath one to three times per week, and 33% reported offering a footbath four to seven times per week, regardless of the type of solution.

The recommendation is to change the footbath after 150 to 300 cows pass through it. Commonly, spent footbath solution is washed into the farm’s manure storage.

Copper in the environment

Elemental copper naturally occurs in soil. When copper is land applied with

manure, much of it will bind with soil organic matter and clays, where it is tied up. Copper does not leach or volatilize; plants take up meager amounts, less than 1 pound per acre per year. Therefore, once the copper is on the farm, it stays there.

High available copper levels can negatively impact soil biology, including nitrogen-fixing rhizobium, earthworms, and soil fungi. High levels can also lead to copper toxicity, impairing plant growth. Alfalfa tends to be more tolerant of high copper levels than corn and other grasses. On average, legume silage typically contains slightly more copper than corn silage

Figure 1. Alfalfa copper concentrations in tissue samples

but still has low amounts at 9 parts per million (ppm).

Copper is a required nutrient for cattle health and growth. Total mixed rations (TMRs) are recommended to contain 13 to 15 ppm copper, with many farms using mineral supplements. High levels of copper are toxic to cattle, with excess copper often accumulating in the animal’s liver. High liver copper concentrations can cause liver, health, and productivity issues. If the animal becomes stressed, the copper can be released into the bloodstream in bulk, causing extreme illness or death. Different breeds have different sensitivities to copper toxicity, with Jerseys being more sensitive than Holsteins.

Copper accumulation in cattle livers has proven to be a concern. A Michigan State University Veterinary Diagnostic Lab study found a mean liver copper concentration of 432 ppm, ranging from 3 to 1,963 ppm in livers submitted to the lab. Copper levels over 500 ppm

have been shown to impact health and productivity, with levels over 850 ppm posing a potential toxicity issue. In the study, almost a third of the animals had liver copper levels over 500 ppm.

A Badger State field study

A 2022 field study was conducted to better understand the impact of copper concentrations in soil, forage, manure, and livestock.

The study collected soil, alfalfa (first and third crop), and manure from participating farms (Figure 1). Alfalfa was collected on all farms before first crop harvest; a tissue sample of the top 6 inches and whole plant samples were collected. Soil samples were collected at depths of 6 inches, 12 inches, 24 inches, and 36 inches. A second set of alfalfa tissue plant samples (from the top 6 inches) were collected at all participating farms’ before third crop. For those farms that applied manure to alfalfa fields after

the third crop, manure samples were collected from storage, and soil samples were taken at 6 inches and 12 inches. Twenty dairies in 12 eastern Wisconsin counties participated in the survey. The farms were located as far north as the Wisconsin/Upper Peninsula of Michigan border down to the Wisconsin/ Illinois border. The dairies had herds that ranged from 190 to 4,600 cows. When comparing tissue sample results for first and third cuts, there was a noticeable increase in copper concentration in the third cut, with average forage concentrations at third cut teetering on the boundary for recommended TMR copper levels. Potential explanations for this increase include greater mineralization and copper availability and higher plant nutrient uptake with more plant transpiration. The trend for higher nutrient concentrations at third cut was true for all nutrients analyzed (phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, boron, zinc,

manganese, and iron) except for calcium.

Not all farms in the survey applied manure after third crop. Manure copper concentrations for the six farms from which samples were taken had an average of 373 ppm, which is lower than copper levels reported in the National Research Council (NRC) literature. A study from Vermont found rising copper levels in manures from 1992 to 2005, with average copper concentrations breaching 500 ppm at the end of the study.

Average soil copper levels were not excessive, averaging 4.7 ppm. The NRC literature identifies a critical toxicity level of 20 to 30 ppm for moderately tolerant crops.

Further comparing the survey results to a 2015 industry survey, alfalfa copper concentrations were higher than reported for northeast Wisconsin and lower than reported southeast Wisconsin values. This is not unexpected due to the variability in manure application rates, frequencies, and soil conditions across the region. A dramatic difference was not seen in alfalfa between areas.

Comparing survey results to a 2005 Wisconsin dairy feed study, alfalfa copper concentrations were almost double their reported concentrations of 6.8 ppm. This is likely due to the 2022 survey targeting farms that use copper sulfate footbaths.

A 2005 study found that while indigenous forage levels are low, the copper levels of imported grain and mineral mixes are drastically higher than the recommended 13 to 15 ppm concentration recommended for TMR. This suggests imported feeds are likely adding to manure copper levels, particularly if forages are being heavily supplemented with imported feed sources.

Levels in the liver

Samples were collected at one of the participating farms to further understand liver copper levels. Twenty-six fresh liver samples were collected from Holstein cows at harvest and evaluated for copper levels at the Iowa State Veterinary Diagnostic Lab. The cows were 3 to 9 years old and in lactations 1 to 6 (Figure 2).

The liver analyses showed a range of 230 ppm from a 7-year-old cow to 740 ppm from a 4-year-old cow. The group mean was 433 ppm, compared to the mean of 432 ppm from the Michigan State University study. Michigan State maintains that adequate liver concentrations range from 75 ppm to 300 ppm. Liver concentration levels over 500 ppm are concerning, and toxicity risk is 850 ppm or higher. Liver analyses show no correlation between cow age and copper concentration levels.

The same farm offered TMR samples to be evaluated for copper concentration. The six diets evaluated were 6-monthold calves, breeding age/bred heifers, dry cows, steam-up/close-up dry cows, post-fresh cows, and lactating cows. The diet analyses showed that all rations were on the low end or below the acceptable range for each age group (Figure 3).

Recommendations for farms

Preliminary results from the field survey show forage copper levels are likely rising in eastern Wisconsin. While they are within the NRC guidelines for feed rations, it is important to continue to monitor soil, forage, and manure concentrations over time. Even though forage levels are within an acceptable range, the impact of elevated copper on cow health and liver concentration is being noted.

A whole farm team approach is one management strategy to monitor copper levels. Recommendations for agriculture service professionals are as follows:

Nutritionist — monitor forage copper levels:

• Reduce unneeded supplementation

• Note changes in forage copper levels

A gronomist — monitor soil and manure copper levels:

• Manage manure applications

• Reduce or eliminate copper fertilization

• Maintain soil pH

Veterinarian — create protocols for efficient footbath use:

• Monitor concentrations of copper sulfate and footbath frequency

• Consider alternating or replacing copper sulfate

• Maintain hoof-trimming schedule

• Spot treat rather than the whole herd

The survey results provide a baseline for future monitoring of soil, manure, and forages. It is important to remember that once copper is in the soil, it will remain there until plants use it. Different plants have different copper tolerances, which may impact forages and herd health in the long run. Judicious use of footbaths on the farm and maintaining a regular hoof trimming schedule will help control digital dermatitis, potentially reducing the need to use footbaths as frequently. ■

Figure 2. Liver copper levels

Figure 3. Total mixed ration (TMR) copper concentration

CLAIMING CREDIT FOR A CARBON CREDIT

Early last month, Athian announced the first sale of verified carbon credits in the livestock carbon insetting marketplace to Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), the nation’s largest milk marketing cooperative. Texas dairy farmer Jasper DeVos utilized Athian’s first accepted protocol to generate carbon credits by reducing enteric methane and improving feed utilization through the use of a feed management product and quantification tool.

During a panel discussion at the International Dairy Foods Association’s Dairy Forum, Corey Scott, vice president of sales and marketing for Athian, explained the difference between carbon credit insetting and offsetting.

Offsetting, she said, typically involves the purchase of carbon reductions or removals from one industry and applying it to another. In other words, when one company removes a unit of carbon from the atmosphere as part of their normal business activity, they can generate a carbon offset. Other companies can purchase that carbon offset to reduce their own carbon footprint.

Scott explained that the intention behind insetting is to work across a supply chain, and some rule nuances come into play. For one, in insetting, the credit stays within the value chain, and multiple players in the value chain can benefit. They can co-invest, co-claim, or legally double count that carbon credit. Typically, insetting is associated with a physical product, and that credit is applied the year it was generated. The credit cannot be retired or resold.

When asked who has ownership of the credit, Scott said, “In an offset market, if a producer sells a credit into a different marketplace, that producer also sells the right to claim that reduction in their own operation for their Scope 1 footprint. In insetting, the producer retains the right to that credit.” Because of the ability to co-claim a credit or double count it, the farmer, their cooperative, and the processor can claim the reduction.

Scott said the value of the carbon

credit varies, but in the current model, 75% of the value a buyer pays for a metric ton of carbon makes its way to the farm gate. The remain-

ON THE MOVE

BE PREPARED TO STAY SAFE

Common sense is not enough when it comes to creating a safe working environment on farms.

by Kathryn E. Childs

More than 170,000 agricultural workers around the world are fatally injured every year, and between 60,000 and 70,000 of those injuries occur in the U.S.

Safety may at times take a backseat to other priorities on a dairy, but Charles Gould of Michigan State University (MSU) Extension believes it should be at the forefront — daily.

Gould’s conversation with MSU Extension educator Martin Mangual on an episode of the podcast Virtual Coffee Break addressed potential dangers of agricultural work and ways in which farmers and their employees may mitigate risk. One of the greatest threats to farm safety is manure storage, said Gould. Manure emits four deadly gases: hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide. Each of these, at varying concentrations, can cause serious health problems, so knowing what to look for is essential in order to provide a safe work environment.

■

HYDROGEN SULFIDE

Hydrogen sulfide numbs sensory nerves in the nose, making it particularly difficult to detect. With exposure to between 10 and 100 parts per million (ppm), more noticeable symptoms begin to occur, including eye and throat irritation, vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea. At over 600 ppm, Gould said, exposure to the gas is fatal.

■

METHANE

Methane displaces oxygen and can cause explosive reactions at fairly low concentrations. Make sure there is no open flame near the manure, Gould said, and maintain a clear area around the pit.

■ AMMONIA

Ammonia may be the easiest to detect. It is so pungent, Gould said, that a high concentration of the gas will cause people to vacate the area, regardless of other symptoms.

■ CARBON DIOXIDE

Exposure to carbon dioxide at a level of between 40,000 and 60,000 ppm for 30 minutes will cause drowsiness, heavy breathing, and headaches. At 250,000 ppm or greater, exposure to carbon dioxide is fatal.

Know the signs

If it isn’t under ventilating slats, Gould said a manure pit should be fenced in with proper warning signage.

“Monitor gas levels regularly,” he added. “Just because you’re outside, it doesn’t mean that you’re safe.”

Gould and Mangual also emphasized how critical it is for farmers and employees to understand the signs of exposure and to have emergency protocols in place. For instance, an untrained employee might attribute irritated eyes to a recent hay harvest

rather than to an overexposure to hydrogen sulfide. If they understand the warning signs, they will better know what is happening and how to remove themselves and others from the premises.

They further advised maintaining a buddy system, keeping breathing apparatus equipment near the site, and setting up lines of communication across the property. If someone begins to show signs of overexposure, do not approach them or the area. Instead, call 911. The last thing you want is a second or third fatality.

Take action

Gould’s final piece of advice? “Do not rely on common sense,” he stated. On a farm, you can’t control what kind of exposure you may encounter on any given day, but you can control how well you prepare yourself and your team for dangerous situations. Having protocols and procedures in place is the surest way to promote a safe work environment.

Consider taking advantage of MSU Extension’s resources as well. Their Manure Hauler Certification Program includes a video about farm safety, and their feed program evaluations for individual farms offer risk assessments and best practice recommendations. These resources can be found at https://on.hoards.com/ manurehaulertraining. ■

The author is a freelance writer based in Rockford, Ill.

Manure emits four dangerous gases that can be deadly at certain concentrations.

LITTER MANAGEMENT AFFECTS MOISTURE AND MORE

Wood shavings have long been used as bedding in poultry houses, but cost and availability have led some farms to reduce the amount of bedding used or eliminate it all together. With this practice, dollars may be saved, but other problems can arise.

According to John Chastain, a professor and extension agricultural engineer at Clemson University, this reduced use of bedding coincides with a trend toward raising larger birds that are often averaging 8 or 9 pounds at the time of sale. On top of that, litter clean out schedules have shifted from every six to 12 months to once every 1.5 years or more.

He said a lack of bedding and longer storage of manure in the houses tends to raise the moisture level of the litter and creates more ammonia in the air. To control the elevated ammonia levels, extra ventilation is required, which means higher electricity and gas use. Greater moisture in the litter also creates more odor production.

A litter sample analysis measures total ammoniacal nitrogen, or TAN. Chastain explained that most of the nitrogen is ammonium, and a little bit is ammonia. The part that is ammonia can be released in the house air and cause problems for birds or increase emissions, and in turn odor, leaving the house. The fraction of the nitrogen that is ammonia is pH dependent, he noted. When pH of the litter is below 6.5, no ammonia is released. If pH is in the 7-range, ammonia will be measurable.

During a Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community webinar, Chastain shared data from a more traditional bedding situation compared to two houses at a farm using little bedding. In the traditional system, 6 to 8 inches of wood shavings were added before the first flock entered the poultry house. The wet, caked manure was removed between flocks. Another 1 to 2 inches of bedding was added between flocks, and the barn was completely cleaned out once a year.

On the other farm, a very minimal amount of pine shavings were used as bedding. In House 1, manure cakes were removed between flocks. In House 2, the litter was windrowed between flocks but manure cakes were not removed.

When comparing moisture of the litter and nitrogen content, the traditionally bedded house came in at 24% moisture, with 0.66% TAN, 2.90% organic nitrogen (Org-N), and 3.80% total nitrogen (TN). House 1 had 28.4% moisture, 1.12% TAN, 3.26% Org-N, and 4.55 % TN. Moisture in House 2 was highest, at 32%, with 1.26% TAN, 3.58% Org-N, and 5.06% TN. Chastain noted that storing manure in the house for a longer period increases organic nitrogen and total nitrogen, and the higher levels of total ammoniacal nitrogen in House 1 and 2 could be due to the higher moisture content facilitating mineralization of the organic nitrogen.

In both minimally bedded houses, the ammonia concentration was higher than the industry target of 15 parts per

million (ppm). House 1 came in at 20 ppm, while House 2 was recorded at 35 ppm.

Meanwhile, the lack of bedding reduced the carbon content of the litter by 10%, dropping the carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio by 27%. In the traditionally bedded barn, the C:N was 10.5. In House 1, it was 7.8, and it was 7.6 in House 2. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium levels were all higher in the minimally bedded barns, which Chastain said would be due to storage of additional manure in the house and lack of dilution by bedding.

He reminded listeners that litter nutrient values found in old literature might not pertain to reduced bedding situations, highlighting the need for individual farm sampling. Also, if a farm is experiencing problems with animal health or odor complaints due to high ammonia levels, more bedding or more frequent clean out may help. As a benchmark, he said a target for C:N is 10, and 24% is a good goal for moisture content. 

PLACES TO BE

World Ag Expo

February 13 to 15, 2024 Tulare, Calif.

Details: worldagexpo.com

Midwest Forage Association/ Wisconsin Custom Operators Symposium

February 19 to 21, 2024

Wisconsin Dells, Wis.

Details: midwestforage.org

Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference

March 12 and 13, 2024 Ada, Ohio

Details: fabe.osu.edu/CTCon

Professional Dairy Producers Business Conference

March 13 and 14, 2024

Wisconsin Dells, Wis.

Details: pdpw.org

World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit

March 19 and 20, 2024 San Francisco, Calif.

Details: worldagritechusa.com

Central Plains Dairy Expo

March 19 to 21, 2024 Sioux Falls, S.D.

Details: centralplainsdairy.com

Midwest Poultry Federation’s PEAK 2024

April 17 to 19, 2024 Minneapolis, Minn.

Details: midwestpoultry.com

Biogas Americas Annual Conference

May 13 to 16, 2024 Savannah, Ga.

Details: biogasamericas.com

Digesters deserve their credit

by Katelyn Allen

In 2016, California set an audacious goal of cutting methane emissions from its livestock by 40% over the next 14 years. Dairy farmers, who care for about 1.7 million dairy cattle in the Golden State, shouldered a significant brunt of that decision.

Anaerobic digesters emerged as a large part of the solution since they trap the methane released from manure as it breaks down, and dairy farmers embraced this technology to further their livelihood. The state is now home to more than 200 digesters that create renewable electricity, renewable natural gas, or hydrogen fuel.

Digesters are expensive. But government agencies supported them with grants because they were making meaningful progress toward the state’s goal — the technology is responsible for more than 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved so far. That’s even while the funding dairy farmers have received represents about 2% of the total dollars put toward the goal.

Now digesters are being attacked by environmentalists and lawmakers. Part of the concern is how much money the state has invested in grants and manure credits. Naysayers believe these financial incentives encourage dairies to grow larger so they can take advantage of the manure money. They say that leads to more pollution. Others purport that

digesters are not helping achieve the methane goal.

Those arguments are simply false. Research from the University of California, Davis shows that dairy farmers are on track to pass the state’s emissions goal, largely because of digesters. And while California dairies have become bigger, the growth has been significantly less than that of the broader industry. In the last five years, California’s herd size has risen 17.9%. Nationally, herd size has expanded 34.3%.

Because of the pushback, the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has called for the removal of low carbon fuel standard credits. A bill brought before the state Assembly wants to prevent dairy digesters from being used to produce hydrogen, which could be an important future fuel source for vehicles. While both proposals face steep challenges to see any advancement, their presence is disheartening. Dairy farmers took up the state’s challenge with what may be the best tool to reduce methane right now. That should be applauded, not degraded. ■

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

The author is an associate editor for Hoard’s Dairyman

Rooted in agriculture

and manure

by Megan Dresbach

Most 4-year-olds do not go around telling everyone that they are going to “haul lime like dad” when they grow up, but that is exactly what I did. My mother was thankful I said lime and not another four letter word.

My father started W.D. Farms as a grain and fertilizer trucking company in 1985. In 1987, a local dairy farmer asked my dad if he would use his fertilizer tanks to haul some manure for him. Dad said yes, and the rest is history.

Committed from the start

My dad has always been my best friend, and I followed him everywhere. Fortunately, being in the agricultural industry, most days are “take your kids to work day,” so the opportunities to spend time with him and inadvertently learn something were endless.

It is debatable whether I fell in love with the manure industry because that’s what my dad did and I loved being with him, or if it was because I loved agriculture and being outside. The truth is it was a combination of the two. At the age of 7, I started operating the agitation pumps and loading the semis or honeywagons. I quickly learned that when I went to work with dad, I got to be outside and make money. It was a win-win situation.

When I was 12, two major things happened. I became responsible for doing the company payroll and entering the checkbook into the accounting system. I also became entrusted with the operation of the application unit, and subsequently, the application of manure. We use JCB Fastracs, Houle Honeywagons, and homemade chisel plows. These units are 75 feet long and 12 feet wide, have two hitch pins, and

require attention to detail to operate, so this was no small feat.

On the fast track

In Ohio, if a business handles more than 25 million gallons or 4,500 tons of manure, they have to be certified. Our company believes that since the tractor drivers are the ones doing the work, they need to know the rules. I received this certification when I was 15.

At age 17, I started my own trucking company, MD Ag Services LLC, with the purchase of my first semitruck. I then went to The Ohio State University-Agricultural Technical Institute to obtain a degree in agronomy, moved down to the main campus in Columbus to finish my bachelor’s degree in ag business, and returned home after that four year journey.

When I was 20, I began driving the semis that I owned. One round with Dad and I was on my own. I had been driving tractors for years, so it really wasn’t that much different.

I am now vice president of W.D. Farms LLC and will one day be a co-owner alongside one of my two brothers. The last 10 years have seen the development of my blog, Ohio Manure Gal, numerous speaking engagements, and a few published articles.

I feel I have a responsibility to engage with the public and share what the manure industry is and what it does. Most recently, I have entered the biological space with products that can enhance the utilization of nutrients in manure, including a disinfectant that is unique in many ways. My roots are firmly planted in the manure industry.

Food for thought

Manure application is a crucial part of the complicated web we call agriculture. Working with family, “right to repair” challenges, biosecurity, and all the topics in between have an impact on the manure industry. We must keep ourselves abreast of what’s going on in the world.

Holding a steering wheel or monitoring a pump leads to a lot of thinking time. This column will allow me to share reflections from my side of the lagoon. I hope that you, the reader, will read a thought-provoking sentence that makes you think and possibly impacts your operation, now or in the future. ■

The author is the vice president of W.D. Farms LLC in Circleville, Ohio, and blogs as the Ohio Manure Gal.

Days of tagging along with my dad quickly spurred my passion and led to a career in my family’s manure hauling business.

AGRICULTURAL CONCRETE

JP Tank

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

jptankconcrete@gmail.com jptank.com

Pipping Concrete N6106 County Rd. C Rosendale, WI 54974 920-948-9661 dennis@pippingconcrete.com pippingconcrete.com

ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SERVICES

Agricultural Digesters LLC 88 Holland Ln. #302 Williston, VT 05495 802-876-7877

info@AgriculturalDigesters.com AgriculturalDigesters.com

APPAREL

Udder Tech Inc. 2520 151st Ct. W Rosemount, MN 55068 952-461-2894 dana@uddertechinc.com uddertechinc.com

BEDDING SEPARATION

McLanahan

200 Wall Street Hollidaysburg, PA 16648 814-695-9807 sales@mclanahan.com mclanahan.com/solutions/dairy

COATINGS

Industrial Solutions USA 5115 S. Rolling Green Ave. Ste. 211 Sioux Falls, SD 57108 605-254-6059 isusananoclear.com

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Future Enviroassets LLC Cincinnati, OH 45215 513-349-3844

LF@futureenviroassets.com futureenviroassets.com

Hall Associates 23 Evergreen Dr. Georgetown, DE 19947-9484 302-855-0723 hallassociates@mediacombb.net

Tomorrow Water 1225 N. Patt St. Anaheim, CA 92801

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

714-578-0676

info@bkt21.com tomorrowwater.com

Trident Processes Inc. 10800 Lyndale Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 1-800-799-3740

frank.engel@tridentprocesses.com tridentprocesses.com

FEED ADDITIVES

AB Vista

151 Peters Rd, Ste 2001 Plantation, FL 33324 816-225-0874

Bruce.Hageman@ABVista.com ABVista.com

Balchem Animal Nutrition & Health 5 Paragon Dr. Montvale, NJ 07645 845-326-5600 ssorrell@balchem.com balchem.com

Natural Biologics P.O. Box 221 Newfield, NY 14867

844-628-2465

celrod@naturalbiologics.com naturalbiologics.com

MANURE SEPARATION

Boerger LLC 2860 Water Tower Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 844-647-7867 boerger.com

AL-INS Enterprises, LLC

Aaron Kuhis 695 Sullivan Drive Fond du Lac, WI 54935 920-238-5460 aaron.kuhls@al-ins.com www.al-ins.com

MANURE STORAGE

Pit-King®/Agri-King® Inc. 18246 Waller Rd. Fulton, IL 61252 1-800-435-9560 agriking.com/pit-king

MANURE TREATMENT

Ag Odor Control, LLC 609 8th St. Fort Madison, IA 52627 319-470-5727 WayneMarple@gmail.com www.agodorcontrol.com

WASTE HANDLING EQUIPMENT

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

Doda USA

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

GEA Farm Technologies, Inc. 1385 N. Weber Road Romeoville, IL 60446 + 1-800-563-4685 contact.geadairyfarming.na@gea.com

Pacific Pumping 8941 Jasmine Lane Lynden, WA 360-815-2171 pacific_pumping@yahoo.com

R Braun Inc. 209 N. 4th Ave. St. Nazianz, WI 54232 920-773-2143 RBrauninc.com

WASTE HANDLING SPREADERS

Kuhn North America P.O. Box 167 Brodhead, WI 53520 Kuhn-usa.com

New Leader 1330 76th Ave. SW Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 1-800-363-1771 newleader.com

Oxbo International 100 Bean St. Clear Lake, WI 54005 1-800-628-6196 oxbo.com

WATER TECHNOLOGY

Bauer North America Inc. 107 Eastwood Rd. Michigan City, IN 46360 1-800-922-8375 bnasales@bauer-at.com bauer-at.com

Press Technology & Mfg. Inc. 1401 Fotler Street Springfield, OH 45504 937-327-0755

dberner@presstechnology.com

 Don’t see your company listed? Send your company information to marketing@jofnm.com with Professional Directory in the subject line.

GET THE SAND OUT OF MANURE

EFFECTIVELY MANAGE SAND-LADEN DAIRY MANURE WHETHER YOU HAVE AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTER OR NOT

Why sand?

“Sand is the gold-standard bedding choice because of its cow health and milk production benefits,” says Renee Schrift, Business Line Director – Agricultural Systems at McLanahan Corporation. “It has so many advantages because it’s a forgiving, drier, comfortable surface for cows, and it’s inorganic, so the stall bacteria load is usually extremely low.”

According to researchers at the University of Wisconsin and USDA, the use of sand bedding compared to manure solids and mattresses results in higher milk production, lower mastitis treatment rates and lower somatic cell count.

Using sand bedding isn’t necessarily difficult, it is simply different to manage than using organic bedding.

Sand bedding is ideal for dairy cows, but it doesn’t always mix well with manure management systems. This is especially true with anaerobic digesters.

However, well-designed, robust sand-manure separation systems are proven to help recycle sand bedding efficiently and economically, enabling users to recoup and recycle the vast majority of sand. Plus, these sand separation systems can also increase anaerobic digestion utilization by virtually eliminating sand from the digester-feeding manure stream.

Here’s how you can create a favorable manure management environment with sand bedding on your dairy farm, even if you don’t have a digester yet.

Physics at work

How do you optimize the benefits of sand bedding while reducing challenges for manure handling systems? Separate and recycle it, of course.

“Success begins with capitalizing on physics, gravity and engineering know-how,” explains Schrift.

Keep in mind:

• Sand is abrasive, so choose equipment designed and proven to withstand the harshness of sand. This means equipment that operates at low speeds and is constructed using wear-resistant materials like abrasion-resistant steel plate or rubber. Components in high-wear situations must either be harder than sand grains or resilient enough to deflect without deforming.

• Secondly, sand is more than twice as dense as manure and therefore settles, making sand separation a realistic proposition.

“In fact, our systems can capture 95% of sand for recycling while removing an additional 3% of fines from manure,” Schrift adds.

As a result, dairies that recycle sand can cut their bedding cost significantly. For example, a 500-cow dairy using 50 pounds of sand per cow per day at $15 a ton spends $68,438 a year on sand. With a sand separation system that conservatively recovers up to 90% of sand for reuse, the dairy can save $61,594 a year by recycling their sand bedding.

These figures demonstrate that with a well-designed sand-manure separation system, high sand recovery is possible and economically beneficial for herds of all sizes.

What about digesters?

Since sand separation technology can virtually remove most sand from manure, these systems go hand-in-hand with anaerobic digesters.

Without separation beforehand, sand bedding is incompatible with anaerobic digestion systems.

With sand-manure separation, sand can be recycled for reuse as freestall bedding, and the manure effluent can be anaerobically digested for optimal digester efficiency and gas production.

The key is to collaborate with your partners to design the best system to fit your needs. Also, every farm is managed differently, so it’s important to determine the total solids in manure effluent, knowing there may be seasonal fluctuations.

“Be sure to choose an anaerobic digester partner who can design and build a digester to suit the way you manage your dairy, taking into consideration first and foremost what is best for the cows,” suggests Schrift.

Ultimately, effective sand recycling helps improve a dairy’s bottom line, whether you invest in a digester for your system or not.