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.
There are times in life when we could use some encouragement. We want a vote of confidence that we are doing a good job or heading in the right direction. Sometimes we may need a kick in the pants to take action. We need someone to believe in us and what we can accomplish, even if we don’t see it in ourselves.
Some people are very skilled at seeing the potential in others. Vicky Harter was one of those people. I met Vicky when I was living and working in northeast Wisconsin. She spent her career helping motivate young people, first as a high school agriculture teacher — one of the very first female agriculture teachers in the state — and then as a technical school instructor. In retirement, she threw herself into local causes and agricultural organizations, seeking opportunities for growth not only for herself but for others.
Through her battle with cancer, Vicky refused to let her illness get her down. Once in remission, she became even more passionate about the groups she belonged to. Her church, the FFA alumni, Farm Bureau, 4-H, and more benefited from her desire to give and her ability to teach. Both she and her husband, Ken, had a tremendous impact locally and statewide through their volunteer efforts.
One of Vicky’s finest traits was her ability to bring out the best in people around her. She saw so much potential in the young farmers in our area. She encouraged them to participate in discussion meets, to apply for awards, and to run for leadership positions.
I benefited from Vicky’s encouragement as well. Every now and then, she’d give me a call, asking me to consider this opportunity or that project. If I told her I would think about it, you could guarantee she would call again. Vicky was not quick to accept “no” as an answer when it was something she believed in.
The ability to see potential is a great attribute of farmers. They can look at which animals in the herd or flock have the most potential to be profitable. They evaluate fields and determine which crop will grow best in what area.
Projects with potential help a farm grow and evolve. If a practice or piece of equipment looks like it could work on your operation, research it. Learn more. You don’t know what might work if you don’t pursue it. It takes people who see the potential in new technology, and who have the courage to try it, to introduce ideas into agriculture.
Farmers who recognize which employees have the most potential can find ways to raise them up and keep them engaged. This also applies to family members, service providers, friends, or people in the community. One of the best gifts we can give another person is to let them know we believe in them. It doesn’t have to be a grand gesture; a small compliment can go a long way in supporting and inspiring someone.
Sadly, Vicky’s cancer returned, and she passed away 10 years ago this fall at the age of 63. The impact of her servant leadership and encouraging spirit lingers, in me and in so many others. Thinking of her reminds me that we could all be more like Vicky. Look for the potential in people around you, and when you see it, be sure to let them know.
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
OREGON
The Oregon Department of Agriculture rewrote its regulations for dairy farms and adopted the final version in late September. Earlier in the year, concern spread as dairies of all sizes, even those with just a few cows, would have been required to follow regulations put into place for the state’s concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Pushback and a lawsuit from small dairy cow and goat operations followed, citing that installation of waste treatment systems needed to comply with the rules would have been cost prohibitive.
The regulations now apply to CAFOs, defined as farms that engage in the feeding or holding of animals in buildings, pens, or lots not sustaining vegetative growth in the normal growing season for 12 hours or more per day for more than 120 days in a 12-month period. Many of the smallest herds in the state do not fit that description.
UNITED STATES
A new bill introduced by U.S. Representatives Alma Adams and Jim McGovern and U.S. Senator Cory Booker would provide financial assistance for farmers to convert from more intensive agricultural systems to pasture-based animal production or specialty crop production. In part, the Industrial Agricultural Conversion Act (IACA) would provide grants for on-farm infrastructure changes that would convert CAFOs to crop production or pasture-based livestock operations. Grant recipients would need to cease operation of their CAFO within 180 days.
MICHIGAN
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of regulators, stating that the state’s general permit to govern how CAFOs are regulated is necessary and doesn’t need to follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the state’s law governing how agencies can issue rules.
The permit enforced new conditions to lower phosphorus application limits for point-source discharges. The permit also added new buffer requirements, including a 35-foot vegetated buffer and a 100-foot manure application setback from all waterways, which goes beyond federal requirements.
THE INNOVATIVE BIOSELECT FOR EFFICIENT MANURE SEPARATION.
UNITED STATES
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit brought by several activist groups pushing for substantial changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rules for CAFOs.
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) presented oral arguments, successfully convincing the court to reject the lawsuit’s claims. The court upheld EPA’s current approach to regulating livestock production, including the establishment of its Animal Agriculture Water Quality subcommittee, which includes pork industry representatives. The court confirmed that EPA’s strategy of data collection before proposing new regulations is practical and consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
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
Different political DIRECTIONS
The election results will no doubt have an impact on farming, including nutrient management.
by Rich Schell
VOTERS in the United States will pick a president in November, and that president will pick a direction for the nation’s ag policy issues. This will have serious implications for what happens with nutrient management and other important agricultural policies.
This will all happen with a stalled farm bill hanging in limbo. Whoever can get the current farm bill passed and shape the direction of the next bill will influence the agricultural and food sectors. The candidates could not differ more. Much of the funding and programs are related to climate change, and the candidates have radically different views on that topic. Another consideration is that so far, the USDA is the chosen one to administer the agricultural funding that is part of the huge Inflation Reduction
Act. And last, but certainly not least, is the question of whom the winner would choose as their Secretary of Agriculture.
Changes in climate
Former President Donald Trump has historically expressed skepticism over the existence of climate change. One area of profound interest to animal agriculture is the United States’ response to methane reduction contained in the Paris Agreement, also known as the Paris Accords. Former
President Barack Obama joined the Paris Agreement. Trump took the United States out of the Paris Agreement, but President Joe Biden renewed the nation’s commitment to the agreement. If elected, it seems certain that Trump would take the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris would continue the country’s participation. Methane is a contributor to global warming, and manure management is a key element of lowering levels of methane emissions. The Biden-Harris Administration has championed investment in anaerobic digesters as a possible solution to methane gas.
Another diametrically-opposed posi-
tion would be the Inflation Reduction Act passed and signed by the Biden-Harris administration. To state the obvious, Harris can be safely counted on to champion this, and she will most likely seek to carry out all of its mandates. Included in that would be its support for anaerobic digesters and cover crops.
The Biden-Harris administration allotted $22 billion to fund “climate smart” ag. This program offered incentives for clean energy, cover crops and nutrient management practices, and no-till and strip-till incentives. Trump has called it a “green new deal” and has vowed to stop what he can and get the money back if possible.
The current vice president’s position on agriculture is a bit of a mystery. Even though she is from California, the top agricultural producing state, she hasn’t said that much about farm issues during her career. However, she has favored strong environmental law and green policy. For example, under her leadership as an attorney general, California prosecuted companies that wrongfully claimed their bioplastics were degradable. One would expect this would carry over into a willingness on the part of her Justice Department to prosecute on environmental and “greenwashing” issues.
Future of the workforce
One area that could have implications for manure and nutrient management is the candidates’ diametrically opposed positions on the agricultural workforce. Harris received an endorsement from the United Farm Workers, which brings up the delicate subject of who would be working on farms to implement polices related to nutrient management or anything else. The current vice president also supports an enhanced and expanded H2A program and an earned U.S. citizenship option.
A key part of Trump’s labor policy would be increased deportations. Statements made by his vice president pick, JD Vance, have suggested deporting a million people would be a good target. This has been met with dismay in some farm sectors, as deporting a million people could be a devastating blow to production agriculture. If this deportation occurred, it would presumably impact all aspects of animal ag production including waste management. The positions of the two candidates on this topic could not be more different.
Second-in-command
The candidates’ choices for running mates shows how different they are and how, if elected, the vice presidents would pursue different goals. In Tim Walz, Harris has chosen a vice president with considerable agricultural policy experience. Although vice presidents really don’t make policy in the way presidents do, they may influence it.
Walz is in an interesting position. He has been a congressman from a “farm state” who has helped write and pass farm bills. Walz has also supported anaerobic digesters in Minnesota. Presumably, Vice President Harris would continue to support the Inflation Reduction Act, and so will Walz. JD Vance is a U.S. Senator from Ohio, which is also an agricultural state. He certainly has a compelling rural connection and life story, which is shared in his book, “Hillbilly Elegy.” But, like Harris, it’s hard to say where he will fall on the policy side.
Based on his campaign rhetoric so far, it is probably a fair guess that when he says a Trump administration will support energy he means conventional oil and gas and not biogas from anaerobic digesters. Both he and Trump support more conventional energy at a lower price as a way to lower fuel and presumably anhydrous ammonia costs for farmers.
According to political experts, the seven key swing states in the 2024 election are Arizona (11 electoral votes), Georgia (16 electoral votes), Michigan (15 electoral votes), Nevada (6 electoral votes), North Carolina (16 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), and Wisconsin (10 electoral votes). Some of the nutrient management issues may wind up mattering a great deal to some voters in these states. Wisconsin has an interest in dairy production and aerobic digesters. North Carolina has a large concentration of hog operations, while the rest of the swing states are a mixed bag. In this election, as close as the polling is leading up to the election, a few votes either way may wind up mattering a great deal. ■
The author is an attorney based in Des Plaines, Ill.
MANURE MINUTE
ASK THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT COVER CROPS
Cover crops are generally a good addition to a cropping system because they return organic matter to the soil and boost soil health. That being said, they also come with a cost, so it pays to do some planning before planting. During a Michigan State University Extension Field Crops Virtual Breakfast webinar, Brook Wilke highlighted four questions to ask when selecting seed.
What are your goals? If you’re simply looking for a soil health boost, a lot of cover crops will do the job, Wilke noted. If you’re hoping to build up the nitrogen supply for the next crop, legumes will be the answer. In some situations, the goal may be to suppress weeds or pests, or not accentuate a current pest problem, which can happen if the wrong cover crop is chosen leading up to the next crop. Do some research if you want to find the best fit for your needs.
Wilke cautioned listeners to not overthink their cover crop decision, though. “Any plant is good growing in the field,” said the associate director at the Kellogg Biological Station. He encouraged farmers to experiment and have fun with mixes, as long as there is a plan in place to terminate
the crop effectively.
What is the termination plan?
Do you want to use winterkill to terminate the crop or do you have herbicides at your disposal that work with the cover crops you plan to grow? Tillage is another termination option, but be aware that some crops, such as annual ryegrass, are difficult to terminate with tillage, Wilke stated.
How much growing season is left?
When planting a cover crop in the late summer or fall, one must estimate how many growing degree days remain in the season and what cover crops will fit best in that timeline.
What is your budget?
When looking at overall profitability of the cropping system, a farmer must decide how much they can afford to spend on cover crops.
Wilke offered a few tips for establishing a cover crop. First, start with a clean field by minimizing weeds. “You don’t want a bunch of weeds going to seed and causing trouble next year,” he noted.
Next, he said that the seeding rates published for a cover crop don’t have to be followed at the top of the recommended rate if expense is a concern.
“Half the seeding rate of a cover crop will yield more than half the biomass of a full rate,” he explained. “The biggest challenge is leaving space in between for weeds to grow. But don’t be afraid to cut it.”
Finally, he said that harvesting a cover crop for feed is a great opportunity to recover value from the crop. This is especially true if planting a cover crop early enough in the season, such as after wheat harvest, so it has enough time to grow. If the plan is to harvest a cover crop for forage, Wilke said to pay attention to the herbicide labels used for weed control prior to planting. If cutting and harvesting a cover crop in the fall, he advised not attempting to dry it down. Baleage or silage are the best options for harvest late in the year, unless the weather provides a rare dry and warm stretch.
CLIMATE CONCERNS IN CALIFORNIA
growing number of Americans have become more concerned with production agriculture and its effect on the climate. Extreme weather conditions elevate people’s fears about global warming and climate change.
The Public Policy Institute of California conducted its “Californians and the environment” survey over the summer. They found that 17% of respondents named climate change as the most important environmental issue, followed by wildfires (15%) and water supply (14%).
Eight in 10 Californians were con-
cerned that home insurance will become more expensive due to climate change risks. About six in 10 adults said it’s more important for climate policies to address climate mitigation or reduce greenhouse gases; less than four in 10 say it is more important to address climate adaptation or adapt to harsher climate.
Environmental protection should be given priority, according to 67% of participants, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. Meanwhile, 32% said economic growth should be given priority even if the environment suffers to some extent (32%).
About two-thirds of the respondents favor the state law that requires 100% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources by the year 2045. When asked if they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources in order to help reduce climate change, the majority said they would not be willing. Only 35% said they are prepared for a weather-related disaster. About a quarter of the adult respondents said they considered moving to a different home to avoid the impacts of global warming, including sea level rise, flooding, heat waves, and wildfires.
A DO-IT-YOURSELF DAIRYMAN
This Pennsylvania farm includes many features that were homemade by its owner, including several aspects of the manure handling system.
by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor
Dairyman Shawn Saylor is what one might consider a jack-of-all trades; in fact, “super handyman” is even part of his email address. A quick look around his farm is all one needs to put proof behind that statement. In different areas of the dairy, Saylor has created solutions to fill needs and solve problems.
“I’m the kind of person who looks at how can I make a task easier for someone to do,” explained Saylor, “and if I can’t find it, I’ll build it.”
For instance, when he first put up silage bunkers years ago, he didn’t find a silage facer on the market that met his needs. So, he made one — a rotary-type facer they used for years. When Saylor wanted to improve calf feeding efficiency, he designed and built a milk delivery cart. In the freestall barn, to help with heat abatement and water usage, he designed a control box for the sprinkler system.
Saylor has always been into technology and construction, but he has not been formally trained in these areas. When I asked him how he learned skills such as electrical work, for instance, he said he picked up hints from a friend who was an electrician. For the most part, though, he learns as he goes. He noted the value in learning from other people, and today, he said the internet can also be a great tool and teacher.
A major project
Hillcrest Saylor Dairy Farms is located in the lower mountains near
Rockwood, Pa. Saylor is the fourth generation on his family’s dairy, where he currently milks about 680 cows and farms 1,500 acres with his family and team of employees. All calves and heifers are also raised on-site.
Although he did not start his farm from scratch, he has left his fingerprints on many parts of the dairy. One of his biggest projects to date was the construction of an anaerobic digester.
Before building the dairy’s new freestall barns in 2002, Saylor knew he wanted to add a digester to the operation. But other than Pennsylvania’s Mason Dixon Farm, which installed a digester in the late 1970s, there weren’t many farms using digesters back then to visit and learn from. Still, he designed the new barns and the gravity-flow manure system with the ability to incorporate a digester, and then he forged down a path to make it a reality. When some grant money became
available in 2005, Saylor was able to start on the project.
“Using my knowledge on how to build things, I got NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] approval and went ahead and built it,” Saylor explained during a Center for Dairy Excellence podcast. As one might expect, Saylor did most of the excavation, electrical, plumbing, and heating work for the digester. The following year, he applied for another grant that helped pay for a second generator.
The digester has been running for more than 15 years now, and Saylor says the system has worked admirably. While grant money helped get the project off the ground, it has more than paid for itself. Servicing the digester can be a big expense, he noted, so being able to do the maintenance and repairs himself makes it more profitable.
Other than regular maintenance on
On Hillcrest Saylor Dairy Farms, the goal is to plant cover crops on every acre of corn harvested for silage.
the engines, Saylor said the digester is easy to manage. “It’s no different than any other piece of equipment that runs all the time,” he shared. “If built right, there is very little maintenance.”
About half of the energy produced is used on the farm and in the farmhouses located on their satellite locations. Pennsylvania has a net metering program, so the extra energy produced from the system is sold through Rural Electric. That extra electricity is only sold at a wholesale price, though, so Saylor’s best value comes from using it. He said that someday, renewable natural gas may be in their future since they are located near a natural gas pipeline.
Beyond electricity generation, other benefits of the digester are somewhat dependent on location, Saylor noted. For example, “Odor control can be valuable in some places,” he said. “It helps here, no doubt.”
Taking in food waste is another opportunity, depending on location.
He receives a variety of foods for the digester, including waste potatoes from a snack food manufacturer. He has capacity to take more food waste, but there is not a lot of manufacturing in his part of the state, and companies are limited on how far they can truck, he explained. Food needs to be metered in, Saylor noted, but this addition helps generate more electricity and heat.
With only cow manure, the digester is stable and takes care of itself; however, food waste can throw it off. For instance, Saylor explained that a foodstuff with too much sugar or energy can give the digester a “gut ache.”
Last year, something high in grease was added to the Hillcrest Saylor Dairy Farms’ digester, and it significantly impacted the system by throwing off the pH. Saylor said within a week, the digester stopped making gas, and it took a few weeks to return to production. It was a worst-case scenario, but fortunately, that has only happened
once in the last decade and a half. Saylor reiterated that normally, the digester is self-sufficient.
On the back side
Once manure travels through the digester, it still has plenty of value. On their farm, they switched to manure solids for bedding. “It has eliminated most of the sawdust we use, and the cows love it,” Saylor said.
Originally the recycled solids were placed on top of the mattresses, but it was difficult to keep in the stalls. When the mattresses needed to be replaced, Saylor removed them and added a bedding retainer to the back of the stalls. A deep bed would be ideal, Saylor noted, but the current set-up works quite well. The solids go through a separator, which dries them down to about 70% moisture. A bedding dryer, another creation of Saylor’s, takes the moisture content down about another 10%. There are some fluctuations in the bed-
PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE
ding quality in wet weather, but overall, Saylor believes it is the next best thing to sand.
There used to be a plentiful supply of solids, and some of the excess solids not used for bedding would be sold to neighbors who eagerly used the product on their gardens. These days, the use of brown midrib (BMR) corn has led to finer solids, and the volume of bedding is reduced, Saylor explained. That means most of the solids are now used in the stalls. Any extra solids are spread to fields farther from the farm. This nutrient source has been especially valuable in fields that were strip mined decades ago.
Making the most of it
“We try to use our manure as much as possible,” Saylor said. For fields farther away, trucking gets expensive, so more commercial fertilizer is used in those locations.
Utilizing draglines for manure application has been a positive change for the dairy. About 40% of the farm’s manure is applied to hundreds of acres this way, and it is more efficient and less costly. There is also the reduced risk of soil compaction, which Saylor considers a big benefit.
“Truck traffic is really hard on the fields, so with draglines, we are getting the compaction problem out of the picture when spreading manure,” Saylor shared.
They will apply some manure when the cover crops start to grow to recover more of the nitrogen and between rows when planting corn. Manure will also be applied to forage fields between cuttings. In fall, manure is applied to cornfields after harvest.
Traveling through the digester first reduces the manure’s pathogen load and number of weed seeds. The digester also changes the ammonia in the nitrogen, Saylor said, which you can see when it is applied to the field. “It’s different,” he shared. “It’s easier for the plants to use.” The farm’s fields are nutrient deficient, so it is not an issue for him to also apply the liquid that comes from the digester.
They have been doing cover crops and no-till practices for the last decade. With hard, clay ground and not a lot of topsoil, it can be difficult to get crops planted if there isn’t much moisture. The first cou-
ple of years he seeded cover crops, he realized some yield loss, but even with their poor soils, Saylor said they saw some benefits by the third year. Over time, there have been more improvements. It helps with the hardness of the soil; before that, he had trouble no-tilling into dry soils. With cover crops, the farm is seeing better results and doesn’t need as much moisture to soften the soil.
As for cover crops, he plants a lot of cereal rye. Some triticale has been planted on closer fields because it works well for applying manure and offers a wider window for harvest. Cereal rye has a shorter harvest window, but it is an inexpensive feed source for heifers or cows, Saylor noted. He harvests 200 acres of cereal rye for silage, taken from the first cutting in the spring. The rest of the acreage is planted green.
Saylor has used precision planting the last six years. It allows him to monitor what he’s planting. He also uses autosteer, which saves stress and makes fieldwork easier to do and keeps the rows straight. Up in the mountains, the growing season is shorter, and technology – both on the machinery side and with crop genetics – makes planting earlier a little easier. With some trial and error, Saylor has found cover cropping and no-till strategies that work at their location.
Looking forward
Saylor is more focused on decisions that make financial sense, but there is an
environmental benefit to what he’s doing as well. “I think people need to look at these practices a little more, because they can probably save money by doing some simple things that can work,” he said. An evaluation showed that the farm is well on its way to being “net zero” because of the digester and other practices.
Expansion is not part of the plan because available acreage in the area is limited. Instead, Saylor is focused on enhancing the current operation. In terms of the digester, he would like to do more with the liquid that is separated from the solids, which is currently applied to fields as another nutrient source.
“I truly believe there needs to be a simple way to process the wastewater after digestion and make clean water from it,” he said. “It would reduce hauling costs and reduce well water needs.” He is keeping an eye on new technology as it becomes available to see what could be the best fit for his farm.
In addition, he is also looking for opportunities to automate. “Labor is always going to be an issue,” he said. “It is hard to find people to work the hours we need for what we can pay.” One goal is to focus on efficiencies and work with technology to make tasks easier for the employees they have and ease some of that burden. With his do-it-yourself attitude, it would be a safe bet to say that Saylor will be implementing more technology in the future. And more likely than not, at least some of those pieces will be homemade. ■
Dairyman Shawn Saylor, seated on the John Deere B tractor, farms near Rockwood, Pa., with his wife, Michelle, and children, Gage and Harlowquin.
MANURE MINUTE
KEEP MANURE OUT OF THE CRACKS
There’s no doubt a wet fall creates challenges when it comes to fieldwork. Extremely dry conditions raise the risk level for manure application as well. That’s because cracks can serve as a one-way street for manure to end up where it does not belong.
When applying nutrients to parched soils, producers need to take extra caution to prevent liquid manure from following soil cracks to field tile, wrote Glen Arnold in an Ohio State Extension C.O.R.N. Newsletter article. “Preferential flow is when liquid manure follows soil cracks, worm holes, and crayfish holes to find field tile and escape into ditches and streams,” explained the extension field specialist.
He said these cracks are common in dry wheat stubble fields. In these situations, tillage is a good practice before liquid manure is applied, but farmers should follow the guidelines laid out in their nutrient management plans.
Under the drought conditions facing parts of the country this year, corn and soybean fields can also have more and bigger soil cracks than what is typical. “If you have tile control structures, they should be closed at the time of manure application,” advised Arnold.
In addition, dry soil can be hard on equipment. Arnold noted that extremely dry soils cause excessive wear on shovels and coulters. One option to minimize this damage is to disk the field prior to manure application to assist with even coverage and quick absorption.
Applying manure to a growing crop makes best use of the available nitrogen, and manure can encourage the emergence of wheat or fallplanted cover crops, Arnold shared. For instance, dairy manure applied at 12,000 gallons per acre can provide moisture for wheat before or after planting. If using swine manure, which is higher in nitrogen, it should be applied a week ahead of wheat planting to avoid germination and
ON THE MOVE
THE DAMAGE IS DONE
Practices that cause compaction are unavoidable at times, but the consequences are real and long lasting.
by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor
Farming is often a race against the clock and Mother Nature, especially when it comes to fieldwork. Whether it is planting, harvesting, or applying manure, these tasks need to be completed in a narrow window, and sometimes, field conditions aren’t ideal. However, if it comes down to harvesting silage at the right moisture or waiting for a field to dry out further to prevent compaction issues, more times than not, a bunker of high-quality feed will win out.
“Compaction is never intended,” said Aaron Daigh, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “It is a consequence of farmers being in difficult situations where they need to get out into fields due to logistics, timing of rainfall, and a need to clean out storage. It always happens in the context of difficult decisions that need to be made.”
That being said, a choice that leads to compaction comes with a cost. Compaction has to do with the macropores in the soil, Daigh explained during a Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community webinar. Well-structured soil has a lot of macropores. These large pores are important for soil health because they allow for aeration, water movement, and root growth. These are great benefits to crop production.
With compaction, the soil becomes more dense. Macropores are typically less than 1% of all pores in soil, but those pores contribute up to 70% of water movement and air movement. So, a little bit of compaction and removal of some of those macropores can have a sizable impact, Daigh said.
Daigh shared a cross-sectional image of soil from two fields. One image clearly had fewer macropores, and he explained that this particular field
experienced compaction caused by one heavy equipment event . . . that took place 29 years ago!
“Compaction can occur, and it can persist,” he stated.
Bigger and better?
It is often said that bigger is better, but in terms of machinery, a trend toward heavier equipment has had a negative effect on the risk of compaction. “Compaction is different during this day and age compared to decades ago,” he noted. “Bigger has become the norm.”
With larger equipment and heavier wheel loads, compaction goes deeper into the subsoil. The deeper the compaction, the more limited farms become in the tools they can use to mitigate the problem. Daigh said anyone would be hard pressed to find tillage equipment that can go below 20 inches. Compaction is going below what we can even reach, he emphasized.
As soil moisture changes, compaction risk changes. Wetter soils are more prone to compaction, and fields that are
at their water holding capacity are at greatest risk.
When fields have ponding, it is easy to recognize that compaction risk would be high. However, as soon as the water disappears, people tend to think it is then okay to proceed with fieldwork.
“In reality, that is probably the most vulnerable conditions for compaction to occur,” Daigh said. As that water drains, particles can slip down into pockets and become compacted. If possible, Daigh recommended giving the field a few more days to dry.
Right after compaction occurs, crop yields can drop 20% to 30%. Productivity can slowly start to improve, but it takes a long time. And years with drought or excessive moisture can exacerbate the effects of compaction, Daigh noted.
Damage down deep
Daigh recommended leveraging natural alleviation mechanisms to make up for compaction damage tillage can’t reach. One method is biodrilling with roots. This means planting certain
Undesirable field conditions and heavier equipment are two factors that contribute to compaction.
crops, such as radishes, with roots that can break through compaction layers.
“This is a multiyear effort to break up compaction,” Daigh noted. “Roots have to form new root channels and then need time to rot out to open up for the subsequent cash crop.” It will take several years to start seeing benefits.
Natural cracking of clay soils during mid-summer, when the ground shrinks and swells, can start to break up some compaction. The crack underground is much deeper than the width of the crack at the surface, but one must wait for a drought to come around for the cracks to open and deepen.
it takes many cycles during a winter, perhaps up to two dozen. During harsh winters in colder climates, an area might get that many freeze-thaw cycles in the topsoil. But down deep, where wheel traffic compaction from heavier equipment takes place, this layer freezes and thaws just once.
“You might be waiting a dozen or two dozen years before winter can actually do anything down deep,” Daigh explained. “It is just not effective. Winter freeze and thaw does not take care of subsoil compaction with the size of equipment we have.”
Some may use deep tillage to tackle
over relying on alleviation methods that take years to be effective. To minimize risk, he said to keep loads lighter and balanced. He recommended quad-axle manure tankers over those with tandem axles. Adjust the tire pressure accordingly and limit field passes to avoid creating new ruts.
When possible, Daigh advised driving in the same lanes because 70% to 85% of the damage from compaction happens in the first pass, and that damage carries on into future years. Not only does the damage from compaction run deep, but it also lingers long into the future.
CURBING EMISSIONS AT THE FEEDBUNK
Can nutrition play a role in reducing the carbon footprint of milk?
by Alexander N. Hristov
Analyses have suggested that mitigating methane, a potent but short-lived greenhouse gas, can have a significant impact on slowing down global warming in the short term. This does not preclude the importance and need to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions in the long term.
Agriculture in general and livestock in particular are important sources of greenhouse gases, with nitrous oxide and methane being of greatest environmental concern. Nitrous oxide emissions are primarily associated with fertilizer use for growing crops and manure management. Methane emissions come from enteric fermentation, resulting from microbial
processes in the complex stomach of all ruminant animals, and manure storage, with dairy and swine manure emissions being the largest contributors.
Methane from the gut
In this article, we will focus on enteric methane. To tackle enteric methane, several approaches have been proposed
and studied: animal diet formulation and anti-methanogenic feed additives; genetic selection of animals for low-methane emitting phenotype; and manipulation of the rumen microbiome, including methanogen vaccines. These strategies, applied individually or in combination, may contribute to reduced enteric methane emissions from ruminants, but the stage of their development and their success rate are different.
Genetic selection, for example, has been shown to cut methane emissions by about 10% while the vaccines have not produced tangible results yet. This leaves us with
nutrition as the most practical approach for making a measurable reduction in livestock enteric methane emissions.
How feed can help
It makes sense that nutrition-related interventions would likely be most effective in the effort to reduce methane emissions because enteric methane is a product of fermentation of nutrients in the rumen. In numerous analyses, feed intake has been shown to drive methanogenesis and determine methane emission rates. But to what extent can nutrition make a difference on methane emissions and, consequently, on the carbon footprint of milk?
To answer these questions, we need to understand the following:
1. What enteric methane mitigation practices are proven to be effective, what is the range of their efficacy, and is there a synergism (or additivity) among these practices?
2. What would be the impact of these practices on the carbon footprint of milk in intensively managed dairy farms that are typical for the U.S. dairy industry?
Let’s try to answer these questions. First, realistically, how much methane reduction can be gained by feeding higher quality, more digestible forages and/or including in the diet feed ingredients that may be generating less methane during their fermentation in the rumen? An analysis of the literature on this shows that, overall, corn silage — because of its starch content — will generate less methane than alfalfa haylage and grass silage, with the effect being around 10% to a maximum of 15% reduction.
In that context, small-grain silages (wheat, barley, and triticale) can also cut methane emissions, mainly depending in their starch content. Rumen fermentation of legume silages can also result in less methane than grass silage mainly because of their fiber composition and content.
Our team at Penn State has looked at alternative forages such as triticale, oats, wheat, barley, sorghum, and pearl millet silages, but none could compete with corn silage at a 20% replacement rate (or about 10% of total dietary dry matter) in terms of methane reduction or productive performance of the cows. So, on the forage side, our conclusions
are that corn silage can moderately reduce enteric methane yield (emissions expressed on dry matter intake basis) and intensity (expressed on milk production basis) when replacing alfalfa haylage in the diet of dairy cows (with perhaps some advantage of BMR versus conventional corn silage).
Similarly, corn silage will likely lower methane yield and intensity when replacing grass silage. Research with other forages has been limited and results, when compared with corn silage, are variable and not encouraging. Overall, data supports the concept that improving forage digestibility will likely cut methane yield and perhaps methane emissions intensity.
More grain or starch
Another option for diet manipulation to reduce methane is feeding more
grain or starch, which clearly works as evident from the much lower methane emission yields from cattle fed finishing feedlot diets. We have investigated this possibility in a recent experiment at Penn State.
Cows were fed diets with 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% starch, and we observed a small but significant linear decline in methane intensity expressed on an energy-corrected milk basis with rising dietary starch (Figure 1). Milkfat percent did fall while increasing starch, but this was compensated by higher milk output by the cows. This was a short-term, crossover experiment, and how sustainable the practice can be in the long run is still an open question.
Figure 1. Intensity of methane emissions at different starch levels
SEM = 0.35; P = 0.01, linear effect of dietary starch
Methane measurements can be taken from dairy cattle in the Penn State dairy’s freestall barn.
The literature reviews and meta-analyses we have done show that feeding more starch has a potential to reduce enteric methane yield and intensity, but the responses are inconsistent. Obviously, these interventions have to be implemented with caution because farm profitability, depending on milk pricing (specifically butterfat), may decline, despite a likely uptick in milk yield.
We have also looked at what we termed “methane-emitting potential” of dairy feeds to maybe identify feeds or combinations of feeds that generate less methane when fermented in the rumen. This project is on-going but so far, the results have not been very encouraging.
The approach involves in vitro assessment of the feed, and typically, differences in methanogenesis observed in vitro are rarely replicated in vivo. A good example of this was our work with whole cottonseed. When incubated in vitro, this feed produced drastically lower methane (because of its high unsaturated oil content) than typical feeds, but when included in a complex diet at 15% (dry matter basis) in vivo, the cows did not produce less methane than the control. It remains to be seen if this approach can be useful in ranking feeds based on their potential to reduce methane emissions in the animal.
A lot of potential
The next major nutritional tool to mitigate enteric methane emissions is the use of feed additives. We can’t possibly discuss in this article everything that has been thrown on the market in the last few years claiming methane mitigation effects.
Our team and others have reviewed feed additives, and there is a series of papers coming in the Journal of Dairy Science specifically dealing with recommendations for developing and testing anti-methanogenic feed additives. In the following paragraph, we will focus on additives that have shown a consistent and sizeable enteric methane mitigation effect in peer-reviewed publications from studies with lactating dairy cows.
Without doubt, the inhibitor 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), or Bovaer, is the additive that has been researched the most and has gained approval in Europe, recently in the United States, and in
• 20%to 30% by one feed additive
• 10% to 20% by a second feed additive
• 5% to 10% from improvements in forage quality and diet composition
• No adaption of the rumen microbiome
Reductions in the carbon footprint of milk (CFM) under best-case scenario (see text for details).
• 10% to 15% by one feed additive
• 5% by a second feed additive
• 0% from improvements in forage quality and diet composition
• Adaption of the rumen microbiome
Reductions in the carbon footprint of milk (CFM) under worst-case scenario (see text for details).
many other countries. We have summarized 3-NOP data in dairy cows (40% of which were Penn State studies) and have made the following conclusions:
1. 3-NOP causes a consistent 28% to 30% decline in daily methane emissions or emissions yield and intensity.
2. The inhibitor has no measurable effect on dairy cows’ dry matter intake, milk production, and body weight and body weight change, but it slightly increases milkfat concentration and yield (0.19% units and 90 grams per day, respectively).
3. The mitigation effect of 3-NOP rises exponentially with boosting its inclusion rate (40 to 200 milligrams per kilogram feed dry matter, corresponding to 3-NOP intake of 1 to 4.8
grams per cow per day).
4. 3-NOP has to be fed continuously, as it is metabolized very rapidly in the rumen and the effect disappears when feed intake is low.
5. Diets with a greater proportion of fiber versus starch lessen the efficacy of 3-NOP as an additive.
6. In some studies, a reduction in the mitigation potential of the inhibitor was observed over time, a phenomenon that needs to be further investigated in long-term, full lactation or multiple-lactation experiments.
Another potent methane inhibitor, bromoform, and related halogenated compounds found in red seaweeds of the Asparagopsis genus have been shown to dramatically reduce enteric methane in
Figure 2.
footprint reductions in a best-case scenario
Figure 3. Carbon footprint reductions in a worst-case scenario
beef and dairy cattle; in some studies, the effect is up to 90%. Penn State data, however, show a steady decline in the efficacy (from about a 65% reduction at the beginning of the study to about 25% at 200 days) and lower dry matter intake and milk production in dairy cows.
A lot more research is needed before bromoform, which by itself is an environmentally problematic due to its ozone-depleting properties, or bromoform-containing seaweed products, can be confidently recommended as a methane mitigating tool to the dairy industry. Further, there are concerns with milk quality from cows fed seaweeds; typically, seaweeds have high concentrations of iodine, arsenic, and other heavy metals or toxic elements that could preclude their approval for feeding to dairy cows due to toxicity and milk quality issues.
In our opinion, there is not enough evidence for proven, consistent mitigation effects of any other feed additive. There-
fore, additives that are already on the market and are included in carbon market schemes will not be discussed here.
Measuring the impact
With the above in mind, what is the potential of nutrition to reduce the carbon footprint of milk? We concluded that under a “best case scenario” (no adaptation of the rumen microbiome; additivity or synergism of mitigation practices), a reduction in enteric methane emissions from intensive dairy production systems of up to 60% can be achieved. This includes up to a 20% to 30% reduction by a feed additive, another 10% to 20% additive effect from a second feed additive, plus perhaps another 5% to 10% from improvements in forage quality and diet reformulation, which corresponds to a 15% to 26% reduction in the carbon footprint of milk (Figure 2).
Under a “worst case scenario” (adaptation of the rumen microbes to the
additive; no additivity or synergism of mitigation practices), we estimate a maximum reduction of methane emissions of 15% to 20%. This includes a 10% to 15% reduction by a feed additive, 5% additional effect from a second feed additive, no additional effect from improvements in forage quality and diet manipulation, and only a 7% to 9% reduction in the carbon footprint of milk may be expected (Figure 3).
Overall, if currently available practices prove to deliver consistent, long-term enteric methane mitigation and novel, potent, and safe strategies are discovered, nutrition alone can deliver up to a 60% reduction in methane emissions from intensive dairy production systems. That is a noteworthy change. ■
THE TANK BUILDER
The author is a professor of dairy nutrition at Penn State University.
CUT PHOSPHORUS LOSSES TODAY AND TOMORROW
Both daily decisions and a long-term game plan are necessary to reduce phosphorus losses on the farm.
by Kelsey Hyland
When it comes to managing a farm, both daily decisions and long-term strategies can have an impact on water quality and specifically phosphorus movement. Farmers prioritizing soil health and conservation practices on their farm are likely doing a good job of reducing the total number of large, acute loss events (Figure 1) and reducing the amount of soil and nutrient loss in the runoff events that do happen.
Practices like no-till, cover crops, vegetated buffers, and grassed waterways work to keep soil, and the phosphorus attached to those soil particles, in place and out of surface waters. However, even within these soil health systems, more opportunities exist for farmers to make tweaks and adjustments that further impact water quality in a positive way.
Decisions drive annual losses
For example, consider a field in southwestern Wisconsin monitored through the University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension’s Discovery Farms edge-of-field network. The timeline of field activities included the following:
1. Ma nure was surface applied in mid-March and early April.
2. A cover crop was planted in May.
3. Ma nure was applied again in mid-June.
Runoff events immediately following the March manure application resulted in relatively large phosphorus losses of 1.05 pounds per acre, accounting for 77% of the total annual losses (Figure 2).
This mid-March application occurred on frozen soils with about 30% to 50% corn
residue and when crops were not actively growing to take up the nutrients in the manure. This left the manure vulnerable on the surface when runoff conditions arose. Later manure applications in early April and mid-June under more favorable soil and crop conditions were not associated with elevated phosphorus losses in subsequent runoff (Figure 2).
Major acute loss scenarios associated with unprotected soil can deliver larger phosphorus losses than this Discovery Farms example; however, a little phosphorus can go a long way in aquatic
systems. Even at these low levels, phosphorus can put an aquatic system out of balance and stimulate harmful algae blooms. Daily decisions on the farm, like choosing when to spread manure or fertilizer according to runoff risk, frozen soil, and actively growing crop conditions can drive annual losses and subsequent water quality, even when farms have prioritized soil health practices.
Keep up with maintenance
Beyond daily decision making, it is also important to consider the impact of
A large runoff event captured at a University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension’s Discovery Farms edge-of-field monitoring station.
Figure 1. Research station runoff event
77% of total annual phosphorus losses occurred during two runoff events following a surface manure application on frozen soil.
P losses were low for the remainder of the year, even after additional manure applications.
This is a Discovery Farms on-farm edge-of-field monitoring site in southwestern Wisconsin. This field received surface applied manure mid-March and early April, was vertically tilled in April, planted to a cover crop mix in May, and received manure again in mid-June
Jan Mar May Jul Sep
long-term maintenance on phosphorus losses to surface water. Popular conservation practices like no-till, cover crops, vegetated buffers, and grassed waterways primarily target the particulate phosphorus loss pathway, or the portion of phosphorus attached to soil particles. These practices can significantly reduce soil loss and associated phosphorus losses when implemented and maintained appropriately.
Conservation practice maintenance includes using visual assessments to confirm gullies are not forming in grassed waterways and monitoring cover crop establishment and biomass production from year to year. If cover crops are planted for erosion control, prioritize species that reliably overwinter like cereal rye for soil protection during early spring storms along with seeding rates and methods that result in good stand establishment. Consistent attention to maintenance and yearly implementation ensures conservation practices function properly for their intended use; in this case, it is for controlling soil loss.
A long-term commitment
While controlling soil loss is essential to reducing total phosphorus loading, many recent studies indicate that these
practices do not address dissolved phosphorus losses, resulting in total phosphorus loading above eutrophication benchmarks. Dissolved phosphorus is the portion of phosphorus dissolved in water; therefore, it does not require soil erosion to be lost from the field.
Soil test phosphorus (STP) is used to inform nutrient management decisions; it also has the potential to serve as a water quality risk assessment tool. Research shows elevated STP levels are associated with phosphorus losses in both surface and tile water. However, like most other facets of farming, the relationship between STP and edge-of-field water quality is site-specific and influenced by factors like field hydrology and management. Despite these secondary confounding factors, long-term research from Canada shows that drawing down STP levels can reduce the concentration of dissolved phosphorus in edge-offield water samples without negatively impacting yield.
Consider drawing down phosphorus levels on high-testing fields to target the dissolved phosphorus loss pathway. This includes first ceasing phosphorus applications on high testing fields because it is unlikely there will be a crop response from adding phosphorus. Next,
consider editing rotations to include double cropping. Harvesting two crops from one field maximizes the amount of yearly phosphorus removal. If this does not fit in your system, consider choosing crops with the greatest phosphorus removal potential, such as corn silage.
Ultimately, these practices work by reducing the source of phosphorus in the soil that might be vulnerable to runoff losses. However, it is important to remember that phosphorus drawdown is slow. For example, a typical corn crop only removes approximately 3 to 5 parts per million (ppm) of phosphorus per year. It will take long-term commitment to these phosphorus drawdown strategies to realize water quality benefits.
Pay attention to your farming system’s impact on water quality. The most impactful strategies layer daily decisions — like when to spread nutrients — with practices that take long-term commitment, including conservation practice maintenance or fine-tuning and phosphorus drawdown strategies on high testing fields. ■
The author is an agriculture water quality outreach specialist with UW-Madison’s Division of Extension.
Figure 2. Phosphorus losses in runoff following spring manure application
Manure application and management plans
two sides of a coin
Nutrient
management plans and accurate application go hand-in-hand to improve soil and a farm’s bottom line.
by Scott Fleming
Manure management and nutrient management plans rely heavily on mapping software and computer technology. When creating one of these plans, we often focus on the software and lose sight of what really happens in the field. However, both the nutrient application equipment and the plan itself must work together to get the job — and the “management” — done.
Every applicator that hits the field affects the soil, and thus, the management plan. Let’s take a look at how various manure application methods affect both nutrient availability and plan creation.
Applying the nutrients
The means by which manure interfaces with the soil is one of the greatest factors affecting manure and nutrient plans. The decision whether to directly inject or surface apply manure changes most aspects of a plan.
For starters, manure injection always results in soil disturbance. The injection and subsequent incorporation affect the potential for soil loss in a field. Manure injection also does something we cannot see — it changes the fertility available for next year’s crop.
When manure is injected directly into the soil, 50% to 70% of the nitrogen in the manure is available for next year’s crop, depending on the manure source. Reduced ammonia gas losses result in less nitrogen loss from direct injection
versus any type of surface application. Simply stated, the faster manure is incorporated into the soil following application, the greater the fertilizer value from the manure.
Surface-applied manure can take on several forms. If manure is surface applied and incorporated within a couple of days, the first-year available nitrogen is reduced to 40% to 55% of total nitrogen. If manure is surface broadcast and incorporated after the four-day window, the first-year available nitrogen is reduced by half of what would have been available when injected or surface applied with immediate incorporation.
Calibrating the equipment
Equipment calibration is vital to getting the most out of manure. Manure application equipment should be treated no differently than commercial fertilizer application equipment. After all, we are applying the ultimate, complete fertilizer to the soil. The first step to treating manure like a fertilizer is knowing
exactly how much manure is applied. With liquid manure, this tends to be a little easier. For starters, liquid manure is commonly applied using a dragline. It has become commonplace to have an inline flow meter in the liquid system. The flow meter requires calibration to ensure it is accurate but requires little work outside of calibration. Flow meters run in the background, accurately recording application rates on the fly. When manure is applied load by load, record keeping can become more complicated. One way to overcome this hurdle is by maintaining an actual logbook. On large farms, a logbook is often essential to maintaining a discharge permit. An accurate record of weather information, as well as soil conditions, drain tile flow, and other environmental criteria are typically required to be recorded in the log. This can be an online document filled out daily by the applicator or a paper logbook in the cab of each tractor. A big benefit to keeping a manure logbook is the ability to review and calculate the manure application rate.
The simplest but least precise method to dial in the application rate is using manufacturer rated manure spreader capacities. This method is generally less accurate because spreaders are rarely filled to manufacturer recom-
mendations. For example, solid spreaders heaped beyond the manufacturer’s struck level capacity or liquid spreaders that are not completely filled because of manure foaming are not filled to manufacturer’s specifications.
A quick web search generally provides manure spreader capacities, which, with a little estimation, fine-tunes the applied load. Manure spreader capacities are often listed in bushels or cubic feet. See Figure 1 for helpful conversion factors for different manure types.
The most accurate way to determine how much manure is applied by each load is with a scale. Many large operations have a truck scale on site. If a truck scale is unavailable, local conservation departments or soil and water district offices may have a set of portable scales available. It’s best to weigh several loads of manure to establish an average load weight.
Once the load has been determined, calculate the applied area. To do this, apply a typical load of manure using the same settings as normal. Then measure the length and width of the applied area. After that, multiply the length by the width and divide that by 43,560 square feet per acre to determine the acres covered. Finally, divide the quantity of manure by the acres covered to determine the rate per acre.
Here is an example of the equation: Gallon or tons per load/acres covered = rate per acre
4,600 gallons per load/(15 feet wide x 1,500 foot long)/43,560 feet2 per acre = 8,906 gallons per acre
Source: Penn State University
Another method better suited for solid manure involves getting down and dirty. Place a tarp on the ground and stake the corners to prevent it from moving. Then apply manure to the tarp in the same manner as in the field. Next, apply manure on either side overlapping the standard amount. Now comes the fun part! Remove the tarp, taking care not to lose any manure from the edges. Weigh the tarp to determine how many pounds of manure are applied to the known area of the tarp. Simple arithmetic allows us to scale up from pounds per tarp to tons per acre: Pounds per tarp/tarp area (sq. ft.) = pounds per sq. ft.
Pounds per sq. ft. x 21.8 (This is 43,560 sq. ft. per acre/2,000 pounds per ton) = tons per acre
All this math may be a little tough to digest on the fly, but nearly every land grant university has a publication on this subject and a quick web search provides numerous explanations. There are even a few support videos for added guidance.
Dial it in
This year, the entire agriculture sector is under intense economic pressure. Margins are narrow on both the agronomic and livestock sides of the system. With more data comes more opportunities for efficiency.
A manure or nutrient management plan is a record of past and intended future nutrient applications. These highly detailed records will help bridge the gap moving forward, further conserving resources and your bottom line. No feeder takes a one-size-fits-all approach to feeding cattle; why would every field get the same application of fertilizer regardless of manure application? When all nutrients are accounted for, the opportunity to sharpen input applications will lead to a strong bottom line thanks to both equipment and planning. ■
The author is a nutrient management specialist and sampling director at Rock River Laboratory in Watertown, Wis.
Safety starts on the inside
by Megan Dresbach
Safety. What does that word mean to you and your operation? What procedures do you have in place if “something happens”? More importantly, what are you doing to prevent incidents from happening?
Safety cannot be talked about enough. There is no “we have done enough” statement in any operation. No amount of gallons or tons or time “saved” by cutting corners is worth a human life.
Unfortunately, there are numerous stories in agriculture about lives lost because they didn’t take the time to implement the proper safety measures. As my father reminds me often, it’s always a good idea to start with the basics. Solving a problem, planning future steps, or reviewing safety operations all start with the basics.
Short on sleep
When experts suggest that adequate sleep habits are key, I know a lot of us laugh. We know that’s almost impossible to achieve because we have too much to accomplish in such a short amount of time.
My suggestion is to take a little 15 minute nap here and there, when you can. Do you need to pull the semi over and miss a load for a few moments of rest? The checkbook might say it’s not worth it, but your performance at a peak level will save money and improve safety.
Sleep medicine researchers have found that lack of sleep impairs physical ability and mental capabilities. It’s surprising how a little more rest can make a big difference in your day.
Fueled for success
It’s no secret that many of us in the agriculture industry run on caffeine. I’ll admit, I like my cup of joe most mornings. One should also drink copious amounts of water, though.
What about the food aspect? It’s not like
No amount of gallons or tons or time “saved” by cutting corners is worth a human life.
there is time for a sit-down meal three times a day. In fact, if you’re anything like me, several of my meals are eaten while holding a steering wheel. As we have heard from our extension professionals for many years, vitamin-dense foods and well-balanced snacks are important. I personally try to prepare foods that are bite size or can be eaten with one hand. A cup of fruit is a better option than a bag of chips. Today, there are many nutritious, prepackaged snacks that can easily be eaten while driving.
Depending on the job site, our company has chosen to provide some meals to our team. Some are cooked on-site, and others are purchased from local restaurants. Our company also provides coolers, unlimited water, and ice to keep our employees hydrated.
Get in the right gear
Proper work clothing is an absolute must. Tennis shoes are forbidden in our shop or on the job site. Our operation does not require steel toe shoes, but in some cases, those are a wise choice.
Loose clothing can also cause problems. If you wear a flannel, it should be buttoned up. Sweatshirts should have the string removed or tied up and out of the way.
Prioritize mental health
It’s okay to not be okay sometimes. Remember, though, that your operation needs you and this world is a better place because you are in it.
Agriculture is not for the faint of heart. Our operations do not exist without the help of others. Sometimes that
help should focus on the humans and not the equipment.
In Ohio, our farmers are experiencing a severe drought, coupled with low commodity prices, government regulations, and countless other worries. This makes for a stressful environment. A major research and extension
effort is being done by USDA to address mental health and to support farmers and ranchers across the U.S. and its territories. Each state has different approaches, but the common thread is the recognition of the mental well-being of the agricultural sector.
You are not alone in the world. The initial call for help is often the hardest step. A compiled list of resources can be found at www.fb.org/initiative/farmstate-of-mind. Don’t forget that the world is a better place with you in it! ■
The author is the vice president of W.D. Farms LLC in Circleville, Ohio, and blogs as the Ohio Manure Gal.
Sustainable Agriculture Summit
November 20 and 21, 2024
Minneapolis, Minn.
Details: sustainableagsummit.org
Wisconsin Water and Soil Health Conference
December 17 and 18, 2024 Wisconsin Dells, Wis.
Details: cropsandsoils.extension.wisc. edu/wwash
Wisconsin Agribusiness Classic
January 13 and 14, 2025 Wisconsin Dells, Wis.
Details: wiagribusiness.org/ag-classic
COMPOST2025
January 27 to 30, 2025 Phoenix, Ariz.
Details: compostconference.com
2025 Soil Management Summit
January 29 and 30, 2025
Mankato, Minn.
Details: bit.ly/2025soilmgtsummit
National Cattleman’s Beef Association Trade Show and Convention
AB Vista 151 Peters Rd, Ste 2001 Plantation, FL 33324 816-225-0874
Bruce.Hageman@ABVista.com ABVista.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 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
Fort Equipment 3216 Wabash Rd Fort Recovery, OH 45846 567-644-5927 fortequip.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.
Don’t miss the premier sustainability event for agriculture and by agriculture
• Network with 900+ food and ag value chain attendees
• Learn from industry experts and share your expertise
• Advance a shared vision for sustainable and resilient food systems
• Celebrate a decade of cross-sector collaboration and progress in U.S. ag sustainability
TAKE CONTROL OF SAND
KEEP SAND WHERE YOU NEED IT, NOT WHERE YOU DON’T
Sand bedding provides a healthy, comfortable environment for dairy cows. But sand is abrasive, and when mixed with manure, it can become difficult to agitate and pump, expensive to land apply and it is not always the optimal addition to fields.
Choose a manure partner who can help you overcome these challenges and help your herd prosper. Plus, you can REDUCE BEDDING COSTS BY UP TO 95% with efficient sand separation and recovery.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
Without separation beforehand, sand-laden manure is incompatible with anaerobic digester systems.
With sand separation, you can:
Achieve greater than 90% sand recovery
Capture an additional 5% of fines
Success begins with capitalizing on physics, gravity and engineering know-how.
MOVING AND SEPARATING
Sand is tough on equipment, but McLanahan equipment is tougher.
Engineered to outperform standard-duty equipment
Simplifies manure transport and handling
Produces clean, recycled sand suitable for reuse within days
Reduces costly storage cleanouts
Heavy-duty engineered equipment for on-farm conditions for extended life and fewer parts runs.
COW COMFORT
Sand bedding is the gold standard for dairy cows because it’s a forgiving, drier, comfortable deep bed.
Sand bedding:
Increases cow lying time
Decreases lameness
Boosts milk production
Researchers suggest bedding with sand containing less than 3% organic matter and more than 95% dry matter.1
FIELD EFFECTS
Over time, applying sand-laden manure can change the nutrient composition of soils.2
As sand is added to manure, the percentage of N, P, K and sulfur is diminished3
Without sand separation, dairies may add up to 2/3 of a truckload of sand per acre per year
The effects are slow, but cumulative. Research shows adding large amounts of sand to soil can change its texture to include 20% more sand over two decades.3
