THE PERFECT PACKAGE

We all know that what’s on the inside is what really counts. Still, presentation and packaging often make a big difference in how something is perceived and accepted. And sometimes, packaging impacts quality, too. A few weeks into the school year, I received a note from my child’s pre-kindergarten teacher. She explained that my daughter did not want to drink milk at snack time. I was surprised to hear this, as my daughter is a good milk drinker at home. Plus, with personal connections to the dairy industry, I certainly am an advocate of milk.

I asked my daughter why she did not drink milk with her snack at school, and she simply said she did not like how it tasted from the carton. At just 4 years old, she already noticed the different taste between types of packaging and was making a consumption choice.

Milk packaging has been a topic of conversation for years, yet in many schools, cardboard cartons are still the standard. Milk consumption in children has been on a decline for decades, and one can’t help but wonder if milk served in plastic jugs could help reverse the trend by providing this nutritious beverage in a more desirable way.

The debate about milk, or any food packaging for that matter, is a discussion for another time and for the pages of another magazine. Still, there are parallels when it comes to how we “package” and promote manure.

Good marketers are able to dress up an item that isn’t all that exciting in a way that makes people want to buy it. Farmers in general are not marketers, and at times, our industry struggles to promote our products and the practices that are done on farms.

In its purest form, manure is not that appealing to the eyes or the nose, especially to someone outside of agriculture. However, this by-product is extremely valuable. We just need to package it in ways that provide the most benefit for the farmer and help non-farmers understand its worth.

Great strides have been made to develop prod- ucts and technologies that help farms reduce manure volume, gas emissions, and odor. The continuous goal is to find ways to make manure easier to handle yet still be cost effective.

One technology example highlighted in this issue is pelletizing manure, which condenses the nutrients in a form that is easier to transport. This is an expensive process that won’t work on every farm, but it is one opportunity to make manure more palatable for both the end user and the casual observer. Learn more on page 8.

Of course, not all packaging comes in the form of pretty wrapping paper and fancy bows. Sometimes, packaging is more conceptual and involves building a product or brand’s image.

Farmers can say they are using sustainable practices, but those words may ring hollow if the public doesn’t know what that means or if the results aren’t tangible. That is why helping the public understand general farming practices is a goal of the Lafayette Ag Stewardship Alliance (LASA), a farmer-led conservation group featured on page 12.

The organization’s leader, Jim Winn, said that the group has made an impact locally in the four year’s since its inception. More recently, LASA’s collaboration with food processors Grande Cheese Company and Nestle has opened doors so the benefits of conservation practices and environmental stewardship reaches consumers, too. Who knows, maybe someday it will be commonplace for shoppers to pick up a candy bar with a label that indicates its ingredients came from a farm committed to sustainable agricultural efforts.

As this year comes to a close, thank you for your readership of the Journal of Nutrient Management We hope the pages of our magazine have brought worthwhile insights to your farm. We send our best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season.

Until next time,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senate Democrats released an overview of the $28 million that would be allocated to conservation efforts in their proposed $3.5 trillion spending bill. Plans for this funding include:

• $9 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to specifically expand funding for the implementation of on-farm conservation practices.

• $7.5 billion for the Regional Conservation Partnerships Program (RCPP), which supports locally led conservation.

• $4 billion for the Conservation Security Program (CSP), which focuses on wholefarm conservation systems.

• $1.5 billion for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.

• $5 billion for a new Farm Service Agency (FSA) cover crop initiative.

• $200 million to go toward Conservation Technical Assistance.

• $600 million for measuring the benefits of conservation practices on greenhouse gas emissions.

If all measures are approved, this investment would roughly double the funding dedicated to conservation practices in the current farm bill.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands is home to 1.57 million dairy cows, but proposed legislation could cut that number by 25% to 30%. Since the country’s highest administrative court ruled that the Netherlands was not reducing excess nitrogen production as was required by a European Union law, measures have been taken to cut nitrogen emissions. This most recent proposal would remove between 395,000 and 474,000 Dutch dairy cows, adding to the 12.5% reduction in herd size already experienced since phosphate-reducing legislation was imposed in 2017.

The country pledged to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions 49% by 2030 (compared to 1990) and 95% by 2050. This will be achieved partially by capping on-farm emissions of nitrogen and phosphate. Even if the legislation is not passed, it is estimated that the Dutch dairy herd may still shrink by 10% over the next five years as farmers leave the industry, trade their manure quota to other dairies, or move to countries that are more welcoming to dairy farming.

expanding the current rule of planting cover crops in the summer months.

Furthermore, if manure is applied during the first two weeks of October, farmers must implement one of four approved nitrogen management practices.

Republican leaders in the state initially proposed a complete repeal of the new winter and fall manure regulations and cover crop requirements, but after negotiations, only the October regulations were removed. The changes were part of a large bill, including a broad swath of environmental policies, that was passed in August.

However, this was a short-term win for Minnesota legislators. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in and exercised its right to veto legislation that conflicts with clean water laws. This move reinstated the original permit written by MPCA, including the manure application and cover crop expectations. The permit is written and implemented by the state but is required under federal clean water laws.

Idaho

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit due to a lack of monitoring for underground discharges and potential discharges from dry weather land applications. This took place after the permit was challenged in federal court by two environmental groups, the Food and Water Watch and the Snake River Waterkeepers. The permit was sent back to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to correct these concerns.

Minnesota

Restrictions set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) went into effect last February as part of the revised Feedlot General Permit, which is updated every five years. Agriculture groups in the state opposed the new restrictions, though, contending they were based on incomplete science and data from only portions of the state.

The most recent update to the permit for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) bans farms from applying solid manure in March and limits application in February. In addition, it requires permitted farmers to plant cover crops in September,