California dairy farmer Joey Rocha. Photo: Stephanie OgburnTurlock, Calif. -- Joey Rocha tends 2,800 cows at his Central
Valley dairy. That may sound like a large herd, but in
California, Rocha is a mid-sized dairy producer.
Taken together, California's dairy cows produce more than 100,000 tons of manure every day. Rocha and his fellow dairy farmers put all those cow pies to good use -- as fertilizer for the fields that grow the corn that feeds their herds. It's a perfect closed-loop system, except for one big problem: nitrogen.
Manure is nitrogen rich, which makes it a great fertilizer. But by applying every last bit of manure to their fields, California dairy farmers -- and non-dairy farmers as well -- are dosing their crops with more nitrogen than the plants can absorb. The excess nitrogen is causing serious air and water pollution problems and may even be threatening the health of the soil.
There are ways around this problem: dairy producers and farmers could dial back on the manure and synthetic fertilizers they apply. But there's not a lot of incentive to do this.
"[Fertilizers] are, in fact, relatively cheap and very good insurance," says Allen Dusault, program director at Sustainable Conservation, a California group that works with farmers to develop economically-feasible approaches to environmental practices. "If you're a farmer that is applying adequate amounts and then some, it's good insurance to make sure you get your yields."
Perverse incentives
Yields are the driving force of modern agriculture. Whether a farmer is growing corn to feed his dairy cows or someone else's, he gets paid by the ton. If he can apply a little extra of something that is cheap or free (fertilizer or manure) in order to ensure a high yield, that's a no-brainer.
Although most agronomists will tell you that farmers over apply nitrogen and can get the same yields without adding as much fertilizer and manure as they do, few farmers are willing to take that risk for an environmental benefit that doesn't impact them.
Thus, nitrogen pollution from farms is really a kind of market failure: individual farmers have little or no incentive to act in a way that protects the groundwater beneath them. But the public does have an interest in clean water; and public action will likely be required to change the incentive structure.
Reducing risk
Allen Dusault, program director at Sustainable Conservation, a California group that works with farmers to develop economically-feasible approaches to improving environmental practices, has thought a lot about the N problem. What's needed, he says, "is a way to insure the financial viability of crop production methods without creating such a surplus of nitrogen that you have runoff."
That's where risk-reduction programs such as the Best Management Practices (BMP) Challenge come in. The BMP Challenge, a unique program available in 18 major farming states, allows farmers to try environmentally-beneficial management techniques by offering to pay them for any costs they might incur in the process.
The program, originally started by American Farmland Trust and now run by a company called AgFlex, is focused mostly in areas where nitrogen runoff is causing big problems: the Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi River watershed, the Great Lakes Region, and now California dairies.
Farmers who enroll in California's BMP Challenge agree to apply less manure to their corn, and to try and target that application at times when the corn will actually absorb most of the nitrogen in the manure. If farmers' yields dip, the program compensates them for their loss. If their yields increase or hold steady, farmers pocket the savings from reduced fertilizer use and higher yields.
Rocha was one of the five dairy farmers that Dusault and Sustainable Conservation first approached in 2009 about taking the BMP Challenge. "We don't look for these new programs," says Rocha, whose environmental consultant turned him on to the program. "But when stuff comes our way, we do take a listen to it."
Next year Sustainable Conservation hopes to enroll about 20 dairy producers in the San Joaquin Valley, according to senior project manager Ladi Asgill. The program is appealing, says Asgill, because it "offers an opportunity for dairies to experiment and work out the kinks in implementing a new practice, where we offer risk coverage, basically."
Speaking of risk, Rocha did have slightly lower yields this year. But he also learned a lot about how to time his irrigations and apply manure more efficiently. With a few years practice, Rocha believes he could get to the point where he sees "the same [yields] with less [manure]."
Limiting risk is a key component in getting farmers to try new practices that have favorable environmental results, says Ferd Hoefner, policy director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition[4], a D.C.-based policy group.
"There really is a barrier to adoption of practices, even practices that on average are great net-return kinds of practices for farmers," Hoefner says. "They fear there will be some kind of cost of production."
The BMP Challenge gets farmers over the financial hurdle. For Rocha, it was a "no-fear" option.
"There's nothing unattractive about it," he says.
Taking it national
Of course, paying farmers to try new practices can get expensive. Farm conditions vary and the program has to pony up to pay for yield reductions. Ideally, says policy analyst Hoefner, the program might work well as a kind of national insurance policy for farmers willing to try something new.
In Hoefner's view, modest programs like the BMP Challenge could have a lot of short-term impact. But when it comes to creating truly sustainable agriculture systems, Hoefner says his organization would like to see more support for widespread systemic changes in how dairy farms, and other farming systems, operate. Such changes would include returning to traditional pasture-based grazing systems, and exchanging concentrated animal feeding operations such as Rocha's for smaller livestock production approaches that integrate animals into farming systems with techniques such as rotational grazing.
The HDTV Challenge
Rocha didn't get his usual yields last year, but he's game to try the BMP Challenge or some other similar program again.
"If it's out there next year, if there's another program to be had, we'll take a good hard look at it again," he says. "If we wind up with ... [a] little less nitrogen, that's better for us, better for the ground."
In the long run, what matters most is the effect that Rocha's experiment has on his dairy farming neighbors. If they see him getting more yield with less manure, they may start doing what he's doing -- and if that happens, the practice of smart nitrogen use could snowball.
Sustainable Conservation's Dusault calls programs like BMP Challenge "showcasing," and likens Rocha to the early adopters who bought the first HDTVs. (25 percent of American households had high definition televisions in 2007; 50 percent had them in 2009.)
Manure management isn't as much fun as watching Peyton Manning launch a Hail Mary in hi-def, though, and if California dairies follow the same trend as California farmers who failed to adopt conservation tillage, Dusault's HDTV penetration model may not apply.
The truth is it's too early to tell how effective the BMP Challenge for California's dairies will be. What is clear is that unless government steps in to share some risk or change financial incentives, farmers across the country will likely continue overdosing their fields with nitrogen -- to the detriment of our ecosystems and our health.
The real price of cheap Walmart eggs?
This New Agtivist wants to grow food in old K-Marts
How bad are the next few years going to suck? 


Comments
Post a Comment +
I'm surprised there was no mention of anaerobic digesters in this article. These can take the methane from manure to produce electricity, and the byproduct is a better fertilizer than pure manure. It's a win-win situation for farmers and environmentalists. Here's a good FAQ:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/anaerobic_digester_FAQs_2005_137431_7.pdf
A lovely man called John Seymour, whom many will remember for his books on self-sufficient farming, saw slurry fermenters working in Africa post WWII.
His expereience was that the fertilizer output was so effective that the gas output was of little value by comparison.
Regards,
Billhook
Farmers are by nature cautious when it comes to taking chances, as they are the biggest gamblers around, so risk everything pretty much every year. There are so many variables they have no control over, it's difficult to decide to try something when what you are doing seems to be working. They have to know so many different things, that keeping track of everything is a real challenge.
So, if we want them to try new things, the least we can do is help them mitigate the possible risks. If we can bail out the banksters, who don't contribute anything to help us, then we can help the farmers that feed us.
Not sure about California law, but in Wisc, there are regulations that restrict the application of manure at certain soil fertility levels. The farmers have to follow a nutrient management plan based on phosphorous. By following that nutrient, it is rare that if you are applying manure to balance the P, you will not over apply the N, by using manure. Intrestingly enough, the municipality wastes (which are regulated by the dept of Natural resources) balance their land spreading of waste to N. The practice can over apply P to the soils. These regulations are not only for manure apps, but all nutrient apps.
Right arm scotty! Check the latest media craze from 60 minutes, the Bloom Box. A distributed power source that runs on biogas from biomass waste digestion, like manure and crop wqaste in this case. Farmers get payed for renewable smart grid on demand backup with biogas/fuel cell power, then get tons of organic fertilizer to curtail chemical fertiler.
The latest wave to hit the media, the Bloom Box:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml
DrX
It sounds like an amazing deal. Unfortunately to has been too cost prohibitive. Maybe they have a more economical way to to it now. A local dairy with over 1000 animal units wasn't large enough or close enough to a grid to make it economically feasible. Too bad. It is a great idea to capture energy and reduce potential environmental issues. IMO, we also need to address municipal wastes the same way.
Scotty:
Have you noticed that that U. of Michigan write up is a gee whiz sales tract? There are no input output numbers. A number of Universities (UC Davis comes to mind) are pushing anaerobic digestion like crazy, presumably because they can smell patents and garbage industry support. So-called biogas is not a freebie but a signal that the system is broken. They talk about the high temperature of the digester but fail to point out that at least half of the emitted methane is burned right away to raise the digester temperature. Pretty ironic, that all this effort is directed at keeping oxygen out but to make the process work, oxygen has to be relied on for combustion of the product. The big advantage of these digesters compared to straightforward composting is that they use heavy machinery and suck up capital investment, all the while appropriating agricultural excess outputs into the political control of the garbage industry. Composting makes more sense all around, closing the agricultural cycle in a simple way without heavy investment or corrupting politics.
" The big advantage of these digesters compared to straightforward composting is that they use heavy machinery and suck up capital investment, all the while appropriating agricultural excess outputs into the political control of the garbage industry."
I think you do not have a clue about what you are talking.
Actually, the investments are no big if your goal is just to turn your manure into a far better compost end product to be used in your own operations or sold to compost consumers, and you skip the electricity production part altogether.
All manure gets collected into earth or concrete walled ponds at all farms, so that the farmer can pump it up into his tractor tanker, to spread it onto his fields.
If you do bother to cover the walled pond with an airtight canvas cloth, you insulate your manure pond from outside air influence, and the manure to methane/compost conversion can start. Your canvas cover will start to blow up like a balloon, due to the methane pressure. If you installed a pipe hose on top of that canvas, you can suck up that methane into a cheap recycled natural gas draft furnace, to keep the manure heated, and increase your methane production yields. If you generate lots of methane, you can use part of the heat to keep your animal sheds warm in winter.
That is how they do it in Thailand, India, and many not capital rich area's of the world. They have a series of very cheap earth walled covered up ponds that they sequentially fill up ...read more
Alain:
A problem is that we are thinking of two different pictures. You are discussing dairies and manure and I am thinking of the far more insidious campaign of the garbage industry and their dumps to take over the control of organic matter generally. The two situations merit different discussions. You may be entirely right about farmers, working with their own generated excesses in a somewhat responsible manner but it is quite a different story with the dumps. The garbage industry has been fighting for a long time for control over any and all excesses. In the case of Waste Management vs. Palm Desert California, a seminal case, the franchised garbage company even claimed ownership over your broken wagon once you decided you didn't need it. They tried to stop citizens from taking their own goods to a metals recycler, claiming that they, the garbage company, owned your goods if you had "wasted" them in your mind. Definitely not the story of dairy farmers. But I would expect that if the reuse of manure began to look lucrative, the garbage companies would be right there saying that the dairy farmers did not own their own manure but had to turn it over to Waste Management for processing. There are more absurd laws than that being applied today. How about fining people for not buying health insurance, for starters? Or Monsanto collecting damages from farmers whose organic crops were contaminated with wind blown pollen from GMO fields?
The movement toward ...read more
Polamca, I read your reply and it make sense.
I saw the documentary Food Inc, and I think Joel Salatin would have to explain to me how to feed 6.8 Billion people using only free ranging cattle, knowing that you need 1 cow per 5 people to support us. I am pretty sure we won't find enough green pasture land to put at that cattle in free range, even when how nice I and you would like it to be, since enclosing them in cages is an awful practice.
For the rest of your statement about Garbage Inc. , note that I am not living in the USA and therefore cannot judge what you state. I live in Belgium, that is a country based in western Europe.
Belgium has a very small land area, resembling New Jersey in many ways : big cities, some agro land and a sea and mountains on both border ends.
Belgium has BANNED all ground waste dumping, since we don't any space left for this practice. The result is that to avoid having the streets and rain water collectors full with household garbage, they had to provide an alternative system.
They created collection parks, that is a sort of enclosed but free access parking area full with containers, each container can be filled with a specific waste (e.g. only paper, only cardboard, only metal, only electrical wiring, only concrete waste, only wood refuses, only glass, only plastic wrapping, only plastic plant pots, only styrofoam, only clothing, only motor oil, only cooking oil, only TL lamps, only batteries, only electrical gear, ...read more