The Willingness to Participate in Manure Management
Programs at Various Costs: Preliminary Results
From a Survey of Dairy Farmers in New York

Peter Wright, Sr. Extension Associate
Barbara Bellows, Extension Associate
Cornell Cooperative Extension

Nelson Bills, Professor
Patricia Crosscombe
Gregory Poe, Assistant Professor
Cornell University

Rick Koelsch
Livestock Bioenviromnental Engineer, University of Nebraska

Introduction

Proposed and potential State and Federal regulations and community concerns are placing increased emphasis on reducing the potential pollution from dairy farms. Federal regulations are beginning to be implemented to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act. In New York, the preferred implementation of these programs is through creating awareness, education and then voluntary use of better management practices that will decrease the likelihood of creating pollution.

Changes in management practices are best done voluntarily. Both dairy farmers and regulators do not want to end up in an adversarial relationship with government agencies enforcing practices on farms. Regulations would be intrusive and costly on the farm as well as time consuming and expensive for the government. A volunteer approach is a good way to begin. Even if this approach is not completely successful the awareness and education effort may encourage farmers to make some modifications on their own.

In the summer of 1997, Cornell Cooperative Extension sent a 41 question survey on manure management to 1 100 randomly selected dairy farms in New York State. There are approximately 8,700 dairy farms in the state. Of those surveyed, 48% who were still in the dairy business completed the survey. This paper presents preliminary results of a survey that was used to identify existing manure management practices, farmers attitudes towards making changes in their practices, and their willingness to pay for these changes.

Manure management, as discussed in the survey, includes manure spreading practices, the proper storage of manure, barnyard management practices, and the use of manure as a fertilizer. Using the nutrients in the manure to provide the required nutrients for optimum crop growth should also decrease the likelihood of nonpoint source loses from the farm. Spreading manure on frozen or saturated ground, melting snow or during periods of high runoff will increase the amount of nutrients lost to the environment and decreases nutrients available for plant growth. Improved nutrient management with decreased fertilizer costs is likely to show a benefit on farms.

Barnyard management practices include handling manure dropped in barnyards that then has the potential to runoff. Intercepting water flows that bring additional water onto a barnyard will decrease the flows of dirty water off the barnyard. These practices include excluding roof water and upstream surface and subsurface flows from entering a barnyard. Barnyard improvements usually include the installation of concrete paving and curbs to more permanently establish the direction of flow on the barnyard. While paving the barnyard may not decrease the amount of pollutants from leaving the barnyard, it does make regular cleaning possible and can improve heard health. Environmental benefits are obtained when dirty water leaving a barnyard is collected and treated to prevent contamination of surface water bodies. These collection and treatment systems can include filters and settling to retain the solids and then distribution over a vegetated filter area to treat the liquid. Although associated with herd health issues, barnyard improvements may not provide an economic benefit for the farm.

In a voluntary program each farm would become aware of the potential pollution sources it has, choose practices that would reduce the potential, and then implement those practices. Although there are government resources to assist farmers both technically and monetarily these resources are inadequate to meet the needs of all dairy farms in New York State. Successful implementation of a voluntary program will require farms to be willing to pay for practices on their own.

The survey asked farmers to indicate the level of monetary participation they would voluntarily spend on manure management in an bounded contingent valuation approach at costs of $0 to $200 per cow per year. Partial results are shown in Table 1. Past contingent evaluation research suggest that actual contributions will lie between definitely and probably participate (1 and 2). At 50 cents per cow per year less than half the farms can be expected to participate at this time in a voluntary program.

Table 1 Willingness of New York farmers to participate in implementing improved manure management practices on their farm voluntarily.

Participation options at each cost were:

1. I would definitely participate,
2. I would probably participate,
3. Not sure,
4. I would probably not participate, and
5. I would definitely not participate.

If these values are applied to the average herd size of 65 cows represented in the survey, 50 cents per cow is a yearly cost of $32.50 per year. Assuming a one time capital cost with 10-year life and interest rates of 10%, this represents a present value of about $200. For most capital expense items to improve manure management there would also be yearly expenses for operation and repairs.

Improved barnyard management for their milking herds may be needed on almost half the farms in the survey. Of the milking herds identified in the survey, 46. 1% have a downhill water body within 300 feet of the barnyard. Survey result indicate that farms further than 300 feet of a waterbody are slightly more likely to divert clean water away from a barnyard than farms which are closer to streams. Seventy percent of those further than 300 feet from a water body have installed either surface water diversions or roof water control practices to reduce the flow of clean water to their barnyard while only 57% of those within 300 feet of a water body have done so. Similarly, only 54% of the farms with barnyards more than 300 feet upstream from a water body do not control the runoff from the barnyard while 84% of the farms closer to water body are not controlling barnyard runoff. Why farms with barnyards closer to a water body have done less to prevent pollution than farms further away is a question for further analysis.

The cost of installing practices that prevent clean water from running onto a barnyard vary. Diversions and surface inlets to contain overland flow and drip trenches or roof gutters to control roof runoff can range in cost from under $1 per foot to over $10 per foot depending on the amount of water to be controlled and other site specific conditions. If the average barnyard contains 70 square feet per animal and is represented as a square with two sides needing protection from extra outside water, the average 65 head barnyard would need about $700 at $5 per foot to eliminate this outside water from the barnyard. Some farms could do this for much less but other farms may have to spend much more. Collection systems, settling basins and the filter strips to treat the effluent from the barnyard will require both a capital cost as well as continued costs to clean out the settled solids and to maintain the filter areas. These systems typically range in price from $1,000 to $10,000 and often include concrete paving of the barnyard.

Comparing the costs of barnyard water management to the farmers willingness to pay shows that few farmers will be willing to pay for these practices voluntarily at this time. Seventeen percent already have runoff control practices and 49% use some practice to reduce the flow of clean water onto the barnyard. Perceived health benefits and ease of cleaning may be why these farmers have been willing to pay for this practice on their own.

Direct manure runoff to water bodies can occur on other barnyards on the farm as well as through cattle access to streams while pasturing. Nine percent of the farms reported another barnyard other than the milking herd's that would have a higher pollution potential. Fifty five percent reported that livestock had either direct access to surface water or crossed streams to get to pasture. Providing alternate drinking water sources for pastured animals as well as laying out pastures to avoid direct deposit of manure to water bodies may be an additional cost that farmers will need to consider.

Manure spreading practices as part of a nutrient management plan have the potential to reduce costs by lowering fertilizer costs on farms with a low animal unit to crop acre ratio. The average ratio of animal units to acres was 0.5 A.U. per acre. This is much lower than the ratio for a minimal level of concern in NY of 1 A.U. per acre. Although the maximum number of animal units per acre reported was 3.4 A.U. per acre, farms with intense land use in New York is not the normal situation.

Most farms spread their manure on a daily basis. Sixty three percent spread at least 90% of their milking herd's manure without storing it. Fifty percent of farms did not have any storage available to them. Avoiding spreading on frozen or saturated ground will be difficult for these farms. Ten percent of the farms had at least 180 days of manure storage. Only 6% had manure storage for more than 270 days. Earthen manure storage is often the lowest cost storage alternative for long term storage. The average 65 cow herd can expect to pay around $3,000 for the earthen storage. This cost does not include the equipment to load and unload the storage as well as the liquid spreader that would be need to spread the manure. These costs can approach $50,000 for a pump to load the pit, a pump/agitator to unload it and a liquid spreader. Only 24% of the farms use liquid manure.

Manure storage may reduce total costs on farms by allowing more efficient spreading operations as well as better nutrient recovery. Nitrogen retention by rapid incorporation, sometimes practiced by 46% of the farms surveyed, has the potential to double the amount of nitrogen available for the crop. Following a written plan is also easier when the manure spreading operation is concentrated to a shorter time period. Only 22% of farms always or mostly follow a written nutrient management plan. Smaller farms may find it necessary to use custom applicators to keep their equipment expenses reasonable and their spreading costs low.

Thirty one percent of the farms reported that they follow Comell fertilizer recommendations mostly or always. Thirty four percent rate their current knowledge/skills in managing manure nutrients at better than fair. Only 54% say they mostly or always adjust their fertilizer applications based on the availability of nutrients in manure. Yet only 18% want more help in managing their nutrients. There still seems to be more of a need than what was expressed by the farmers to improve nutrient use of the manure.

Without calibrating the manure spreaders or analyzing the manure for nutrient content it is unrealistic to expect manure nutrients to replace purchased fertilizer. Manure nutrients vary from farm to farm and on each farm depend on the diet, the amount of bedding added and the amount of dilution water. Without having confidence in the nutrient analysis and the spreading rate, it is difficult to adjust fertilizer applications appropriately. New York farms do a good job of soil testing, 70% test their soils at least every 5 years. Manure analysis is neglected on most farms. Only 20% have completed a manure analysis within the last 5 years. This makes it hard to follow fertilizer recommendations as well as to adjust fertilizer applications for the manure applied. Only 18% of the farms surveyed had calibrated their manure spreaders within the last 5 years.

Pre-Sidedress Soil Nitrogen Tests (PSNT) are the easiest, accurate way of determining if there is enough nitrogen present for economically optimum yields. When using manure as a the major source of nitrogen there are uncertainties about the amount of available nitrogen remaining in the soil for use by the plant. Leaching of nitrates, denitrification, and mineralization are all dependent on environmental conditions. The PSNT is used to determine if the calculations and assumptions used to determine the amount of manure spread were correct. Thirty five percent of those farms surveyed had sometimes used this test but only 14% use it each year on select fields.

Farmers in NY may not be convinced that the pollution potential from their farms warrants the expenditure of increased costs to reduce it. Fifty one percent agree that farmers should not have to pay for installing water pollution control practices on current operations, and 26% don't think that expanding farms should have to pay to install pollution control practices. This may be because 63% of farmers agree that in a typical year, manure and barnyard runoff is not a water pollution problem on their farm. If there is no perceived problem then the rational decision is to avoid spending money to fix it. Only 6% have received complaints about water pollution problems from their farm recently.

Dairy farmers surveyed in New York State do not appear to be willing voluntarily to pay enough to provide barnyard protection from either clean water running onto the barnyard or to treat dirty water running off the barnyard. Although some farms have reduced this potential pollution source already since 16% don't have a barnyard for their milking herd, 49 % have some practices in place to prevent off site water from entering the barnyard, and 15% control the runoff from their barnyard. Alternative practices that cost less but provide some pollution protection may be a better goal for a voluntary program. Identifying these practices, evaluating them, and promoting them will be a challenge.

Dairy farmers in NY are using some management practices to recycle the nutrients in the manure to replace purchased fertilizer. Most farmers are not analyzing the manure or calibrating their spreaders. These practices should be a benefit for the farm, yet significant numbers of farmers are not taking full advantage of the technology to fully utilize the nutrients from the manure produced on their farms.

Very few farms have enough manure storage to avoid spreading manure on saturated or frozen ground. The extra cost for this practice is more than the farmers have indicated that they are willing to pay. The cost of storage may be offset with reduced fertilizer costs if managed properly.

An awareness and educational component to increase the voluntary implementation of pollution control practices may be essential. Using reasons other than pollution control such as cost savings of reduced fertilizer expenses when using a nutrient management plan, better health from animals in improved barnyards, and reduced equipment and labor expenses by handling manure from a storage may be more compelling arguments for farmers to voluntarily implement these practices.

Increasing the awareness of the potential pollution problems from non point agricultural runoff may be needed to increase farmers willingness to pay. Non point sources by their definition are hard to see. The effects of non point pollution are often off site so the people contributing to the problem may not realize it. Non point pollution prevention may be perceived as futile since each individual potential source is such a small part of the problem.

To Top