RIGHT-TO-FARM GUIDE SPECIAL S U P P L E M E N T T O T H E M I C H I G A N F A R M NEWS MICHIGAN F A R M BUREAU MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU Practices for managing January 30, 1997 Issue 1 M PRINTED WITH SOY INK manure in Michigan I n the event of an agricultural pollution emergency such as a chemical or fertilizer spill or manure lagoon breech, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and/or the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality should be contacted at the following emergency telephone numbers: Michigan Department of Agriculture (800) 405-0101 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (800) 292-4706 If there is not an emergency, but you have questions on the Michigan Right- to-Farm Act or items concerning a farm operation, please contact: Michigan Department of Agriculture Right-to-Farm Program P.O. Box 30017 Lansing, Ml 48909 As a service to Michigan Farm Bureau members, this special supplement on manure manage guidelines is the first in a four-part series that (517) 373-1087 will deliver three of the major Right-to-Farm practice areas, including Manure Management, Nutrient Management and Pesticide Manage- ment. A final installment in the series will be a supplement featuring groundwater stewardship activities conducted by Michigan producers. Changes in modern agriculture bring manure management to the forefront Managing manure properly is an increas- An important aspect of generally accepted ingly important challenge for livestock agricultural and management practices requires that and poultry producers. This guide outlines the producer manage the manure and wastewater Generally Accepted Manure Management handling system in a manner that minimizes any Practices in Michigan. negative effect on the environment. This requires L ike all other segments of our economy, agriculture has changed significantly during the past 50 years and will continue to change in the future. The trend toward larger facili- ties (the overwhelming majority being family that the producer consider the total management aspects of the manure handling system rather than only parts of the system. A good recordkeeping system helps the pro- ducer record the past history of manure manage- owned) has resulted in farm operations becoming ment, so that future management of the system will more capital intensive and less labor intensive. be enhanced and can provide a factual basis for Larger farm size offers marketing advantages documenting sound environmental stewardship. and generally a lower unit cost of production com- The generally accepted agricultural and manage- pared to smaller-sized operations. However, in- ment practices that follow should be incorporated creased numbers of animals in livestock operations in most situations. However, adverse weather condi- bring new management challenges dealing with tions may, in part, prevent responsible livestock manure and odors generated. operators from adhering to these practices for a Animal agriculture in Michigan must have the short duration of time. flexibility and opportunity to change agricultural Also, no two livestock operations in Michigan enterprises and to adopt new technology as it be- can be expected to be the same due to the large comes available to remain viable and competitive in number of variables that, together, determine the the market place. If a healthy, growing livestock in- nature of a particular operation. These variables dustry in Michigan is to be assured, efforts must include such items as the kind and number of live- continue to address the concerns of livestock pro- Use of alternative bedding materials, such as shredded newspaper, has presented new ways stock, type of housing and manure handling system, ducers and their neighbors, particularly in two areas: of handling manure on Michigan farms. Use this guide for managing the manure practices feed rations used, type of manure application • Producers who use generally accepted ma- on your operation. equipment, soil types and landscape features on the nure management practices in their live- farm, crops grown, etc. stock operations should be protected from management field. agement practices necessary to control and use These manure management practices are rea- harassment and nuisance complaints. Because these documents are dynamic and manure and other byproducts of livestock produc- sonable and may be accomplished by the majority of • Persons living near livestock operations that periodically reviewed and updated, they contain tion in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on livestock producers without creating a competitive do not follow generally accepted agricultur- current state-of-knowledge guidance on generally the environment. disadvantage to the Michigan livestock industry, m al and management practices need to have accepted management practices for livestock opera- A manure management system plan briefly Manure management publications concerns addressed when odor nuisance or tions that will not be duplicated here. These docu- describes the manure production, collection, stor- Several sources are mentioned in this guide. water-quality problems occur. ments provide more in-depth information about age, treatment, transfer and utilization processes for Here's how to obtain copies: Technical recommendations for livestock ma- the manure management practices presented in the farm and lists the associated components and * Natural Resources Conservation Service nure and wastewater management practices have this document. practices. The system plan does not include any Field Office Technical Guide (NRCS- been consolidated in two major sources of informa- Other documents that specifically relate to detailed designs or construction drawings. A suc- FOTG). Your local NRCS field office has a tion. (See box at right for how to obtain them.) These recommendations contained in this paper are the cessful manure management system is the result of copy you may view. are the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Pork Industry Handbook and Fertilizer sound planning, design, construction, operation • Midwest Plan Service Livestock Waste (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide, or NRCS- Recommendations for Field Crops (Christenson et and maintenance. Facilities Handbook (MWPS-18). Call FOTG and the Midwest Plan Service Livestock Waste al., 1992) and Vegetable Crops (Warncke et al, These recommendations and practices reflect Iowa State University at (800) 562-3618. Facilities Handbook, or MWPS-18. Each has pub- 1992) in Michigan, each available from Michigan the best judgment of professional livestock produc- Cost is $8, plus 1350 shipping. lished waste management specifications and man- State University Extension (MSU-E). ers and professionals who assist livestock producers • For MSU Extension publications, ask your agement guides that are a consensus of agricultural A manure management system is a coordinat- with designing and managing their operations to be county Extension office or call the bulletin engineers and professionals working in the waste ed combination of structural components and man- good stewards of the environment. office at (517) 355-0240. Look for three more special supplements in the Right-to-Farm series — coming soon in future issues ~~~~, Right-ta-Farm Guide Runoff control and wastewater management R ainfall- and snowfall-induced runoff from uncovered livestock fadlities requires control to protect neighboring land areas and prevent direct discharge to surface waters. Sites such as loafing areas, confinement areas or feedlots, which have excessive livestock densities that preclude a predominance of desirable forage spedes, are not considered pasture land. livestock facilities that require runoff control in- • Stocking densities and management systems clude all holding areas where livestock denSity pre- should be employed that ensure that desir- cludes sustaining vegetative growth on the soil able forage species are present with an in- surface. tensity of stand sufficient to slow the move- • Fadlities may be paved, partially paved around ment of runoff water and control soil ero- waterers and feed bunks, or unpaved. sion and movement of manure nutrients • Runoff control is required for any facility if from the pasture land (NRCS-FOTG) . runoff from the lot leaves the property. This • livestock should be excluded from actual would include runoff to a neighbor's land, a contact with streams or water courses ex- roadside ditch, a drain ditch, stream or lake. cept for controlled crossings and accesses Stor.... ponds for runoff control for water (NRCS-FOTG). Runoff control can be achieved by providing As authorized by the Riparian Doctrine, pro- facilities to collect and store the runoff for later ducers are entitled to utilize surface waters travers. application to cropland. The quantity of water to be ing their property. However, this use is limit~d to handled in the runoff control fadlity can be mini- activities that do not result in water quality degrada- mized by diverting roof runoff and off-site runoff tion. The goal for controlling livestock access to away from livestock areas to a drainage system inde- surface waters is to prevent water quality degrada- pendent of the manure management system. tion. livestock impact water quality by the erosion • Runoff storage ponds should be designed to of sediment and nutrients from stream banks and handle all runoff for at least a six-month- bittle-direct deposition of manure nutrients, organ- long design storage period, plus contain the Runoff control can be achieved by providing facilities to collect and store the runoff for later ic matter and pathogens. runoff from the maximum 25-year, 24-hour application to cropland. Direct deposition is effectively prevented by storm event rainfall for the area. Storage restricting livestock to controlled access locations. ponds must be constructed to reduce seep- eficially used by a growing crop. Sprinkler is lot runoff and direct precipitation. Vegetation Banks are effectively stabilized by maintaining vege- age loss to acceptable levels. irrigation methods will provide uniform should be maintained and harvested at least once tation or, as in the case of controlled watering ac- The NRCS-FOTG or MWPS-18 can be consult- application of liquid with minimum labor per year to prevent excessive nutrient buildup in cesses and crossings, stream banks and beds may be ed for detailed design information. See "Construc- requirements. Directing lot runoff through the soil of the infiltration area. stabilized with appropriate protective cover such as tion design for manure ponds and lagoons" on a structure for settling solids can reduce Design information about infiltration areas concrete, rocks, crushed rock, gravel or other suit- page 4 for more information. odor from the liquid during storage and (such as sizing, establishment and maintenance) is able cover. Land IIppllcatJon of runoff application to the land (see NRCS-FOTG available in the NRCS-FOTG, MWPS-18, or the Pork In addition to addressing environmental and Equipment must be available for land applica- and MWPS-18). Industry Handbook (MSU Extension Bulletin E- public health aspects, controlling livestock access to tion of stored runoff water. Land application should Infiltration areas 1132 by Vanderholm and Nye, 1987). These systems surface water and providing alternate drinking wa- be done when the soil is dry enough to accept the An alternative to a storage pond is a structure are not practical for every situation. ter sources may improve herd health by reducing water . for settling solids and an infiltration area (or vegeta- Pasture systems exposure to water- and soil-borne pathogens. • Application rates should be determined tive filter) for handling lot runoff . Pasture land is land that is primarily used for • Runoff from pasture, feeding and watering based upon the ability of the soil to accept The vegetated area may be either a long, the production of forage upon which livestock areas should travel through a vegetated area and store the water and the ability of plants grassed, slightly sloping channel or a broad, flat area graze. Pasture land is characterized by a predomi- of at least 66 feet before it travels into a growing in the application area to utilize with little or no slope surrounded by a berm or nance of vegetation consisting of desirable forage surface water course. ~~trients in the near term. Land application dike. All outside surface water should be excluded spedes (see Moline et aI., 1991; Moline and Plum- • Milk parlor and milk house wastewater shall should be done when the water can be ben- from the infiltration area so the only water applied mer, 1991a, 1991b). be managed in a manner to prevent direct discharge into surface water .• Animal odor management recommendations O dor perception is a subjective response to what people detect, through their sense of smell, in the air they breathe. While there is no scientific evidence that odorous annoyance for neighbors; therefore a lower level of technology and management will adequately man- age odors at the livestock fadlity. However, the distance a livestock operation should be from generally accepted practice. This is espedally com- mon where livestock operations exist within close proximity to food processing fadlities. Using these materials for livestock feed diverts useful byprod- gases that escape from livestock operations are neighboring land to effectively control odors is not ucts (that can pose a substantial load on local sew- toxic at the concentrations experienced by neigh- easily established. age treatment plants and a major problem for food bors, they can become an annoyance or a nuisance No scientific basis exists for determining such processing plants) from the waste stream and con- to neighbors. distances quantitatively, nor is there any commonly verts them into a valuable resource . • livestock producers should plan, design, held community consensus in Michigan at this time Properly handled in a livestock operation, these construct and manage their operations for what these distances should be. feeds pose no threat to the environment. These prod- in a manner that minimizes odor impacts The principles, upon which the most common ucts may require spedal feed handling systems and upon neighbors .. and effeoive techniques for odor control are based, may substantially increase or change the manure gen- The goal for effective odor management is to include: erated by the animals to which they are fed. reduce the frequency, intensity, duration and offen- • Redudng the formation of odor-causing gases. Some of these byproducts~ and the manure siveness of odors, and to manage the operation in a • Reducing the release of odorous gases into produced from their consumption by livestock, can way that tends to create a positive attitude toward the atmosphere. generate rather offensive and intense odors. In the operation. Because of the subjective nature of The degree to which these principles can be these situations, feed handling and manure man- human responses to certain odors, recommenda- applied to the various odor sources found in live- agement practices should be used to control and tions for appropriate technology and management stock operations depends on the level of technolo- minimize the frequency and duration of such odors. practices is not an exact science. The recommenda- gy and management that can be utilized. The fol- Human garbage can only be fed under permit in tions in this section represent the best professional lowing subsections discuss the most common and Michigan (PA. 173 of 1953 as amended). judgment available. predominant odor sources, which are feed materi- Manure The proximity of livestock operations to als and manure. Fresh manure is usually considered to be less neighbors and populated areas is usually the most Feed materials odorous than anaerobically decomposing manure. critical factor in determining the level of technology Using fermented feeds such as corn or hay Fresh manure emits ammonia but in general is not and management needed to minimize odor impacts silage is an acceptable animal husbandry practice accompanied by other products of decomposition Use of slatted floors quickly removes ma- upon neighbors. Therefore, site selection is an im- throughout Michigan for dairy and beef cattle, hors- that contribute to odors. nure from the alleyways of dairy farms. portant faoor. es, sheep and goats. Some odors associated with • Frequent (daily or every few days) removal swine, horse and fur-bearing animal facilities The more remote the livestock operation, the the storage and feeding of these materials are nor- of manure from animal space coupled with - can be temporarily stacked outside the greater the likelihood that odors will not become an mal for these livestock operations. storage or stacking and followed by applica- livestock building. • The odor of these tion to crop land at agronomic rates is an Odors from such manure storages are minimal fermented feed mate- acceptable practice throughout Michigan. except when disturbed, as for land application. Provi- rials such as corn or Manure odors are generally those associated sions to control leachate and runoff from surround- hay silage can be min- with the anaerobic (in the absence of oxygen) de- ing areas need to be in place to protect groundwater imized by harvesting composition of organic material by microorganisms. and surface waters. (See chapter 6 of MWPS-18 for and storing them at The intensity of odors depends upon the biological alternative design concepts and details.) an appropriate dry reactions that take place within the material, the livestock operations may utilize a variety of matter content (gen- nature of the excreted material (dependent upon the bedding materials as part of their manure manage- erally greater than 33 spedes of animal and its diet), the type of bedding ment system. The use of straw, hay, sand, sawdust, percent dry matter). material and the surface area of the odor source. wood shavings, waste paper or other suitable materi- The practice of Sources of decomposing manure can include als, either individually or in combination, as livestock feeding food process- stacked solid manure, outside lots when manure is or poultry bedding is a common generally accepted ing byproducts - such allowed to accumulate, uncovered manure storages, practice. as cull potatoes, dairy manure treatment systems and land application areas. Bedding materials should be of an appropriate whey, pastry byprod- Stacked solid manu ... size to maximize absorptive properties and to pre- ucts, sugarbeet pulp • Solid manure that may contain bedding vent blowing and dispersion when subsequently and sweet corn husks materials or manure that is dried sufficiently applied to crop land. Waxed paper, aluminum foil Controlling the odor of feedstuffs like silage is an important challenge. - to livestock is a - such as that from poultry, cattle, sheep, and plastics should not be in bedding material .• 1~'JI~~1~1r:TYm Right-to-Farm Guide Methods for managing manure odor O utside open lots with or without shelters ar~ a~ceptable for raising livestock in Michigan. In these systems, manure is deposited over a relatively large surface area per Manure storages and acceptable covers _ Use covered manure tanks if technically and economically feasible. _ Where possible, do not locate manure stor- animal (compared to a roofed confinement system, age in close proximity to residential areas. for example) and begins to decompose in place. The primary objective of storage is to tempo- The soil compaction that occurs on outside lots rarily store the manure before application to land. limits movement of water and nutrients from the lot However some biological activity occurs in these toward groundwater. storages and the gases generated can be a source of Odor impacts can be mitigated by keeping the odors. If storage facilities are left uncovered, the lot surface as dry as possible, thus limiting the mi- potential for manure odors to be carried away by air crobiological activity that generates odors. Provid- movement will increase. Various types of covers can ing adequate lot slope~, lot orientation that takes be used to prevent wind driven air from coming advantage of sunlight, diverting up-slope runoff into direct contact with a liquid manure surface and water away from the lot and using recommended incorporating odors. stocking densities will enhance drying of the lot Acceptable covers that can retard odor escape surface. from manure storages include the following: The MWPS-18,Pork Industry Handbook and _ Natural fibrous mats similar to those that Michigan Beef Production Notebook provide de- develop on liquid manure storages receiv- tails and alternatives to accomplish this. ing manure from beef and dairy cattle fed Most feed additives and odor control chemicals a high roughage diet. applied to feedlot surfaces have not been demon- _ Slotted flooring or other under-building strated to be effective in reducing odors from feed- tanks. Ventilation must be provided in the lots in humid areas such as Michigan. building to prevent accumulation of nox- In spite of good facility design and manage. ious and flammable gases. ment, odors may be generated from outside Iive- _ A flexible plastic or similar material that stock lot systems. The intensity of these odors is covers the liquid surface and is of such somewhat proportional to the surface area of the strength, anchorage and design that the odor-producing sources. The frequency of impact covering will not tear or pull loose when and offensiveness to neighbors is often related to subjected to normal winds that have an the distance to neighbors' houses and their location average recurrence interval of25 years. relative to prevailing winds. Gas escape ports should be provided that _ New outside lot systems should not be 10- allow any gas that may evolve to escape. cated in close proximity to residences and _ A solid covering such as concrete, wood, other odor-sensitive land uses. They should plastic .or similar material that covers the not be located uphill along a confining val- entire liquid surface and is of such strength, ley leading toward residences. New resi- anchorage and design that they will with- dences or other sensitive land uses should stand winds and expected vertical loads. not be located within close proximity to Adequate air exchange should be provided, outside lot facilities. which will prevent the occurrence of explo- The goal for effective odor management is to reduce. the .fre.,quency,intensity, duration and sive concentrations of flammable gases .• offensiveness of odors, and to manage the farm in a way that creates a positive attitude. Taking time to treat waste before applying to land may have odor payoff ing miscellaneous debris. Gas leakage (methane is A biological treatment system is designed to convert organic matter (feed, bedding, explosive at 5 to 15 percent in air) and pipe and manure) in animal wastes to more stable valve corrosion have also been problems. To reduce end products. Anaerobic processes occur without these problems, obtain competent engineering free oxygen and liquefy or degrade high BOD (bio- design and purchase quality materials. chemical oxygen demand) wastes. They can Application of manure to land decompose more organic matter per unit volume The following list of practices may be used to than aerobic treatment processes. reduce odor in the application of manure to land. Aerobic processes require free oxygen and are Appropriate implementation \vill help reduce com- generally considered uneconomical for livestock plaints of odors. operations. They are helpful in reducing odor. Fac- • Avoid spreading when the wjnd is blowing ultative microorganisms can function either toward populated areas. anaerobically or aerobically, depending on their _ Avoid spreading on weekends and holidays environment. when people are likely to be engaged in Extreme environmental changes alter microbi- nearby outdoor and recreational activities. al activity. When microorganisms are stressed by the _ Spread in the morning when air begins to environment, waste treatment processes can mal- warm and is rising, rather than in late after- function and odors may become more intense. noon . TrHtment lagoons and storage ponds • Use available weather information to best Anaerobic treatment lagoons are generally advantage. Turbulent breezes will dissipate earthen basins containing diluted manure and are and dilute odors. Hot and humid weather designed to provide degradation of the organic ma- tends to concentrate and intensify odors, terial. Well-designed and managed anaerobic lagoons Many factors on each individual farm, including the type of livestock raised, will determine particularly in the absence of breezes. can be short -term odor sources. The occurrence of how to best manage manure and other byproducts. Storage, hauling and treatment are • Take advantage of natural vegetation barri- purple, sulfur-fIXingbacteria can significantly reduce among the challenges producers must address. ers, such as woodlots or windbreaks, to help odors from an anaerobic treatment lagoon. The filter and dissipate odors. intensity of odors is usually greatest during the early An aerobic lagoon should be loaded at a rate ents at agronomic rates. Construction design for _ Establish vegetated air filters by planting spring and occasionally in the fall. no higher than 44 pounds of ultimate BOD per day treatment lagoons and storage ponds should con- conifers and shrubs as windbreaks and visu- Aerobfc treatment of manure liquids can be per acre. The material in the pond should be dilute form to the recommendations in "Construction al screens between cropland and residential accomplished by natural or mechanical aeration. In enough to allow light to penetrate three to four feet design for manure ponds and lagoons" on page 4 . developments. a naturally aerated system, such as a facultative into the water. The lagoon should be a minimum of Methllne dlgestors _ Incorporate manure into soil during or soon oxidation pond, an aquatic environment occurs in four feet deep to prevent rooted vegetation from Methane can be produced from animal wastes after application. This can be done by soil which photosynthesis from algae and surface aera- growing from the bottom of the lagoon, and may be by anaerobic digestion. This process converts the injection or incorporation within 48 hours tion from the atmosphere provide an aerobic zone deeper to allow for accumulation of sludge. biodegradable organic portion of animal wastes into after application. However, incorporation in the upper regions of the pond. Mechanically aerated systems can be used to biogas (a combination of methane and carbon diox- may not be feasible where manures are ap- Atransition zone occurs below this aerobic treat animal manures to control odors, decompose ide). The remaining semisolid is relatively odor-free plied to pastures or forage crops, such as zone that has a limited amount of oxygen. This is the organic material, remove nitrogen, conserve nitro- but still contains all the nitrogen, phosphorus and alfalfa, or where no-till practices are used. facultative zone where bacteria can live either with or gen or a combination of these functions. When potassium originally present in the animal manure, Irrigation of manure to land can be an effec. \vithout oxygen. At the bottom there may be a sludge adequate oxygen is supplied, a community of aero- although some of the nitrogen can be lost after tive land application method for delivering manure layer that is anaerobic. The processes that occur in bic bacteria grow that produce materials with low storage in a holding pond. to land in a shon period of time without the poten. the aerobic zone have a low odor potential. odor potential. Anaerobic digestion is a stable and reliable tial damage to soil structure that can occur with The odorous compounds that are created in Alternative treatment systems to accomplish process as long as the digestor is loaded daily with a other methods. However, the process can be odor- the facultative and anaerobic zones are converted to mechanical aeration include facultative lagoons, uniform quantity of waste, digestor temperature ous for a short period of time .• low odor forms in the aerobic zone. For a naturally oxidation ditches or completely mixed lagoons. does not fluctuate widely and antibiotics in the aerated system to function properly, design specifi- Efiluent from treatment lagoons and storage waste do not slow biological activity. cations and quantities of manure solids to be treated ponds should be land applied to avoid long-term One major problem with digestors is manure must be closely followed. and extensive ponding and to utilize manure nutri- handling - pumping, grinding, mixing and screen- ~~I~'I~ Right-ta-Farm Guide Consider soil nutrient needs when surface-applying manure to cropland Soli fertility testing Manure analysis • All fields should be sampled at least every • To determine the nutrient content of three years and the soils tested to determine manure, analyze it for percent dry matter where manure nutrients can best be utilized. (solids), ammonium N (NH.-N) and total One goal of a well-managed land application N, P and K. program is to utilize soil testing and fertilizer rec- Several factors that will determine the nutrient ommendations as a guide for applying manures . content of manures prior to land application are: This will allow as much of the manure nutrients as • 1YPe of animal species. possible to be used for supplying crop nutrient • Composition of the feed ration. requirements, then any additional nutrients needed • Amount of feed, bedding and water added to GIn be provided by commercial fertilizers. There- manure . fore, soil testing and manure analysis information • Method of manure collection and storage. can assist the producer in using manure nutrients • Climate. for the greatest economic benefit. Because of the large variation in manure Additional information on soil sampling and nutrient content due to these factors, it is not soil testing can be found in MSU Extension bulletins advisable to use average nutrient contents provided (Christenson et ai., 1992; Meints and Robertson, in publications when determining manure nutrient 1983; Warncke, 1988; and Warncke et ai., 1992.) loadings for crop production. The best way to fertilizer recommendations determine the nutrient content of manure and • Use fertilizer recommendations, based on provide farm-specific information is to obtain a MSU-E bulletins E-550A (Christenson et al., representative sample of that manure and have a 1992) and E-550B (Warncke et al., 1992), to laboratory analyze it. determine the total nutrient needs for crops In order to establish "baseline" information to be grown on each field that could have about the nutrient content of each manure type on Among the most popular uses for livestock manure is for adding nutrients to cropland. This manure applied. the farm, sample and test manures for at least a practice has been used successfully by many producers for many years. Recycling manure in Fertilizer recommendations made by MSU-E two-year period. MSU-Ecan provide information on this manner takes advantage of the nutrients in it. are based on the soil fertility test, soil texture, crop collecting representative manure samples and to be grown, a realistic yield goal (average for past where to send them for analysis .• O ne of the best uses of animal manure is two desirable goals. First, efficient use of manure three to five years) and as a fertilizer for crop production. Recy- nutrients fOi (rop production will accrue economic past crop management. cling plant nutrients from the crop to benefits by reducing the amount of commercial (See Christenson et ai., animals and back to the soil for growth of crops fertilizers needed. Second, water quality concerns 1992 and Warncke et ai., again is an age-old tradition. for potential contamination of surface waters and 1992.) Depending on the species of animal, 70 to 80 groundwater can best be addressed when nutrients Fertilizer recom- percent of the nitrogen (N), 60 to 85 percent of the are applied at agronomic rates. mendations can then be phosphorus (P) and 80 to 90 percent of the potassi- The following management practices are sug- utilized by the livestock um (K) fed to animals as feed will be excreted in the gested for livestock producers to help them achieve producer to help identify manure and are potentially available for recycling to the type of management t~at will accomplish these on which fields manure soils. two goals. However, adverse weather conditions nutrients will have the Uvestock operations can generate large may, in part, prevent responsible livestock produc- greatest value in reduc- amounts of manure and increase the challenge of ers from adhering to these practices for a short ing the amounts of com- recycling manure nutrients for crop production. duration of time. mercial fertilizers need- Good management is the key to ensure that the In addition to effective nutrient management ed, thereby returning emphasis is on manure utilization rather than on and water quality protection, applying manure to the greatest economic waste disposal. land warrants close attention to management prac- benefit. Utilizing manure nutrients to supply the needs tices so potential odor problems can be minimized Selection of sites for manure application depends largely on crops of crops and avoiding excessive loadings achieves or avoided. grown and the harvest schedule. Timing of manure application Construction design for must be made to con- trol runoff and erosion with soil and manure ponds and lagoons water conservation \ practices such as veg- etative buffer strips between surface wa- ters and manure- treated soils. Ideally, manure nutrients (like any other sources of nutri- ents) should be applied as close as possible to, or during, periods of maximum crop nutri- ent uptake to minimize Deciding when to apply manure can be a critical decision to nutrient nutrient loss from the management. soil-plant system. Therefore, spring or T iming manure applications around weather early summer appliGltion is best for conserving nu- and other factors is essential. Applying at trients, whereas fall appliGltion generally results in different times of the year hold different greater nutrient loss, particularly for NOj-N on coarse advantages . textured soils (that is, sands, loamy sands, sandy • Where application of manure is necessary in loams). the fall rather than spring or summer, using Winter appliGltion of manure is the least desir- as many of the following practices as possi- able in terms of nutrient utilization and prevention ble will help to minimize potential loss of of non point pollution. Frozen soils and snow cover When constructing new facilities, producers need to evaluate what manure management N03-N by leaching: (1) apply to medium or will limit nutrient movement into the soil and great- system will work best with their operation. fine rather than to coarse textured soils, (2) ly increase the risk of manure being lost to surface delay applications until soil temperatures fall below 50~, or (3) establish cover crops waters by runoff and erosion during thaws or early spring rains. y o protect groundwater and prevent manure storage areas from leaking, producers may take MSU-E and the Concrete Manure Storages Handbook (MWPS-36). before or after manure application to help When winter application is necessary, appro- several precautions. Seepage control for earthen basins remove N03-N by plant uptake . priately sized buffer strips should be established • Construction design for manure storage and • To protect groundwater from possible con- • Application of manure to frozen or snow- and maintained between surface waters and frozen treatment facilities should meet specifica- tamination, use liners that meet specifica- covered soils should be avoided, but where soils where manure is applied to minimize any run- tions and guidelines found in the NRCS- tions and guidelines in the NRCS-FOTG. necessary: (1) solid manures should only be off and erosion of manure from reaching surface FOTG. Additional publications that can be liners include natural existing soi~ (Bar- applied to areas where slopes are 6 percent waters. Particular attention to soil slopes and ma- used are the National Pork Industry Hand- rington and Jutras, 1985; Barrington et al., or less and (2) liquid manures should only nure application rates can help prevent runoff and book fact sheets E-1341 (Sweeten et al., 1987a, 1987b), bentonite or similar high- be applied to soils where slopes are 3 per- erosion from frozen and/or snow-covered soils 1981) and E-1399 (Melvin et al., 1987) from swell clay materials, compacted eanhen cent or less. In either situation, provisions where manure is applied .• liners and flexible membranes .• ~~I~'I~ Right-to-Farm Guide Keep track of nutrient loadings when applying manure to land . t hese generally accepted practices concern fore, if the soil test level for Preaches 150 Ib/acre manure nutrient loading. (BrayPl), manure applications should be reduced The agronomic (fertilizer) rate of N recom. to a rate where manure P added does not exceed mended for crops (consistent with those in the P removed by the harvested crop. MSU.E bulletins E.550A and E.550B) should The quantity of manure PPSI that should be not be exceeded by the amount of available added can be estimated from Tables I and 2, using a N added, either by manure applied or by realistiC yield goal for the crop to be grown. For manure plus fertilizer N applied and other example, if a yield of 120 bu/acre for corn grain is sources. anticipated, the amount of manure PPs added to The available N per ton or per 1,000 this field should be limited to no more than 42 Ib/ gallons of manure should be determined by acre (l20 bu/acre x 0.351b PPf'bu nutrient remov- using a manure analysis and the appropriate al rate). mineralization factors (see Manure Manage. If the rate of manure application based on P ment Sheet #2, MSU.E bulletin E.2344 by removal by the crop is lower than the manure Jacobs et al., 1992b) for organic N released spreader can physically apply or is not realistic during the first growing season following when planning for crop production management, application and the three succeeding grow. the rate of manure application can be increased. ing seasons. The higher rate of manure application can be • If the soil test level for Preaches 150 lb/acre the P removal for two crop years, as long as this rate (Bray PI), manure applications should be does not exceed the N fertilizer recommendation reduced to a rate where manure Padded for the first crop grown 'after the manure is applied. does not exceed the P removed by the har- If this higher rate of manure application is used, no vested crop. (If this manure rate is impracti. Taking time to follow some basic guidelines when applying manure to land can payoff. fertilizer or manure P should be applied the follow- cal due to manure spreading equipment or ing crop year. crop production management, a quantity of The availability ofN in manure for plant uptake MSU-Ebulletin E-2340 (Jacobs et al., 1992a). Manure nutrient ao.dlngs manure P equal to the amount of P removed will not be the same as highly soluble, fertilizer N. While the availability of N in manure may be on patu ... land by two crop years can be used for the first Therefore, total manure N cannot be substituted for considerably less than 100 percent, the availability In p~ture systems where the grazed forage is crop year, if no additional fertilizer or ma. that in fertilizers on a pound-for-pound basis, be- of P and K in manure has normally been considered the sole feed source for livestock, nutrients from nure P is applied for the second crop year.) cause a portion of the N is present in manure organic to be close to 100 percent. Periodic soil testing can manure deposited by the grazing livestock will not If the Bray PI test reaches 300 lb/acre matter, which must be decomposed before mineral be used to monitor the contribution to soil fertility exceed the nutrient requirement of the pasture or higher, manure applications should be (inorganic) forms ofN are available for plant uptake. levels made by manure P and K, but soil tests have forage. These types of pasture systems may require discontinued until nutrient harvest by crops The late of decomposition (or mineralization) not been very effective to determine the amount of supplemental nutrient applications to maintain reduces P test levels to less than 300 lb/acre. of manure organic matter will be less than 100 per- N a soil can provide for plant growth. forage quality and growth. To protect surface water quality against dis. cent during the first year and will vary depending on When manures are applied to supply all the N Pasture systems utilizing supplemental feed charges of P, adequate soil and water con. the type of manure and the method of manure han- needs of crops, the P needs of crops will usually be (for example, swine farrow-to-finish) often result in servation practices should be used to con. dling. In order to estimate the amount of available N exceeded and soil test levels for P will increase over manure nutrient deposition in excess of pasture trol runoff and erosion from fields where that will be provided by each ton or 1,000 gallons of time. If soil test P levels reach 300 Ib/acre (Bray PI), forage requirements. Therefore, nutrient manage- manure is applied. manure, the total Nand NH{N content from the the risk of losing soluble P and sediment-bound P ment with rotation to harvested forage or row crops Excessive manure applications to soils can: manure analysis can be used with the appropriate by runoff and erosion (that is, nonpoint source is necessary. • Result in excess nitrate-N (NOj-N) not being mineralization factors (see Manure Management pollution) increases. Therefore, adequate soil and Available nutrient deposition should be quanti- used by plants or the soil biology and increase Sheet #2, MSU-Ebulletin E-2344 by Jacobs et al., water conservation practices to control runoff and fied based on livestock density and nutrient mineral- the risk of NOj-N being leached down through 1992b) to calculate this value. erosion should be implemented. ization factors. Manure nutrient loadings should be the soil and into groundwater. Also, additional portions of the residual organic For example, conservation tillage can enhance based on the rotational crop nutrient requirement • Cause P to accumulate in the upper soil pro- matter not decomposed the first year will be decom- infiltration of water into soils, thereby reducing run- consistent with those recommended in MSU-Ebulle- file and increase the risk of contaminating posed the second, third and fourth years and should off, soil erosion and associated P loadings to surface tins E-550Aand E-550B, as noted above .• surface waters with P where runoff or erosion occurs. • Create nutrient imbalances in soils, which may be estimated and induded as a N credit against the fertilizer recommendation to avoid excessive N addi- tions to the soil-plant system. \vaters. Nevertheless, if soil test P levels reach 300 Ib/acre (Bray PI), no -- ... cause poor plant growth or animal nutrition At the present time, organic N released (miner- more manure (or fertiliz- disorders for grazing livestock. alized) during the second, third and fourth cropping er) P should be applied The greatest water quality concern from ex- years is estimated to be 50 percent, 25 percent and until nutrient harvest by cessive manure loadings, where soil erosion and 12.5 percent, respectively, of the amount released crops reduces P test runoff is controlled, is NOj-N losses to groundwater. the first year. Further discussion of decomposition levels to less than 300 Ib/ Therefore; the agronomic fertilizer N recommenda- and appropriate mineralization factors to use in esti- acre. tion should never be exceeded. mating available N from manure can be found in To avoid reaching the 300 Ib/acre Bray PI test level, manure appli- Table 1 - Nutrient removal by several Michigan field crops cation rates should be Ib/unit of yield reduced to provide the Crop Unit N P205 K20 P needs of crops rather than providing all of the Alfalfa Hay ton 45' 10 45 N needs of crops and Haylage ton 14 3.2 12 adding excess P.There- Top nutrients assure good pastureland. Barley Grain bu 0.88 0.38 0.25 Straw ton 13 3.2 52 Birdsfoot Trefoil Hay ton 48 12 42 Bromegrass Hay ton 33 13 51 Grain bu 1.9 0.91 0.46 Table 2 - Approximate nutrient removal in the harvested Canola Straw ton 15 5.3 25 portion of several Michigan vegetable crops Ib/unit of yield Clover-grass Hay ton 41 13 39 Crop N P20o; K20 Corn Grain bu 0.90 0.35 0.27 Grain2 ton 26 12 6.5 Asparagus 13 4.0 10 Stover ton 22 8.2 32 Beans, snap 24 2.4 11 Silage ton 9.4 3.6 7.8 Broccoli 4.0 1.0 11 Dry Edible Beans Grain cwt 3.6 1.2 1.6 Cabbage 7.0 1.6 7.0 Oats Grain bu 0.62 0.25 0.19 Carrots 3.4 1.8 6.8 Straw ton 13 2.8 57 Cauliflower 6.6 2.6 6.6 Orchardgrass Hay ton 50 17 62 Celery 5.0 2.0 16 Potatoes Tubers cwt 0.33 0.13 0.63 Cucumbers 2.0 1.2 3.6 Red Clover Hay ton 40 10 40 Lettuce 4.8 2.0 9.0 Rye Grain bu 1.1 0.41 0.31 Muskmelon 8.4 2.0 11 Straw ton 8.6 3.7 21 Onions 5.0 2.6 4.8 Sorghum- Hay ton 40 15 58 Peas, shelled 20 4.6 10 Sudangrass Haylage ton 12 4.6 18 Peppers 4.0 1.4 5.6 Soybeans Grain bu 3.8 0.88 1.4 Pumpkins 4.0 1.2 6.8 Sugar Beets Roots ton 4.0 1.3 3.3 Sweet Corn 8.4 2.8 5.6 Wheat Grain bu 1.2 0.62 0.38 Squash 3.6 1.6 6.6 Straw ton 13 3.3 23 Tomatoes 4.0 0.8 7.0 Source: Fertilizer Recommendations for Field Crops in Michigan (Christenson. et a/.• 1992). Source: Fertilizer Recommendations for Vegetable Crops in Michigan (Warncke et a/.• 1992). 1 Legumes get most of their nitrogen from air. 2 High moisture grain. I~'il(tl: I @J.RJ ~ I~ Right-ta-Farm Guide Methods for applying manure to land T hese methods for applying manure are be accomplished by a variety of ways. One method sound agronomic practices and can help is to measure the area of land covered by one ma. protect the surrounding areas. nure spreader load or one tank wagon of manure . • Manures should be unifonnly applied to Asecond method is to record the total number soils. The amount of manure applied per of spreader loads or tank wagons applied to a field of acre (gallons or tons) should be known, so known acreage. With either approach, the capacity of manure nutrients can be effectively man. the spreader (in tons) or the tank wagon (in gallons) aged . must be known, and some way to vary the rate of • Manures should not be applied to soils with. application wiIIbe needed such as adjusting the in 150 feet of surface waters or to areas sub- speed of travel or changing the discharge settings on ject to flooding unless: (1) manures are the manure spreading equipment. injected or surface-applied with immediate Guidance is available from MSU-Eto help incorporation (that is, within 48 hours after determine the rates of manure application that a application) or (2) conservation practices livestock producer's equipment can deliver. are used to protect against runoff and ercr Incorporating manure immediately (that is, sion losses to surface waters . within 48 hours following surface application) wiII • Uquid manures should be applied in a man. minimize odors and ammonia {NH~ loss. When ner that will not result in panding or runoff manures are surface-applied, available N can be lost to adjacent property, drainage ditches or by volatilization ofNHr These losses wiIIincrease surface water. with time and temperature and will be further in- • As land slopes increase from zero percent, creased by higher wind speeds and lower humidities. the risk of runoff and erosion also increases, Therefore, injecting manures directly into the particularly for liquid manure. Adequate soil soil or immediately incorporating surface-applied and water conservation practices should be manure wiII minimize NH3 volatilization losses and used that will control runoff and erosion for provide the greatest N value for crop production. Working manure into the soil shortly after application is an excellent way to hold nutrients a particular site, taking into consideration Table 3 shows potential volatilization losses when in the ground. such factors as type of manure, bedding manures are applied to the soil and allowed to dry materi;1l u~ed, surface residue or vegetative on the surface before incorporation. no-till soil management, supplemental irrigation of cent property, drainage ditches or surface water. conditions, soil type and slope. When dilute effluents from lagoons that con- crops, application to land with established pasture Therefore, application to saturated soils, such as A<;is true with fertilizers, lime and pesticides, tain low solids ( less than 2 percent) are applied or or other forages, etc. during or after a rainfall, should be avoided. animal manures should be spread uniformly for irrigated at rates that do not cause ponding, most of To reduce the risk of runoff or erosion losses As land slopes increase, the risk of runoff and best results in crop production. Also, in order to the NH{N wiII likely be absorbed into the soil and of manure nutrients, manures should not be ap- erosion losses to drainage ways, and eventually to know the quantity of manure nutrients applied, the retained (see Jacobs et al, 1992 for additional infor- plied and left on the soil surface within 150 feet of surface waters, also increases. Soil and water conser- amount of manure applied must be known. mation). S!lrface application of manures via surface waters. Manures that are injected or surface vation practices should be used to control and mini- Determining the gallons per acre or tons per irrigation or other methods without incorporation applied with immediate incorporation can be closer mize the risk of non-point source pollution to sur- acre applied by manure spreading equipment can provide alternatives to producers using reduced- or than 150 feet as long as conservation practices are face waters, particularly where manures are applied. used to protect against runoff and erosion. Injection or surface application of manure Table 3 - Ammonium nitrogen volatilization losses for Avegetative buffer between the application ,vith immediate incorporation should generally be surface application of solid and semisolid manures area and any surface water is a desirable conservation used when the land slope is greater than 6 percent. practice. Manure should not be applied to grass wa- However, a number of factors such as liquid versus Days before Retention Loss" tenvays or other areas where there may be a concen- solid or semisolid manures, rate of application, incorporation Factor (RF) Factor (LF) tration of water flow, unless used to fertilize or mulch amount of surface residues, soil texture, drainage, 0-1 day 0.70 0.30 new seedlings following watenvay construction. etc. can influence the degree of runoff and erosion 2-3 days 0.40 0.60 Manure should not be applied to areas subject associated with surface water pollution. Therefore, 4-7 days' 0.20 0.80 to flooding unless injected or immediately incorpo- adequate soil and water conservation practices to > 7 days 0.10 0.90 rated. Liquid manures should not be applied in a control runoff and erosion at any particular site are Source: Recordkeeping System for Crop Production. (Jacobs et al., 1992a) manner that will result in ponding or runoff to adja- more critical than the degree of slope itself.• Composting bridges new technology with sound management techniques C om posting is a self.heating process carried presence of adequate nutrients, the absence of The occurrence of leachate from the compost- material for moisture control during the compost- on by bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi toxic levels of materials that can limit microbial ing material can be minimized by controlling the ing process or applied to grassed infiltration areas. that decompose organic material in the growth and adequate porosity to allow diffusion of initial moisture content of the composting mixture A fleece blanket is a nonwoven textile material presence of oxygen. oxygen into the organic material for aerobic decom- to less than 70 percent and controlling water addi- made from synthetic fibers such as polypropylene. Composting of organic material including position of the organic material. ~ions to the composting material from rainfall. The nonwoven texture of a fleece blanket prevents livestock manures can result in a rather stable end Stability of the end product and its potential Either a fleece blanket or a roofed structure rainfall from penetrating into the composting mate- product that does not support extensive microbial to produce nuisance odors or be a breeding area for can be used as a cover to control rainfall additions rial, but allows the necessary exchange of carbon or insect activity, if the process and systems are flies, depends upon the degree of organic material or leachate from composting windrows. dioxide and oxygen .• properly designed and managed. decomposition and the final moisture content. If the composting process is conducted with- The potential for odors during the compost. Additional information and guidance about out a cover, provisions must be made to collect the ing process depends upon the moisture content of alternatives for composting manures are available in surface runoff, which can either be temporarily the organic material, the carbon-nitrogen ~tio, the the On-Farm CompoSiing Handbook (Rynk, 1992). stored and applied to land, added to composting Ted Louden, MSU agricultural engineer, demonstrates equipment that facilitates manure Ken Gasper, an Ionia County dairy farmer, composts manure from his herd. comporting. ~~I~'I~ Right-ta-Farm Guide Managing manure applications to land A n important ingredient of a successful program for managing the animal ma nure generated by a livestock operation is "planning ahead." An early step of a manure appli- quantities of manure for a particular farm) can be used to compare the quantity of available manure nutrients against the quantity of nutrients removed by the crops to be grown in the livestock operation. Table 5 - Manure Type Solid Nitrogen losses during handling and storage Handling System Daily scrape and haul Manure pack Percent Nitrogen Lost 15-35 20-40 cation plan is to determine whether enough acres Manure Management Sheet #1, MSU-Ebulletin E- of cropland are available for utilizing manure nutri- 2344 (Jacobs et al., 1992b) can assist with this type Open lot 40-60 ents without resulting in excess nutrient application of inventory. Deep pit (poultry) 15-35 to soils. If the quantity of manure nutrients being gen- Liquid Anaerobic pit 15-30 • Records should be kept of manure analyses, erated greatly exceeds the annual crop nutrient Above-ground 10-30 soil test reports and rates of manure applica- needs, then alternative methods for manure utiliza- Earth storage 20-40 tion for individual fields. tion should be identified. For example, cooperative Lagoon 70-80 Good recordkeeping demonstrates good man. agreements with neighboring landowners to pro- Source: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. (Midwest Plan Service, 1985) agement and will be beneficial for the producer. vide additional land areas to properly utilize all of Records should include manure analysis reports the manure nutrients may be necessary. Finally, good recordkeeping is the "backbone" Recordkeeping systems, such as that de- and the following information for individual fields: Another consideration is to use good judg- of a good management plan. Past manure analysis scribed in MSU-Ebulletin E-2340 (Jacobs et al., • Soil fertility test reports. ment when planning manure applications in con- results will be good predictors of the nutrient con- 1992a) , or available as a microcomputer program • Dates of manure applications. junction with normal weather patterns, the avail- tent in manures being applied today. Records of called MSU Nutrient Management (MacKellar et aI., • Rate of manure applied (gallons or wet ability of land at different times during the growing past manure application rates for individual fields 1994), may be helpful in accomplishing this goal.. tons per acre). season for different crops, and the availability of will be helpful for estimating the amount of residual • Previous crops grown on the field. manpower and equipment relative to other activi- N that will be available for crops to use this coming • Yields of past harvested crops. ties on the farm which compete for these resources. growing season. Tables 4 and 5 from MWPS-18can help in Having adequate storage capacity to tempo- Changes in the P test levels of soils with time making preliminary estimates of manure quantities rarily hold manures can add flexibility to a manage- due to manure P additions can be determined from and manure nutrients produced by different types ment plan when unanticipated weather occurs, good records, and that information can be helpful of livestock and N losses during handling and stor- preventing timely applications. Nevertheless, un- in anticipating where manure rates may need to be age of manures before they are applied. This infor- usual weather conditions do occur and can create reduced and when additional land areas may be mation (or preferably manure analyses and actual problems for the best of management plans. needed. Table 4 - Nutrient removal by several Michigan field crops Animal Species Type and Average Size Production Per Day Manure Nutrients (lb) Ib ft3 N P205 K20 ..H~ .• Dairy.Cattle 150. 0.19 0.06 0.023 0.048 250 0.32 0.10 0.045 0.084 500 0.66 0.20 0.082 0.169 1,000 1.32 0.41 0.166 0.325 1,400 1.85 0.57 0.232 0.458 500 0.50 0.17 0.127 0.145 750 0.75 0.26 0.191 0.229 1,000 1.00 0.34 0.250 0.289 1,250 1.20 0.43 0.318 0.373 Beef Cow 1.05 0.36 0.273 0.313 Nursery Rig 35 0.038 0.016 0.0118 0.012 Growing Pig 65 0.070 0.029 0.0223 0.024 FinisningPig 150 0.16 0.068 0.050 0.054 Finishing Pig 200 0.22 0.090 0.068 0.071 Gestating Sow 275 0.15 0.062 0.048 0.048 Sow and Litter 375 0.54 0.230 0.173 0.181 .. Boar 350 0.19 0.078 0.059 0.061 Sheep 100 0.062 0.05 0.015 0.039 Horse 1,000 0.75 0.27 0.105 0.205 Poultry Chicken Broilers 2 0.24 0.123 0.09 (per100 birds) Chicken layers Ll 0.35 0.29 0.250 0.14 Turkey! 16 1.40 1.16 1.00 0.56 Source: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook (Midwest Plan Service, 1985). 1 Values for turkeys estimated by multiplying the .Chicken Layers. values times four. References These sources were used as references to develop Michigan's Generally Accepted Manure Management Practices. For more information about specific techniques, you may consult them. Barrington, S.F. and R.S. Broughton. Design- Graves, R.E. (ed.). 1986. Field application of Melvin, S.W., F.]. Humenik and R.K. White. Vanderholm, D.H. andJ.C. Nye. 1987. Systems ing earthen storage facilities. for manure. manure. Document FA, Manure management for 1987. Swine waste management alternatives. Na- of runoff control. National Pork Industry Handbook, Agricultural Engineering Department. McGill Uni- environmental protection. Pennsylvania Depart- tional Pork Industry Handbook, Ext. Bull. E-1399, Ext. Bull. E-I132, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. versity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H9X 1CO. ment of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. USDA, 1979. Animal waste utilization on crop- Barrington, S.F. and P.].Jutras. 1985. Selecting of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA. Michigan Beef Production Notebook. Depart- land and pastureland. A manual for evaluating sites for earthen manure reservoirs. p. 386-392. In Jacobs, L.W. 1989. Analysis and utilization of ment of Animal Science, 113 Anthony Hall, Mich. agronomic and environmental effects. USDA Utiliza- Agricuitural Waste Utilization and Management, manure for crop production. Mimeo. Dept. of Crop State Univ., East Lansing, MI. tion Research Rep. No.6, October, 1979 (also Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium and Soil Sciences, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. Midwest Plan Service. 1994. Concrete Manure EPA-600/2-79-G59), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural on Agricultural Wastes. Dec. 16-17, 1985. Hyatt Re- Jacobs, L.W., S.U. BOhm and BA MacKellar. Storages Handbook, (MWPS-36). Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. gency, Chicago, IL 1992a. Recordkeeping system for crop production. Midwest Plan Service. 1985. livestock waste USDA, 1983. Water quality field guide. NRCS- Barrington, S.F., PJ.Jutras and R.S. Brought- Ext. Bull. E-2340, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. facilities handbook, 2nd Ed. MWPS-18, Midwest Plan TP-I60, September, 1983. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, on. 1987a. The sealing of soils by manure. I. Jacobs, L.W., S.U. BOhm and BA MacKellar. Service, Iowa State Univ., Ames, 1A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washing- Preliminary investigations. Journal of Canadian 1992b. Recordkeeping system for crop production- Moline, W,]"J.M. Middleton and R. Plummer. ton,D.C. Agricultural Engineering 29:99-103. Manure Management Sheets. Ext. Bull. E-2344, 1991. Grasses and legumes for intensive grazing in USDA, 1992. Agricultural waste management Barrington, S.F., PJ. Jutras and R.S. Brought- Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. Michigan. Ext. Bull. E-2307, Mich. State Univ., East field handbook. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural on. 1987b. The sealing of soils by manure. II. MacKellar, B.M., L.W.Jacobs and S.U. BOhm. Lansing, MI. Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Sealing mechanisms. Journal of Canadian Agricultur- 1996. Michigan State University Nutrient Manage- Moline, W.]. and R. Plummer. 1991a. Hay and USDA-NRCS. Field Office Technical Guide. al Engineering 29: lOS-108. ment (MSUNM), An Agricultural Integrated pasture for horses in the North Central United States. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conser- Best Management Practice Manual. Agricultur- Management Software (AIMS) Microcomputer Pro- Ext. Bull. E-2305, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. vation Service, East Lansing, MI. al Best Management Practices Manual for Michigan's gram. CP-G36,Version 1.3. MSU Bulletin Office, lOB Moline, W.]. and R. Plummer. 1991b. Pasture Warncke, D.O., D.R. Christenson, LW.Jacobs, Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. 1994. MDNR Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East calendars for the North Central United States. Ext. M.L Vitosh and B.H. Zandstra. 1992. Fertilizer rec- Document. Lansing, MI 48824-1039. Bull. E-2304, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. ommendations for vegetable crops in Michigan. Ext. Christenson, D.C., D.O. Warncke, M.L Vitosh, Madison, F., K. Kelling, J. Peterson, T. Daniel, Rynk, R. 1992. On-farm composting hand- Bull. E-550B, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. LW.Jacobs andJ.G. Dahl 1992. Fertilizer recom- G. Jackson and L. Massie. 1986. Guidelines for ap- book. NRAES-54, Northeast Regional Agricultural Warncke, D.O. 1988. Sampling soils for fertiliz- mendations for field crops in Michigan. Ext. Bull. plying manure to pasture and cropland in Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY. er and lime recommendations. Ext. Bull. E-498, E-550A, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. Wisconsin. Ext. Bull. A3392, University of Wisconsin- Sweeten,j.M., C.L Barth, R.E. Hermanson and Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI.. Ellis, B.G. and R.A. Olson. 1986. Economic, Extension, Madison, WI. T. Loudon. 1981. Lagoon systems for swine waste agronomic and environmental implications of fertil- Meints, V.W. and LS. Robertson. 1983. Soil treatment. National Pork Industry Handbook, Ext. izer recommendations. North Central Regional sampling for no-till and conservation tillage crops. Bull. E-1341 , Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. Research Publication No. 310, Agr. Exp. Sta., Mich. Ext. Bull. E-1616, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. State Univ., East Lansing, MI. IL"I~~~I=l'4!f3 Right-to-Farm Guide Manure management survey results Study reveals manure complaints about the location of the manure applica- Survey Participants management pradices tion. Others were about manure spillage, runoff and Species Animal Units Surveys Sent Responses time of application. utilized by Michigan Practices to control odors Dairy, Milkcows 25 - 149 .276 91 producers and knowledge According to Kirk, the most common practice Dairy, Milkcows 150+ 279 117 used to control odor was to avoid spreading near Swine, Hogs 100 - 499 256 86 of the Right-to-Farm neighbors' homes, and on weekends and holidays. Swine, Hogs 500+ 257 85 guidelines. "The farmers who avoided spreading manure Beef, Beefcows 10 - 49 53 24 E arly in 1996, results were released of a sur- vey conducted by Michigan State University on almost 600 farmers about the manure management practices they utilize and their knowl- on weekends and holidays the most were large dairy farms and large swine farms," Kirk says. "Incorporat- ing liquid manure into the soil followed as the next most widely used practice to avoid odor," he adds. Beef, Beefcows Beef, Feedlots Beef, Feedlots Sheep 50+ 50 - 399 400+ 10- 199 58 52 55 55 28 22 22 23 edge of the Michigan Right-ta-Farm (MRTF) Act. Uquld manure storage The survey was conducted by Michigan Farm Sheep 200+ 56 30 Almost 40 percent of the farmers had liquid Bureau Commodity Specialist Kevin Kirk as part of a Horses 5 - 14 49 11 manure storage capabilities, according to the survey. graduate project. Underground storage tanks were the most common Horses 15+ 59 15 Almost 600 farmers completed the survey method of manure storage, at 46.2 percent, followed Poultry 3,000+ 38 24 representing 60 of Michigan's counties and all major closely by lagoons with 38.1 percent. Of those who Turkeys 100,000+ 10 5 livestock groups, including swine, beef, dairy, did not have liquid manure storage facilities, almost sheep, horses, chickens and turkeys. one-quarter relied on hauling manure daily. Approximately 80 percent of the respondents Soli testing practices Farmers' knowledge about recommended knew they were required to operate under general- "The goal of a well-managed land application manure management practices ly accepted agricultural and management practices program is to utilize soil testing and fertilizer rec- Percentage of farmers indicating in order to gain protection from nuisance lawsuits ommendations as a guide to applying manure," Kirk Recommended practices True False under Michigan's Right-to-Farm Act. says. "This will allow as much of the manure nutri- Rlght-to-Farm knowledge gathered Incorporation within 48 hours 62.6°,10 37.4°1<> ents as possible to be used for supplying crop nutri- from the survey Applied on frozen ground 49.5 50.5 ent requirements, while avoiding nutrient overload About two-thirds of the farmers in the survey Applied next to streams 41.2 58.8 to the soil from excess commercial fertilizers." were familiar with the generally accepted agricultur- Livestock can access streams 63.9 36.1 According to the study, 69 percent test their al and management practices for manure adopted soil at least once every three years, while 18.5 per- under the Michigan Righl-to-Farm Act. Above: About 50 percent of those surveyed believed manure could be applied to frozen cent have never tested. The largest segment of the "The results indicate 10 MSU where additional ground while the other 50 percent thought manure could not be applied to frozen ground. study that did not do any soil testing was large education is needed for producers," Kirk explains. According to the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Manure horse farms. with 60 percent never having their "Based on the reSUll'i of the survey and the Management and Utilization, application of manure to frozen or snow-covered ground fields soil tested. need to educate producers, Michigan Farm Bureau should be applied to areas where slopes are 6 percent or less and liquid manure should only Nutrient values and need for testing and the Michigan Department of Agriculture want- be applied to soils where slopes are 3 percent or less. In either situation, provisions must be "Recycling plant nutrients from the crop to ed to provide all producers with the full series of made to control runoff and erosion with soil and water conservation practices such as vege- animals and back to the soil for growth of crops Right-ta-Farm guidelines, starting ,vith this insert on tative buffer strips between surface waters and manure treated soils. again is an age-old tradition," Kirk explains. "De- manure management," he adds. pending on the species of animal, 70 to 80 percent Below: The Michigan Department of Agriculture Right to Farm Environmental Complaint According to Kirk, awareness of the MRTF Act of the nitrogen, 60 to 85 percent of the phospho- Response Program addressed a total of 135 new farm-related environmental and nuisance was observed to be greatest among poultry farms - rous and 80 to 90 percent of the potassium fed to complaints during 1994. This number is consistent with the 1990-94 five-year average of 137 95.1 percent - and large dairy farms, while large animals as feed will be excreted in the manure and complaints per year. As was typical for previous years, a large majority of the 1994 com- horse farm owners were the least aware. therefore be available for recycling to soils." plaints concerned manure management practices at livestock and poultry facilities through- Manure management complaints Only 21 percent of those surveyed reported out Michigan. The Generally Accepted Manure Management Practices were used extensively Over the past five years, almost 17 percent of that they test the nutrient content of manure, ac- during the investigation process for most of these complaints. These practices promote re- farmers had received a complaint about their ma- cording to Kirk. Turkey operations, large feedlots sponsible management, which protects the environment and provides reasonable flexibility nure management praaices. Of those complaints, 48 and large dairy farms were the most common farms for farmers to manage their facilities and farm operations. The practices were first devel- percent were odor complaints and 21 percent were utilizing nutrient testing .• oped in 1987 and have been updated annually since that time. (MDA, 1994 Report) Knowledge of the Michigan Right-to-Farm Act by types of farms Number of responses/percentage of total responses Knowledge Dairy small Dairy large Swine small Swine large Poultry Turkey Beef small Beef large Feedlot small Feedlot large Sheep small Sheep large Horse small Horse large Unknown No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Very 2 (2.2) 6 (5.3) 3 (3.5) 4 (4.8) 1 (4.2) 2 (40.0) 1 (4.2) 0 0 2 (9.1) 0 1 (3.3) 1 (9.1) 0 1 (7.7) Moderate 27 (29.7) 48 (42.1) 21 (24.7) 34 (40.5) 10 (41.7) 1 (20.0) 5 (20.8) 9 (33.3) 7 (33.3) 10(45.5) 7 (30.4) 12 (40.0) 3 (27.3) 1 (6.7) 3 (23.1) Limited 53 (58.2) 53 (46.5) 45 (52.9) 36 (42.9) 12 (50.0) 2 (40.0) 14 (58.3) 14 (51.9) 11 (52.4) 9 (40.9) 12 (52.2) 14 (46.7) 6 (54.5) 3 (20.0) 6 (46.2) None 9 (9.9) 7 (6.1) 16 (18.8) 10 (11.9) 1 (4.2) 0 4 (16.7) 4(14.8) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.5) 4 (17.4) 3 (10.0) 1 (9.1) 11 (73.3) 3 (23.1) Total 91 114 85 84 24 5 24 27 21 22 23 30 11 15 13 During the past four years, Survey respondents having the majority of complaints reviewed the Right-to-Farm Knowledge that MDA can Level of knowledge received by MDAinvolved Act and manure protect a farm operating of the MRTFAct percentofresponden~ manure practices management practices with recommended practices perrentofresponden~ percentofresponden~ percentofresponden~ 50 Very Li m ited Of approximately 1,100 complaints received The fact that only 25.8 percent of Michigan The majority of the farmers (65.5 percent) Moderate None by MDA.more pertain to manure manage- farmers have reviewed the Right-to-Farm were unaware that the MDA could docu- ment practices than any other issue. manure management practices demonstrates ment and consider a farm protected under the need for further education about the MRTFif it was following the recommended importance of the practices. practices.