Water quality concerns associated with dairy farms

2017 ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
K. F. Knowlton ◽  
P. P. Ray
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Dairy Farms

scholarly journals Opportunities to decrease the water quality impact of spring forage crops on dairy farms

2012 ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
S.J. Dennis ◽  
R.W. Mcdowell ◽  
D.R. Stevens ◽  
D. Dalley
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Surface Runoff ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
Rate Data ◽  
Pasture Management ◽  
Forage Crops ◽  
Forage Crop ◽  
Farm Profitability ◽  
Water Quality Impact

Currently spring forage crops are used to manage late calving cows on the dairy platform, protect spring pasture from pugging damage, and allow the animals to feed on a mix of brassica and pasture to transition to a pasture-based diet. In addition, like winter forage crops, they could contribute considerable water quality contaminants via surface runoff. However, it may be possible to manage farms without spring forage crops. Two Southland dairy farms were used to show: 1) flowweighted mean concentrations of many water quality contaminants in surface runoff from a spring-grazed forage crop were similar to those found in studies of winter-grazed forage crops; and 2) that, using growth rate data for 2007-2012, in no year was the modelled forage crop beneficial from a feed supply perspective, and in all years the farms had similar financial performances and fewer feed deficits under all-grass management. Hence, good pasture management (e.g. avoiding treading damage using a stand-off pad and short grazing times) may negate the need for a spring forage crop, decreasing contaminant losses while not impairing farm profitability. Keywords: surface runoff, transition diet, water quality, winter forage crop.

scholarly journals Water Quality Treatment for Livestock Feeding and Exercise Areas on California Coastal Dairy Farms and Ranches

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S Lennox ◽  
David J Lewis ◽  
Jon Gustafson ◽  
Kenneth W Tate ◽  
Edward R Atwill
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
Livestock Feeding

scholarly journals An analysis of the relationship between bulk tank milk quality and wash water quality on dairy farms in Ontario, Canada

2009 ◽  
Vol 92 (8) ◽  
pp. 3714-3722 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.R. Perkins ◽  
D.F. Kelton ◽  
K.J. Hand ◽  
G. MacNaughton ◽  
O. Berke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
Milk Quality ◽  
Wash Water ◽  
Bulk Tank Milk ◽  
Bulk Tank ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals Cover Cropping and Interseeding Management Practices to Improve Runoff Quality from Dairy Farms in Central Pennsylvania

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 1403-1413
Author(s):  
Ryan G. Barnes ◽  
C. Alan Rotz ◽  
Heather E. Preisendanz ◽  
Jack E. Watson ◽  
Herschel A. Elliott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Economic Impacts ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
System Model ◽  
Post Harvest ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Central Pennsylvania ◽  
Farm System ◽  
Farm Types

HighlightsThree crop scenarios for eight dairy farm types were simulated using the Integrated Farm System Model.Cover cropping and interseeding each significantly reduced runoff losses, compared to the baseline, for most farm types.Interseeding averaged greater reductions in N, P, and sediment losses than cover cropping.Increases in average annual production costs were <2% of the baseline for most farm types.Abstract. Intensive agricultural activities are known to increase nutrient and sediment losses, leading to degraded water quality in receiving water bodies. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, animal operations must reduce farm-level nutrient and sediment losses to meet federally mandated load reduction goals. This work investigated the potential water quality benefits and economic impacts of adopting post-harvest cover cropping or interseeded cover cropping on eight dairy farms representative of common operations in central Pennsylvania. The farms, simulated with the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM), represented confined, organic, grazing, and Amish farming practices for dairy herds ranging in size from 35 to 150 lactating Holstein cows. Simulations were run for 25 years using observed weather data for Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, and for the dominant agricultural soil series in the county: Hagerstown silt loam. Model output included water balance results, nutrient and sediment loads, and farm-scale economics at an annual scale. Overall, simulation results showed that post-harvest cover cropping reduced N, P, and sediment by 18%, 17%, and 42%, respectively, while interseeding reduced loads by 49%, 41%, and 46%, respectively. Economic impacts of cover cropping and interseeding varied among farm types, but nearly all scenarios resulted in a net loss in profit compared to the baseline. However, annual economic losses were relatively minor: less than $28 ha-1 for cover cropping and $63 ha-1 for interseeding. Results suggest that the benefits of interseeding cover crops are greater for farms with larger portions of land in row crops with less perennial grassland. Interseeding necessitates purchasing additional equipment or custom hiring the seeding operation. These results have implications for cost-share incentive structures aimed at promoting adoption of cover crops and interseeding, especially for confined farms, which may otherwise experience financial losses if these practices are adopted. Keywords: Best management practice, Conservation, Economic evaluation, Erosion, IFSM, Integrated Farm System Model, Nutrient transport, Water quality.

Results of 10 years of monitoring nitrogen in the sandy regions in The Netherlands

2005 ◽  
Vol 51 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 239-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Fraters ◽  
L.J.M. Boumans ◽  
T.C. van Leeuwen ◽  
W.D. de Hoop
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Environmental Factors ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
Peat Soils ◽  
Nitrogen Surplus ◽  
Monitoring Period ◽  
N Concentration ◽  
Farm Gate Balance ◽  
Policy Measures

The effect of policy measures on agriculture and water quality with respect to nitrogen have been monitored on farms in the sandy regions since the early 1990s. Nitrogen surplus on dairy farms decreased by 100 kg/ha (30%) in the 1991–1999 period due to demonstration projects and the implementation of MINAS, limiting farm gate balance surplus. Nitrogen surplus on arable farms has slightly decreased (30 kg/ha, i.e. 20%), probably because MINAS became mandatory for arable farms from 2001 onwards. About 25% of the farm-gate balance N surplus leached as nitrate into the upper metre of the groundwater. The NO3-N concentration decreased in the 1992–2001 period, but the decrease was larger for dairy farms (16 mg/l, 46%) than for arable farms (7.7 mg/l, 30%). Of the decrease in NO3-N concentration on dairy farms, 23% is caused by a decrease in N surplus, and 27% by environmental factors, such as a higher precipitation surplus, more wet soils and more peat soils in the second part of the monitoring period. However, unknown factors are responsible for 50% of the decrease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document