Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. ehia eot:WseMngmn etae nmlfeigoeain;CP osrainRsrePro- Reserve Conservation CRP, operations; feeding animal centrated USA 53711 WI Madison, Rd., Segoe S. 677 © doi:10.2134/jeq2004.0478 Management (2005). Waste 34:2036–2044 Reports: Qual. Technical Environ. J. in Published n rneo 418k ha P kg 24–158 of (range P and aln amrsaiiyt fetvl aaemanure manage effectively to ability farmer’s a cur- unduly tailing without risk environmental limit that lations (CAFOs). operations feeding manure animal concentrated of large on timing especially fo- cropland, and to increasingly amount application the have on agencies regulations state cused surface con- these and and to federal respond land cerns, To 2003). of (NRC, acidification resources nutri- water to and contribute enrichment and which quality ent atmosphere, air affect the by adversely into can joined pollutants op- emit livestock been to for now potential erations 2003). the have of (USEPA, awareness issues heightened streams quality and water lakes, These water, ground to n nhoooy thSaeUi. 1 l anBidn,Logan, (jmpowel2@ author Building, *Corresponding Main 2004. wisc.edu). Old Dec. Work H 11 Received Social 216 84322. Univ., Sociology, UT State of Utah Dep. Madison, Anthropology, Jackson-Smith, Dr., and D.B. Observatory 1525 and Dep. Saam, Wisconsin, 53706; H. of WI and Univ. McCrory Science, D.F. Soil 53706; Lin- of WI 1925 Madison, Center, West, Research Dr. Forage den Dairy USDA-ARS, Powell, J.M. I quality. water ground and surface impairing of require reduce risk to might areas the herds confinement outside medium in management to manure managing Manure small in areas. assistance with farms outside dairy in P, Wisconsin levels test on matter soil organic increased vastly and has K, manure uncollected of accumulation cereal ha ha on kg kg 337 rates 139 to to loading 128 annual uncollected from average ranged Once cropland for, areas. accounted outside by was vegetated followed manure barnyards partially unvegetated and in vegetated ha highest N was kg uncollected 116–846 goes of (range N manure manure percentage annual the and Average keeps farm collected. a cows lactating of number the housing, ( (89%) free-stall significant than and production) annual ( total of significantly (66% is chion manure cow Collection regions. lactating (68%) northeast of undulat- flat the the or in (72%) than central production) south ing herd annual total of (56% in southwest differences ( size ( Significantly cows heifers. herd farms lactating from and dairy manure Wisconsin of housing, collection representative regional, 54 significant typical of on showed study collected actually This manure farms. of dairy amounts and types known the is about little production, manure calculate much to available Whereas is land-spreading. information for available and collected, produced, S,CS,SS fWsosn P,prilpopou aac;SK olts potas- test soil STK, balance; phosphorus partial PPB, Wisconsin; of SSSA CSSA, ASA, auemngmn ln eur nwn h muto manure of amount the knowing require plans management Manure oiyaesfc h hleg ffruaigregu- formulating of challenge the face Policymakers years recent n ilsi ulu fmnr uret n hi loss their and nutrients manure of buildup soil tial Ϫ 1 fmnr .Cmae ihajcn rpad the cropland, adjacent with Compared P. manure of P Ͻ aueCleto n itiuino icni ar Farms Dairy Wisconsin on Distribution and Collection Manure .5 oiierltosiswr on between found were relationships positive 0.05) ocr a rw bu h poten- the about grown has concern , P Ͻ ABSTRACT .Mr oel*Dne .MCoy .B ako-mt,adH Saam H. and Jackson-Smith, B. D. McCrory, F. Daniel Powell,* Mark J. .5 esmnr scletdi h hilly the in collected is manure less 0.05) Ϫ 1 odn ae naesweemanure where areas in rates loading ) Ϫ 1 P fmnr ,adfo 45 from and N, manure of o taurus Bos Ͻ .5 oe rmstan- from lower 0.05) ,dycw,and cows, dry ), Ϫ 1 ) 2036 auentoe;AM nitrogen; manure im T,si etphosphorus. test soil STP, sium; regions southwest and southcentral, northeast, SW, and SC, NE, gram; ue hr salreadrgoal aibe“manure variable regionally and large ma- a spreading is for there most cropland nure, although sufficient have that farms showed dairy farms dairy waters. Wisconsin surface 800 of polluter significant a be ( to or CAFO deemed denuded water; small surface other a toward or directed or barnyards is areas, from denuded me- that partially a as either run- such manure as if off, designated cows) mature be (200–699 may CAFO dium-size farm (USEPA, dairy guidelines a CAFO 2003), new Under 2003; (Wright, 2004). and risk USEPA, barnyards environmental high as pose such may areas, feedlots, confinement im- that environmental negative and generate pacts, that can however, sizes all evident, of increasingly farms becoming environmental is greatest It the risk. most pose the therefore produce and they manure that assumption the under tions, et fteaiiyo rpad oasmlt manure assimilate to croplands of assess- ability national the recent collection of in how average ments example, about For how used. and made are collected values are is assumptions manure so much farms, typi- on dairy practices cal collection manure actual on however, or presence the (i) availabil- labor as (ii) facilities; such may storage factors, manure spreading of various manure absence to for propor- due area greater cropland be a their use to of regions inability tion southwest Farmers’ the state. in the 44% area and of cropland central operated ma- the total in spread their 30% northeast vs. of 23% the only in on manure. farmers nure receives dairy actually example, that area For cropland the and applica- tion manure for available areas cropland between gap” h urn euaoyfcsi nlrelvsokopera- livestock large on is focus regulatory conditions. current socioeconomic The and biophysical diverse under n olce nlvsokfrs aiu approaches Various farms. livestock on collected and therefore, (iii) and, collected spreading; actually manure manure of for amount the capacity machinery and ity ar ate(.. WS 00.N nomto exists, information No 2000). by MWPS, excreted (e.g., nutrients cattle manure dairy estimate to available are produced manure of amount the about knowledge 2005). quires al., et (Saam manure operated receives of percentage that does land cropland so increases, to farmer oper- a related cropland by of ated also ownership percentage is the as spreading ownership; Manure (Nowak applied al.,1997). is manure et where fields and produced manure is where between and distances weather (v) in and manure conditions; differences soil that regional in given days variations spread or be (iv) can window,” cropland; “spreading on manure spread the be to needs that Abbreviations: eetsuy(ame l,20)o approximately of 2005) al., et (Saam study recent A h eeomn fmnr aaeetpasre- plans management manure of development The M,aprn auecleto;AM collection; manure apparent AMC, P paetmnr hshrs AO,con- CAFOs, phosphorus; manure apparent , Ͻ 0 auecw)i h amis farm the if cows) mature 200 N apparent , Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. a hsclcaatrsissmwa nemdaet those to intermediate somewhat region SC characteristics the SW and physical soils, NE The loam has the and region. loam soils, clay loam permeable (NE) silt less has well-drained northeast by flat characterized is relatively region the south- (iii) region; hilly, (SC) southcentral and the undulating the (i) fall (ii) region; regions: counties (SW) west biophysical These distinct Wisconsin. the three of in within counties located those dairy in- (ii) principal livestock and 12 on patterns; cropping data and complete Dairy ventories reported included Wisconsin who farms of 1999 respondents subset The the (i) 1999). al., to et respondents (Buttel Survey represen- 804 Farm a from of selected pool was farms tative dairy 270 of subset a First, ois(P;Tbe1.Tid am eernol selected randomly were farms each Third, cate- balance within 1). P farms Table partial three Second, (PPB; of 1976). gories one (Hole, into stratified NE were and region SW the of cattle. dairy of their management for use on they feedback areas farmer outside elicit the to proper- the and chemical soil and ties; on areas, have P rates access loading and livestock these N impact outside manure in uncollected rates estimate loading rates loading to P dairy cropland; and N on Wisconsin manure collected typical estimate to excreted, on farms; P uncollected and deter- N and manure to of were collected, amount study and this type the of mine objectives The damage. environmen- and tal buildup ma- nutrient uncollected soil in where result may farm nure a on “hot-spots” identify to potential importantly, more perhaps recy- esti-and also, manure only but 38 effective cling, not for to requirements cropland needed mate is information the collection nure ma- in plans, 41 management farms manure developing in the first-steps the of of 90% 81% and on Midwest, used Northeast. the are in re- housing farms to from scrapers manure alley and move 258 cleaners stanchions lactating of gutter use for associated The and housing (31%). free-stalls of by type followed use cows, primary farms dairy their 278 (53%) as most stanchions that showed on farms management dairy nutrient U.S. of recent 2004) A (USDA, and USA. study the production national in farms ex- manure dairy Description on operation, diverse practices collection dairy probable confined the “average” cluding requirement an P consid- crop authors only the meet that to ered was dairy insufficient studies from P shortcom- national A manure these collected requirement uptake. of P ing crop P and cows for crop available N milk meets be manure P from would manure of heifers collected 40 85% P and that and 30 and N and manure collected, of is excreted 85% operations manure and 2001), the dairy al., of confined 80% et on that 0–0.80 Gollehon assumed 2000; authors al., the et 0.81–1.20 (Kellogg nutrients (2005). al. Range PPB et ‡ Saam from Adapted † High Medium Low farms.† dairy Category of balance P partial on based framework Sampling 1. Table ar am eeslce sn he-tpprocedure. three-step a using selected were farms Dairy are excretion P and N manure of estimates Whereas ϭ oa aueP manure Total EHD N MATERIALS AND METHODS Ͼ amSelection Farm Ϫ .0mnr xed rpPrqieet1321 143 requirement P crop exceeds P manure 1.20 eoa ycropping. by removal P ata aac PB‡N.o ar farms dairy of No. (PPB)‡ balance P Partial OELE L:DIYMNR OLCIN&DISTRIBUTION & COLLECTION MANURE DAIRY AL.: ET POWELL etwsdsge ocmiea vrl itr fec farm- each of picture overall an compile to designed was instru- ment survey A 2002. mid-December through mid-September 2000). al., dairy et general (Jackson-Smith regions the these to in similar population Wisconsin cropping farm 2) and of (Table size herd characteristics counties had pattern farms dairy watersheds participating These types, and 1). soil (Fig. waterbodies, major impaired the of across of total distributed a in provided farms within participate sampling 54 (6 to random stratified farms agreed This region 18 study. each until the from made stratum) categories. were PPB calls PPB each Phone three participate study. to the the asked and in of phone by each contacted were farms from These region each within i.1 einl ony n aese oaino td ar farms dairy study of location watershed and county, Regional, 1. Fig. were areas Outside daily. outside spent animals their hours Collection Manure instrument. survey manage- the were and refine sizes previsits further herd to visits, varying techniques of on-farm ment farms of three Before on series management. conducted first manure and the goals fertilizer, conducting and feed, motivations to and related practices, livestock management patterns, cropping facilities, size, herd including operation ing nta amvst n aacleto eecnutdfrom conducted were collection data and visits farm Initial uigteitriw amr eeakdtenme of number the asked were farmers interview, the During nWisconsin. in h Survey The n fsml farms sample of % 2037 Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. eietdtretpso usd ra hr hyke ar DC dairy keep they where areas outside Farmers of collected. types not three was delineated manure where and livestock, their infcn ore ffrg.tmsANadAP h ifrnebtenana herd annual between difference The AMP. and AMN times in shown as fractions (AMC) [1]. Eq. collection manure apparent herd each from collected P and N manure of amount and The 38 and [ YH, heifers 113-kg young a cows, not dry for cows, 1.5 and and areas 13 DC, feeding 635-kg forage. and/or a of for holding sources 14.6 cattle they significant that as in pastures viewed partially from were separate and as areas vege- vegetated outside basis: vegetated distinguished unvegetated seasonal and Farmers a areas), on bunk (barnyards). (feed time vegetated of partially periods tated, various for cattle r eete se odfn h prxmt aeeach date approximate calculate to the used was define information This to ends. and asked starts season then were location Farm- and ers areas). winter), unvegetated and and vegetated, partially fall, (vegetated, summer, (spring, season mo]), ueNadP epciey xrtdb h ar ed C h cuuae ne odaflasadcnotnpro- often can stand alfalfa good a under accumulated N The LC, herd; dairy the by excreted ma- respectively, of P, amounts and annual N represent AMP nure and AMN terms The rcinfra nmltp lcaigcw,dycw,young cows, dry cows, collection (lactating heifers); manure type mature and apparent animal an the for represents fraction AMC term The p,sme s,fl f,adwne w;and (w); winter and spring (f), during fall farmers (s), by summer reported (p), as days), (fractional areas n xrtosa hw nE.[]ad[3]. and [2] Eq. N in manure shown annual the as respective of excretions by products P type the and animal summing each by of calculated number were farm farmers. dairy by reported as year) (fractional length season’s atr 7(–2 07)1(–)4(0–75) 4 (0.4–4.2) 0.7 (0–6) 1 (0.5–5.5) 2.0 (0.4–3.4) 0.7 (0–53) (1.3–43.6) 0 6.5 (0.8–2.9) 2.4 (0.4–4.2) (0–75) 1.0 4 (1.4–11.0) 1.9 (0–53) 0 (0.7–5.5) 2.8 cows, dry (1.3–11.1) 6.3 cows, lactating of (0–52) 0 numbers 17 are MH and YH, DC, (0–14) 0 (0.5–1.7) 1.1 (2.0–43.6) rest 7.7 or hold, exercise, to intake). farmers forage by to significantly used contributing (not areas cattle as dairy holding defined and areas. exercise vegetated as (0–23) within such 0 areas activities bunks for Feed specifically § used areas Outside ‡ (minimum Median † barnyards Unvegetated areas§ vegetated Partially areas‡ outside Vegetated fallow Program, Research Conservation Pasture use Land type Animal size Herd components Production Wisconsin. in farms dairy 54 of characteristics cropping and herd dairy Regional 2. Table 2038 0–9 os01 6 59 25 (0–75) 9 (0–247) 28 (0–173) 15 (15–442) 80 (11–480) 52 5 (3–46) 8 68 16 (0–245) 35 (5–145) 15 (30–339) 82 (32–387) 52 (0–75) 10 (5–247) 28 (5–173) 20 10 (38–442) 90 53 26 (23–480) 53 (2–50) 9 (0–55) 20 (15–257)† (0–30) 65 14 (11–270)† 49 0 56 31 cropland operated Total heifers Mature heifers Young cows Dry cows Lactating 200 cows 100–199 cows 50–99 cows 1–49 iesetotiewsdlnae yaia ye(lactating type animal by delineated was outside spent Time nulmnr n xrtosb h edo each on herd the by excretions P and N manure Annual ml ri 01)0(–6 06)0(0–61) 0 (0–300) 0 (4–112) 25 (0–132) 11 (0–138) 15 (0–61) 0 (13–109) (0–53) 26 0 (6–132) 15 (0–54) 12 (0–16) 0 (8–112) 25 (0–300) 0 (0–130) 11 (0–138) 30 (4–99) (0–13) 22 0 (0–26) 0 (0–108) 5 (0–69) 14 grain Small Alfalfa Soybean silage Corn grain Corn ϩ AMN AMC AMP cows 13111110 ϭ⌺ ϭ⌺ ϭ [(YH)(YH [(YH)(YH 1 Ϫ⌺ [(LC)(LC [(LC)(LC Ϫ maximum). D D ersnstm pn al noutside in daily spent time represents p Y p n p )] )] p n ϩ )] )] Ͻ ϩ ϩ m] n auehies[ heifers mature and 7mo], ϩ ϩ D [(MH)(MH [(MH)(MH s Y [(DC)(DC [(DC)(DC s .EVRN UL,VL 4 OEBRDCME 2005 NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 34, VOL. QUAL., ENVIRON. J. ϩ D f Y f n Y p n p n ϩ ][3] [2] )] )] )] )] ϭ ersnsa represents D 8farms 18 WS EAll NE SC SW ϩ ϩ w Y w Ͼ [1] tdi usd areas. outside in ited 7 n xrtos(g f16ad3. o 3-gL,8 and 83 LC, 635-kg a for 30.3 and 136 of (kg) excretions P and eemd.Egtfrsrpre aueepr;svnesti- seven export; manure reported farms adjustments several Eight cases, made. some were In production. hay and grain, depos- assumed was collection and excretion P fractions and N AMC manure of products the summing by determined was 2000). (MWPS, MF 340-kg a for 5.1 loae oteln ra sdfrcr ( corn for used areas land the to allocated Cropland to Application Phosphorus and Nitrogen Manure a oet con o vial rmpeeigalfalfa. preceding from available N for account to done was pe ecnae 2 n 5)o h nulhr manure herd annual the of the 75%) by and reduced (25 were collections percentages P upper and N manure gross annual oni q 4 nldscr ri n iaeln h) n Alf and (ha), land ( silage alfalfa and equaled grain corn includes [4] Eq. in Corn farms, these For production. manure herd annual of 75% to 50 of export mated am eotdiprigsug.N siae eemd of made were Two estimates exported. No been sludge. importing have reported to farms estimated were that production amwsdtrie sn q [4]. Eq. each using on of determined spreading amount manure was the for farm Finally, available potentially assumed. land loss were corn N P manure typical losses No collected the 2001). of (MWPS, 30%, storage by and handling reduced manure during was N farms, manure all For collected land-spread. and imported sludge of amounts the onln raaalbefrmnr application manure for available area land Corn on efr,admtr efr,rsetvl;adLC and respectively; heifers, mature and heifers, young h aueNadPcletdb ahoeainwere operation each by collected P and N manure The Corn n n ,DC ϭ 8farms 18 Ϫ p ;YH o faiasfarm animals of no. (0.33 %of n ,YH eiaosativa Medicago afarm ha Ͻ Regions ϫ 5,adoeetmtdepr fbetween of export estimated one and 25%, n p farms l)[4] Alf) n MH and ; Ϫ 1 n Ϫ ϭ 1 8farms 18 n . ad(a.Ti adjustment This (ha). land L.) ,MH p r nulmnr N manure annual are e mays Zea n .,small L.), ϭ 4farms 54 n ϭ ,LC p ; Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. itiuino ar am curdi h SW. the in size occurred polarized the farms most by The dairy followed (13%). of state, SW distribution the the of and highest part (16%) The SC NE the 2). in cows (Table found 100 than were cows greater median having lactating farms a of with (21%) 52 percentage cows, of 100 size moderate and of herd 50 were between study milking this 2000), in size, farms al., dairy et (60%) (Jackson-Smith most industry dairy Wisconsin farm onslg rdcincudhv endet oor-Wsosndiyfrswsaprnl olce (Ta- collected apparently was farms dairy Wisconsin in topogra- to differences due been Regional have (26%). could production followed SW silage silage, and corn as (26%) harvested was SC land by 56% corn NE, the total In the silage. of as harvested pro- land Like- relative corn 18%. the of in portion only differences corn devoted regional to were SW there NE land the wise, forage and in their SC farmers of but the 36% silage, in to Farmers 30 de- type. devoted land regions forage distinct of each were amount to relative there voted the However, in differences silage. regional forages corn the and on to devoted area alfalfa was cropland farms dairy total NE). Wisconsin the the these culti- in of (mostly were farms grains one-half surveyed small Approximately all and of (mostly state) 18% the farms on of all vated part of SC 21% the on in cultivated was Merr.] [ Soybean (L.) (87%). grain corn and silage corn ( farms all though nopse eywd ag fhr ie opsto,and composition, therefore, size, Farms, herd of industry. range wide dairy very a Wisconsin encompassed the of diversity en eedlnae sn h df ehdo h general 1990). the Institute, of (SAS method pdiff model the linear using delineated were population relevant, means normal Where a ( assumed. which legitimately significant for be skewed but are might size, that distribution of sample sets small estimate data to for better mean due a the than provides tendency median central of The Because otherwise. unless 7). reported, stated been have (Table values medians maximum values data and size, minimum test and sample rates small soil relatively application the and and diversity land 6); this manure and 5 2); (Tables (Table systems cropping Wisconsin-Madison 2004). Services, of Laboratory University Analysis Soil Plant Lab, Bray-1–extractable the (Soil, Analyses at and procedures Plant to ignition), according and K on and P (loss (plant-available) (water), of pH average matter for analyzed An were organic area visually. outside per established samples soil center, 10 approximately area traversed at outside that auger transect the placed 0- steel randomly a the stainless along a to intervals 10-m with taken depth were 25-cm samples (based to Soil hand-held farms system. a some using positioning measured on global and areas visited were Outside accessibility) areas. on outside rotation of ment in it for corn. following grown by usually crop is followed corn alfalfa yr Wisconsin, 3 a In 1994). for al., et needed (Bundy N the vide oa prtdcoln agdfo 5t 4 ha 442 to 15 from ranged cropland operated Total the of studies larger-scale in determined already As uigteitriw amr eeakdaotmanage- about asked were farmers interview, the During h am htpriiae nti td ersne the represented study this in participated that farms The Ϫ 1 ihamda f8 afarm ha 80 of median a with EUT N DISCUSSION AND RESULTS P Ͻ .5 ifrne mn aalatsquare least data among differences 0.05) amCharacteristics Farm n ϭ 4 rwafla ot(1)grew (91%) most alfalfa, grew 54) Statistics OELE L:DIYMNR OLCIN&DISTRIBUTION & COLLECTION MANURE DAIRY AL.: ET POWELL Ϫ 1 Tbe2.Al- 2). (Table lcn max Glycine ee oee,dsic einldfeecsi h type the There in heifers. differences regional mature distinct from however, manure were, dry all and heifers, from collected young manure from 18% manure all all excreted collected collected 65% ( manure 15% cows, the cows, farms of lactating all collection by cattle Of total dairy areas. reported time 24% and outside the size in and herd spend on type, depending housing farms, composition, dairy on rates tion n eaieaon fmnr olce.Hgetma- Highest collected. manure of amount relative and farm Mg 17.1 to 0.4 farm from Mg excretions 83.0 P to manure 2.0 approximately from ranged regions other in than Wisconsin. NE of the in bunks greater region, feed a outside indicating SC of perhaps use NE, areas and the outside in SW livestock largest by the the used were in areas farmers vegetated by partially out- used largest SW the areas the were side areas in vegetated unvege- participants Although for among region. except absent region, barnyards each tated in occurred areas side devoted reserve was conservation SW the in the land (CRP). in or program area fallow, pasture, farmland one- to the Approximately the Wisconsin. of of from as fourth region especially severe erosion and SW as SC, hilly the water not of the is regions to undulating NE more due the the SW. in of loss the landscapes in soil flat especially relatively of erosion, risk of risk The greater and phy el eeoe n ont epbihdvle (J. values published 2005). be communication, to than personal lower soon Harrison, slightly and not be may developed did 2000) used newly this (MWPS, values and study excretion total this manure herd, ac- The in of dairy region. sample 90% by whole and our much the N differ in by total excreted cows of P 85% dry roughly ex- and for nutrients counted Manure lactating 2). by (Table region creted SW larger were the herds in dairy where than regions, NE occurred and production SC P the and in N invento- manure livestock total Highest on ries. primarily depending shown), not attn osi h CadN eekp natotal partial a a situation. in raised in and collection were cows regions kept three dry all were in of heifers NE majority mature the and while of SC situation, majority the collection The sample. in the cows in cow one- lactating cows lactating lactating approximately all all represented of collected half farms study only this these although in manure, example, farms For of farms. of not 24% of proportion did share regimes the the collection 2), match manure (Fig. various size under herd cows to related pos- was itively collection from manure collected Because areas. was outside manure these no and year-round, outside NE the in occurred cows lactating from collection nure am,epcal nteS,kp r osadheifers and cows Many dry 3). kept (Table SW, region the SW in the especially in farms, lowest and SC, and nalsuidfrs nulmnr excretions N manure annual farms, studied all On out- unvegetated and vegetated, partially Vegetated, h td eeldgetvraini auecollec- manure in variation great revealed study The naeae 5 ftettlmnr rdcdon produced manure total the of 65% average, On auePouto n Collection and Production Manure n ϭ 4,only 54), Ϫ 1 Ϫ (data 1 2039 and Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. 0frs(5)i h W 3% am nteS,ttlmnr olcinue resalhuig Seven housing. free-stall used collection manure total SC, the in farms (33%) 6 SW, the in (55%) farms 10 eto Tbe4.Mnr olcini h W(6 eae ohuigtp n edsz Tbe4.Farms 4). (Table ( size herd and type housing to related study all Of Wisconsin. ( region of each region in (72%) farms (56% SC the SW in ( the significantly than was in manure) collection herd total Manure col- of manure 4). in (Table differences class lection et herd ( (Kellogg and significant type, study were housing national There 2000). the al., in assumed collection i.2 eainhp ewe attn o edsz n paetmnr olcini he ein fWisconsin. of regions three in collection manure apparent and size herd cow lactating between Relationships 2. Fig. 10.3 2.2 8.3 0.0 7.8 10.3 0.0 13.0 23.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 11.1 17.6 66.2 4.3 0.0 15.3 63.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 48.7 89.4 82.0 5.6 24.5 46.2 72.2 16.7 26.8 57.7 11.1 12.1 21.2 0.0 0.0 44.5 75.9 83.3 76.5 22.2 62.3 35.3 23.5 34.7 34.5 25.0 17.8 11.1 83.4 0.0 44.0 72.2 51.3 2.8 7.7 51.8 66.7 32.6 14.8 50.0 29.4 19.2 22.2 87.9 67.3 60.2 66.7 55.5 24.1 5.6 5.9 66.7 36.8 808 47.1 collected 50.0 1965 31.3 that 77.9 Animals 88.9 region NE 1166 the in farms (39%) 7 and 88.9 56.0 4376 27.8 Farms 23.7 217 27.8 21.2 80% 911 average 33.3 the 54 43.9 455 66.7 52 from considerably differs 52 which 4), ble 39.8 1508 33.3 Animals 54 334 11.1 17.6 heifers 1043 18 Mature 583 43.8 17 heifers 18 Young Farms cows Dry cows 1653 11.1 Lactating 18 257 411 heifers 18 Mature 269 18 Animals heifers 18 Young cows Dry cows 1215 Lactating 18 Farms heifers 18 Mature 17 heifers 16 Young cows Dry cows Lactating 18 Animals heifers Mature heifers Young cows Farms Dry cows Lactating type Animal farms. dairy Wisconsin on collection manure in differences type animal and farm Regional 3. Table 2040 n ϭ apesz oa olcinPrilcleto ocollection No collection Partial collection Total size Sample 8frsregion farms 18 n .EVRN UL,VL 4 OEBRDCME 2005 NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 34, VOL. QUAL., ENVIRON. J. P Ͻ P .5 einl h olcino attn o aue(hc ac- (which manure cow lactating of collection The regional, 0.05) Ϫ Ͻ 1 ,teewere there ), .5 lower 0.05) onsfr7–0 fttlhr aueNadP was P) and N manure herd total of 75–80% production. for P counts and N manure annual herd’s their of sn tnhos(6) l 3diyfrsta reported that farms dairy 13 All (66%). significantly stanchions using collect housing free-stall using were that P l regions All Wregion SW ecnaeo auecletd ycategory by collected, manure of Percentage Eregion NE Ͻ Cregion SC .5 oe(9)lcaigcwmnr hnfarms than manure cow lactating (89%) more 0.05) % Ͻ 60% Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. aehyfo eeae usd ra Tbe2.O ueN(4–4 gha kg (846–942 N nure On 2). (Table areas outside vegetated from hay made EadS ein.aesz fteeotieaesprfr a uhlarger much was farm per areas outside these of size age and vegetated in occurred have to appeared deposition the col- by followed partially regions. SW, SC or the and all in NE occur collected would that applica- manure farms P lected and for N rates manure tion Highest respectively). P, and uet rsln ra ol o eueteetmtdttdbryrso h E ihmnr 58kg (528 N manure High NE. the of barnyards tated estimated the reduce ma- not of would application areas grassland the to manure, nure all collected that farms edsz n auecleto Fg ) h eain rs 10k ha kg (140 grass relation- The 2). (Fig. collection manure and size herd ( significant attn o aue(5 n 5k ha kg 45 and collected (154 partially manure only that cow farms lactating than cereals to rates einS 1) 6(29 b‡ (22.9) 56 (18)† SW Region aueNadPapiainrtst eel.O farms On cereals. to rates application P and N manure etg 5% fmnr Tbe4.Frfrs(76%) farms were there For manure, cow 4). lactating collected (Table partially that manure of (57%) centage hpwssrnet( strongest was ship osn yefesal(3 9(65 a (16.5) 89 signifi- are letters different by followed means subcategory, a Within parentheses. ‡ in numbers Farm † (13) freestall class Herd type Housing al .Rgoa,huigtp,adhr ls ifrne in differences class herd and type, housing Regional, 4. Table n plcto ae Tbe5.Frsta collect that Farms 5). (Table small rates and application manure estimated P land of and corn range wide N of a in two-thirds result on would grains P and N manure eainhp ewe edsz n auecleto ol els vial hnfriie (Mun N fertilizer than available less be would collection manure and size herd between relationships os iediyfrswsfudt els hnon than less be to found was ( farms large dairy manure size where cows) ( 2004), small on (USDA, collection nationally found were eso dry of bers a aue am nteS a rae eeae usd areas outside vegetated greater had SW the in farms whereby recommendations application land N-based hay. for grass to with ha) farms ( (15 however, herds cows, manure; area smallest 480 all the large to collect 50 to from sizes, manage all that farm of a farms were cows There lactating kept. of manure number of on amount depended the collected cows, these lactating from For collected types. manure animal of amount relative the and to- of percentage higher a collect manure. to tal ability farm’s a in ueN(4 gha kg ma- average (243 higher N much had nure manure cow lactating all ( cantly ( factors key be to appear of systems storage use and of and collection manure combination automated expansion accompanying a and Herd housing free-stall using stanchions. reported and survey free-stall this in farms (SD) Mean Subcategory Category aty( cantly aueApiaint eel n Grassland and Cereals to Application Manure oefresi ahrgo avse rs and grass harvested region each in farmers Some auecleto nWsosndiyfrs l n rslnso ar am htcletttlo partial or total collect that farms dairy on grasslands and als farms. dairy Wisconsin on collection manure h nfr plcto fcletdadadjusted and collected of application uniform The hssuyrvae orltosisbtentenum- the between relationships no revealed study This Ͼ P 0 os am.apiain ocras(al )wr w otretimes three to two were 5) (Table cereals to applications farms. cows) 500 Ͻ .5 different. 0.05) os on,o auehiesafr et sdfrhypouto.Oe“ule”fr nteSW the in farm “outlier” One production. hay for used kept, farm a heifers mature or young, cows, P Ͻ Ͻ 0–9 6 5(.)a (5.1) b 95 (18.2) 76 c (12.6) 57 b (18.9) 66 (6) 100–199 (24) 50–99 (20) cows 50 (34) stanchion E(8 8(15 ab (21.5) 68 a (21.8) 72 200 (18) NE (18) SC .0)pstv eainhp between relationships positive 0.001) ϩ Ϫ R Ͻ Ͻ 1 4 0 0 a (0) 100 (4) 2 n 8 gha kg (87 P and ) 0cw)cletdtelws per- lowest the collected cows) 50 0 os n eim(0–9 eisfiin ome rpNdmnsadadditional and demands N crop meet to insufficient be (100–499 medium and cows) 100 ϭ .6 nteS ein Similar region. SC the in 0.46) OELE L:DIYMNR OLCIN&DISTRIBUTION & COLLECTION MANURE DAIRY AL.: ET POWELL aueNadPcollected P and N manure oa attn cow lactating Total % n collected P and N oa manure Total % Ϫ 1 Ϫ plcto eywd agso nulmnr 1–009kg 099 (19–10 N manure annual of ranges wide Very application ) 1 aueNotieaeswr acltd(al ) oetaverage Lowest 6). (Table calculated were areas outside N manure hni h Ergo Tbe2.Hgetaeaema- average Highest 2). (Table region NE the in than aver- where SW, and SC the in areas vegetated partially ongano iaears ierneo Wisconsin of range wide a across silage or grain corn iinocre nteprilyvgttdadunvege- and ha vegetated partially the in occurred sition plcto ae ocras(5 gha kg (154 cereals to manure rates apparent application Average N 1998). al., et (Kelling potential eomnainrne lhuhapidmnr N manure applied Although range. recommendation N plcto ae aecoett onPrequirements P corn to closest came rates application (5–309) 41 (12–126) (12–309) 35 45 (17–1033) 140 (12–1077) (40–1033) 45 152 (40–446) 113 (40–3435) (18–309) 154 45 (12–126) 39 (63–1033) (15–177) 152 87 41 (40–446) 128 (minimum Median 13 (15–110) (51–582) (71–171) † 61 239 87 12 (15–177) (225–582) 87 287 (51–279) 148 All (71–171) 87 (15–121) (51–582) 62 NE 243 (225–582) 287 SC (101–177) (51–307) 139 13 150 (243–431) 337 5 (101–177) 139 6 (243–431) 337† 2 All NE SC SW cere- to applications P and N manure annual Calculated 5. Table nfrsta atal olc manure. collect partially P that manure farms Apparent on 2002). al., et (Powell farms dairy aueN(1–1 gha kg (116–218 N manure ha 04,teeptnilmnr plcto ae would rates application N manure potential these 2004), friie- ol erqie.Aprn aueP manure Apparent required. be would N (fertilizer-) rae hnaeaePutk f2 o3 gha kg 30 to 28 of uptake P average than greater W1 2 4–45 7(317)19(757 9(5–217) 49 (17–567) 159 (13–1077) 67 (45–3435) 226 16 SW ein am eelCereal Cereal Farms Regions eoe eysalln ra( a ocrasada and cereals to ha) (1 area land small very a devoted 3 o20k ha N require- kg N 200 from range crop to recommendations 135 meet N to fertilizer Current applied ments. is manure sufficient was which of portion a 2), (Table regions other in more than that was this for reason main The cereals. on rates aue aueapiaino rslnswudsignifi- would grasslands on application manure manure, n manure. nWsosn ar amr otnet olwmanure follow to continue farmers dairy Wisconsin, In Ϫ Ϫ ϭ 1 1 n 19k ha kg (109 P and ) ha kg (4–2019 P manure and ) 6 r8% nteS htprilycollected partially that SW the in 89%) or 16, aueDpsto nOtieAreas Outside in Deposition Manure P n Ͻ .5 euemnr n application P and N manure reduce 0.05) Ϫ Ϫ NPNP 1 o l am elwti hsfertilizer this within fell farms all for ) maximum). Ϫ oeta aueapiainrates application manure Potential 1 Ϫ o ol fmdu ohg yield high to medium of soils for 1 Ϫ ata auecollection manure Partial n 1814k ha kg (158–164 P and ) oa auecollection manure Total 1 eoiinas curdin occurred also deposition ) Ϫ 1 adtype Land n 2–0k ha kg (24–40 P and ) gha kg Ϫ Ϫ 1 eoiinrtsin rates deposition ) 1 Ϫ 1 rcereal or ) ϩ ˜ Ϫ grass ze al., et oz 1 depo- ) Ϫ 2041 1 Ϫ by ϩ 1 ) Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. olpoet eeae ie Unvegetated Mixed Vegetated property Soil rai atr . 301.)248(.–15 AN 328(2.1–3.5) 2.8 33 NA NA (2.4–11.5) 4.8 2 (3.0–18.1) 7.0 6 % matter, Organic kg mg K, Bray-1 rai atr MN . 1988 . 301.)4 . (1.7–4.1) 2.5 48 (2.8–4.2) 3.9 (3.0–18.8) 9.5 8 4 (2.6–20.1) 7.1 (1.9–8.8) 4.2 4 4 (2.1–23.2) 9.4 NM 5 NM NM % matter, Organic kg mg K, Bray-1 NM % matter, Organic kg mg K, Bray-1 ieydet h otnosdpsto fuie Dairy urine. of deposition continuous the to due likely HN M476(.–.)484(.–.)4 . (6.0–7.8) 7.1 46 (6.6–7.3) 6.9 (7.4–9.3) 8.4 8 (6.9–7.4) 7.1 4 (6.6–9.0) 7.7 33 (7.1–8.6) 7.6 4 NA 4 (6.3–9.3) 8.1 NA‡ NM 5 (6.1–9.2) 7.6 NM NM measured. areas. not outside NM, as § applicable. farms not same 2 NA, on ‡ are fields Crop † (6.3–9.1) NM§ 7.7 kg mg P, Bray-1 pH 6 kg mg P, Bray-1 pH cows my “Letting stated, farmer one example, kg mg For P, Bray-1 pH fields. crop and areas outside in properties 2001). chemical (NRC, Soil feces 7. of Table 0 form the by P in likely excreted is P were cows Most areas deposition. dairy outside fecal continuous in to levels due matter and K and organic STP of (Gans Elevated pathway soil 2001). 8.2 (NRC, principal cows the approximately dairy by is of excretion urine pH and (31–2019) 109 1977), a (103–1103) Mercer, 158 has urine cow 0 N 999) in 7). (145–10 adjacent their 528 (Table levels levels for farmers fields 330) than by matter (552–5 provided greater 846 reports organic test severalfold soil and in also were STK, areas STP, outside and the than pH of greater production. Soil times corn any for 30 optimum in to considered For be 20 would levels 5 what are 7). types STK (Table area and Areas outside Wisconsin 7 0 three in STP optimum grown average considered crop example, were be field areas would any outside what in for of soil levels excess that (STK) great suggest K in results and The (STP) (6–329) farms. P 40 test study (54–277) 164 the on (4–63) areas properties P 24 chemical soil 1996). al., on et vege- (Mathews impacts partially subsequent deposition in manure STP (279–1344) and of in 942 (44–1999) patterns of results 218 congregate distribution often levels uneven This or very high 1999). graze (Hobbs, extremely patterns not The uniform (19–312) do in 116† P livestock outside in However, and manure calculations of areas. distribution Our N even an likely. manure on was based were areas of outside N concentration 10 these Wisconsin. 9 within greater of region even SC An the 15 of barnyards unvegetated (minimum Median † NE Areas SC SW the in farms dairy on Regions barnyards unvegetated and vegetated, partially vegetated, on rates loading P and N manure Annual 6. Table 2042 lvtdsi HadSKlvl notieaeswere areas outside in levels STK and pH soil Elevated outside the of many from taken were samples Soil otws S) otcnrl(C,adnrhat(E ein fWisconsin. of regions (NE) northeast and (SC), southcentral (SW), southwest Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ϫ n MN 9 3–9)445(2–9)4 8(9–178) 38 (64–340) 136 48 (21–145) 47 48 (95–470) 147 (127–492) 415 (257–4996) 2119 8 8 4 4 (236–429) 391 (398–6554) 1783 (141–4573) 722 (31–498) 196 4 4 4 4 (104–7186) 2119 (65–449) 399 NM 5 NM 5 NM NM NM NM NM NM maximum). n 8 5–5)235(3–4)N A3 1(18–79) 41 (69–221) 87 31 33 NA NA NA NA (133–448) 355 (193–3057) 1099 2 2 (93–4051) 1376 (52–457) 388 6 6 eeae n atal eeae ra neeae barnyards Unvegetated areas vegetated partially and Vegetated ein(min. median .EVRN UL,VL 4 OEBRDCME 2005 NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 34, VOL. QUAL., ENVIRON. J. Ϫ max.) auelaigMnr loading Manure loading Manure gha kg n Ϫ 1 usd ratype area Outside ein(min. median Ϫ a. ein(min. median max.) otmnto,epcal fteeaesaetile-drained are areas these if especially contamination, n uiiycniin nstanchions. temperature in reasons conditions often-unfavorable Many humidity with and areas. outside associated to were access provided were off-farm. it exporting outside and from areas manure of collection crop- the to require could application of land manure goal of levels main- dual agronomic while areas taining the outside equipment, cropland in then labor, overloads their manure constraints, to reducing of other due fraction and 2005) al., a weather, et agronomic to (Saam manure to annually apply close to be only able are to farmers that Given calculated 5). (Table recommendations were cereals to permeable. highly are soils the if or water ground of uncollected risk the 2004; of elevate areas deposition (USEPA, outside in repeated manure areas the denuded 2003), Wright, other and from water surface barnyards concern runoff, into runoff environmental manure in water. abating current to P surface the relates lose to of close much to areas Although risk sloping particular from at seemingly particularly would areas areas these outside put unvegetated and tated Wregion SW Eregion NE Cregion SC amr fee eea esn h attn cows lactating why reasons several offered Farmers rates application P and N manure farms, study the On amrRaosfrUeo usd Areas Outside of Use for Reasons Farmer n Ϫ max.) n gha kg ein(min. median rpfields† Crop Ϫ 1 Ϫ max.) Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. hi esadte aels okpolm.I ep in h urn euaoyfcsi nmnr spread- manure on is focus regulatory current The tion. outside. were animals when activity with breeding associated of keeps track are It for collection problems. better hock manure low.” it’s less of bills feel have vet rates I they my lower and reasons. legs health their general of comfortable.” more cause them drier keeps them it keeps think sunshine, I the cooler. in and ground, solid on out er rs lwi padpati ocr rseed or corn to it plant and up it The two plow out. Every I cows year. a so the for let there or been I years has where now using barn I’m the one to cows’ close my areas somatic for my good seen It’s have dramatically. health.” rotating udder and drop started ago I count clean. years cell and ten dry with main areas them The covered rains. these keep one it to when keep there is I out thing cows lots. the let exercise and for grass pro- use crop I of areas out and in and several duction. areas, areas, outside between outside different cows rotating of of benefits reported have management farmers farmer (two) SC stand areas. the outside and rotated (three) they SW that the reported one in regions only farms and outside Few from SC collection areas. with manure the reported areas in SW the farms outside in farm No rotated areas forage. they outside and/or from reported 18 crops of manure farms 2 removed 7 example, NE and For the forage. in or farms crops rotating and/or with manure areas removing these either managed by farmers areas some these 6); (Table areas outside many in eesi usd ra,teeyicesn h ikof risk the Conversely, increasing quality. water thereby ground and surface areas, nutrient impairing test outside soil in increased vastly levels has manure loading of noncol- nutrient lection The recommendations. have agronomic to to than ma- close appear rates apparent rates rates) for collection loading accounted nure we manure (once higher which cropland, much have barn- unvegetated yards, especially areas, region Outside SW Wisconsin. hilly the ( in significantly hous- farms is free-stall on than collection rather Manure stanchion ing. use that sizes, farms herd or medium and small outside with to farms access generally areas, regular livestock on their occurs allow that collection farms manure Lowest manure. livestock a to cows the move and it, area) (exercise area.” reseed it new years, plow just few I every out- it. haul manure up to the have put don’t I cows side. “The example, for agement, down.” it te amr adta hywr etral oke ie.Fr iei h urn euaoyidctrof indicator regulatory current the is size Farm sizes. uncollected of management that showed study keep to This able better were they that said farmers Other be- outside cows my let “I offered, farmer Another nte amrsae,“ aeacul different couple a have “I stated, farmer Another different four have “I farmer, one of words the In under- better to used be will visits follow-up While buildup manure considerable be to appeared There ayWsosndiyfrsd o olc l their all collect not do farms dairy Wisconsin Many man- manure to related comments were there Also, amrMngmn fOtieAreas Outside of Management Farmer P Ͻ CONCLUSIONS .5 oe hni te ein of regions other in than lower 0.05) OELE L:DIYMNR OLCIN&DISTRIBUTION & COLLECTION MANURE DAIRY AL.: ET POWELL aueps h raettra oevrnetldam- and environmental to livestock threat of greatest concentration the pose high manure to due farms large herd large having farms on particularly cropland, on ing fields. crop to manure applying over of risk lower olto oeta eas ti omnytogtthat thought commonly is it because potential pollution atten- particular require might areas outside in manure oe ..17.Siso icni Oln] vial thttp:// at Available [Online]. Wisconsin of Soils 1976. F.D. Hole, heteroge- spatial to herbivores large of Responses 1999. N.T. Hobbs, aaeet seilymnr eoie noutside in deposited manure especially management, to alternatives low-cost need might types farm These technol- this because storage manure adopt—long-term technolo- to incorporate and farms management, large and many labor allows hire however, Economics, age. olhn . .Csel .Rbuo .Klog .Lne,and Lander, C. Kellogg, R. Ribaudo, M. Caswell, M. N., Gollehon, 463–492. p. kidneys. The 1977. Mercer. P.F. and J.H., Gans, Wis- of profile A 1999. Moon. S. and Jackson-Smith, D. F.H., Buttel, Wolkowski, R.P. Combs, S. Schulte, E.E. Kelling, K.A. L.G., Bundy, Systems 01-35108-10698. Agricultural grant NRI Program, and Food 00-52103-9658; and grant Agricultural Systems, Future from for received manu- Initiative was the research USDA-CSREES of this review for funding his Partial for draft. Shelley script Kevin to extended is ation areas. manure improving in chal- face the they define opportunities operation clearly and these more lenges to managing pursued be farmers should of so types and input the 2003), The (Wright, improve forth. barnyards to their ways of stacking, management ma- short-term protect to during ways nure improved as such practices, current operators. dairy small-scale of the fits supply manure of labor of practice fluctuating spreading current land and The unmanage- removal labor. frequent an seasonal put on may burden able and to maintenance encouraged requires be ogy not they will should afford—nor operations to dairy ani- able small-scale many be over Most costs units. spread to mal ability on farmer depends storage and manure costs exam- of For appropriateness the management. ple, manure spreading improve land that family and options storage, on the collection, in invest manure solely to resources housing, additional rely have not often do and land labor farms and storage, Smaller collection, spreading. manure improve that gies h urto fHrioe,SnAtno X 11 p.1999. Apr. IL. 11–17 Savoy, TX. Sci., Antonio, Anim. on Soc. San Symp. Am. Herbivores, Int. 5th of Proc. Nutrition herbivores. the of ecology Nutritional 97–129. (ed.) p. Jr. ecosystems. in neity DC. Washington, USDA-ERS, 771. Bull. Inf. nutrients. manure Agric. and production animal Confined 2001. Letson. D. NY. Ithaca, Press, Univ. Cornell Assoc., Publ. WI. Madison, Wisconsin, of Technology Univ. Agricultural on Studies, Program 1999. industry, A3557. dairy consin’s Publ. WI. Madison, protection. Ext., quality Coop. water Wisconsin of and Univ. production Wiscon- for corn practices management sin Nutrient 1994. Sturgul. S.J. and Appreci- Lanyon. Les Dr. late the to dedicated is article This wno e. ue’pyilg fdmsi nml.Comstock animals. domestic of physiology Dukes’ (ed.) Swenson ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES In .JG ugadGC Fahey, G.C. and Jung H.-J.G. In 2043 M.J. Reproduced from Journal of Environmental Quality. Published by ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. All copyrights reserved. ainlRsac oni.20.Areiso rmaia edn etPa evc,Iw tt nv,Ae,IA. Ames, Univ., State Iowa Service, Plan West feeding animal from emission Air 2003. Council. Research National cat- dairy of requirements Nutrient 2001. Council. Research National i-etPa evc.20.MdetPa evc.Mnr trgs 02 ul 4600.UD-PI-SCA,Ntoa Ani- National USDA-APHIS-VS-CEAH, N426.0804. Publ. 2002. Mun storages. Manure Service. Plan MidWest 2001. Service. Plan Mid-West MWPS- Publ. characteristics. Manure 2000. Service. Plan Mid-West eln,KA,LR ud,SM ob,adJB ees 98 olPwl,JM,D ako-mt,adLD atr 02 Phosphorus 2002. Satter. L.D. and Jackson-Smith, D. 2000. J.M., Gollehon. Powell, N. and Moffitt, D.C. Lander, C.H. R.L., Soil Kellogg, 1998. Peters. J.B. and Combs, S.M. Bundy, L.R. K.A., Kelling, ahw,BW,LE olnegr n ..Titclr I 96 Graz- 1996. II. Tristschler, J.P. and Sollenberger, L.E. B.W., Mathews, manure and Farmers 1997. Madison. F. and Shepard, R. P., Nowak, 2000. Barham. B. and Ostrom, M. Moon, S. D.B., Jackson-Smith, 2044 2–3.feigoeain.UEARp 2--406 SP fieof Office USEPA 821-B-04-006. Rep. USEPA operations. feeding 11. Sheet Fact barnyards. for requirements CAFO 2003. P. Wright, Washing- Sci., of DC. Acad. Nat. ton, Council, Research National ed. 7th tle. 729–737. iWs lnSrie oaSaeUi. ms A SP.20.Poues opinegiefrCFs SP Rep. USEPA CAFOs. for guide compliance Producers’ 2003. USEPA. IA. Ames, 2. Univ., Section State series. Iowa Service, system Plan management MidWest Manure MWPS-18, Publ. o gooi e. ahta,K.[nie.Aalbea http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu/procedures.htm at Available [Online]. WI. Madison, IA. Plan Ames, MidWest Press, 1. Univ. Section Iowa series. Service, systems management Manure 19, KS. Manhattan, Foundation Res., the Agronomic and Inst. for Phosphate and Potash 1996. Mar. 7–8 MO. aio fetmtso is-erdiymnr viaiiyo ul,Cnint,OH. Cincinnati, Publ., or availability N manure dairy first-year using of recovery estimates of parison h ntdSae.GANtoa ul etr otWrh X onr 05 s faia est oetmt auenutrient manure estimate to density animal 56:22–26. of Conserv. Use Water 62:277–286. Soil 2005. Agroecosyst. J. Posner. Cycling cropland. of cycles phosphorus TX. Worth, Fort for Center, pas- trends Publ. and National temporal cropland GSA and States. of soil Spatial United a capacity nutrients: the as assimilate the manure to to of tureland use relative Effective nutrients utilization: Rep. WI. Manure Waste crops. Madison, (ed.) Ext., fruit Stewart Coop. and Wisconsin vegetable of Univ. field, A2809. for recommendations the test of Results WI. century: Madison, Wisconsin, the of on Univ. Program Studies, of 4. Technology Summary Agricultural end Research PATS poll. the farm Wisconsin at 1999 Wisconsin in Farming uretccigi oaesses rc faSm. ouba ol ln nlssLbrtr evcs 04 rcdrsfrsoil for Procedures 2004. Inst., Services. SAS Laboratory 6. Analysis Version Plant Soil, guide. user’s SAS/Stat 1990. Institute. SAS Columbia, Symp., a of Proc. systems. forage Soil in pastures: in cycling nutrients Nutrient of 213–230. distribution p. spatial considerations. and systems ing WI. Madison, Press, Wisconsin of Univ. 2005). June 27 verified 2005; May 3 (accessed digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/EcoNatRes.Hole01 ˜ z .. ..Klig ..Pwl,adPE pt.20.Com- 2004. Speth. P.E. and Powell, J.M. Kelling, K.A. G.R., oz, 15 n te ehius .Evrn ul 33: Qual. Environ. J. techniques. other and N In ..JotadCA oet (ed.) Roberts C.A. and Joost R.E. .EVRN UL,VL 4 OEBRDCME 2005 NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 34, VOL. QUAL., ENVIRON. J. SA 04 uretmngmn n h ..diyidsr in industry dairy U.S. the and management Nutrient 2004. USDA. SP.20.Mngn auentinsa ocnrtdanimal concentrated at nutrients manure Managing 2004. USEPA. am . ..Pwl,DB ako-mt,WL ln,adJ.L. and Bland, on W.L. effects Jackson-Smith, diet D.B. Dairy Powell, 2002. J.M. Satter. H., L.D. Saam, and Wu, Z. J.M., Powell, ietc n olr niomna twrsi urclm Mid- curriculum. stewardship environmental poultry and Livestock DC. Washington, NW, Avenue, Pennsylvania 1200 (43037), Water 2--300 SP ainlSrieCne o Environmental for Center Service National USEPA 821-R-03-010. a elhMntrn ytm otClis CO. Collins, Fort System, Monitoring Health mal acse 5Ot 04 eiid2 ue20) nv fWisconsin, of Univ. 2005). June 27 verified 2004; Oct. 15 (accessed edn n auerccigo icni ar am.Nutr. farms. dairy Wisconsin on recycling manure and feeding eyln blt fWsosnDiyFrs gi.Ss.84:343–357. Syst. Agric. Farms. Dairy Wisconsin of ability recycling MI. Chelsea, Press, Arbor Ann resource. aaeet rtclaayi.p 1–32. p. analysis. critical A management: etn,pataayi n ed&frg analysis. forage & feed and analysis plant testing, NC. Cary, DC. Washington, Sci., Research of National Acad. needs. Nat. Council, future knowledge, Current operations: In ..Htil n B.A. and Hatfield J.L. In .Ptr (ed.) Peters J.