Water, EPA and you
By James D. Ritchie
New rules from EPA are on the way but not yet final. Depending on soil types and geography, phosphorous-based manure application will affect livestock producers in markedly different ways--none of them cheap.
By the end of 2002, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to implement rule changes that will affect virtually every animal feeding operation in the country. The agency actually has no choice: EPA is under court order to publish final effluent limitation guidelines by Dec. 15, 2002.
But as of now, even EPA doesn't know exactly what the proposed rules will contain.
"We have a pretty muddy crystal ball on most of the proposed rule changes and how they will be implemented," said John Lory, environmental nutrient management specialist with the University of Missouri's Commercial Agriculture program. "EPA plans to implement the new rules next December, but states will have another 2 or 3 years to put the rules into effect. That means 2005 or 2006 before many changes take effect on farms and ranches, but that isn't a lot of time to do the planning that will be needed."
How can producers begin to plan for rules which are still unclear? There is much in EPA's sweeping rule changes that is still up in the air.
For instance, EPA proposes changes in the size of animal feeding operations (AFO) that would be regulated. Under one proposal, the threshold for regulation (and permits) would drop from the current 1,000 animal units to 500 animal units. Another version would push the limit as low as 300 animal units. Which version will take is still unclear. But both proposed thresholds would increase the number of AFOs subject to regulation.
Or, take the proposed phosphorus limit on land-applied manure. EPA has proposed that phosphorus, rather than nitrogen, be the limiting nutrient when animal wastes are applied. And the agency mandates that manure be applied to a growing crop and that only the amount of phosphorus be applied that the crop will utilize in the current year.
Many producers will need more land to meet the requirements of a phosphorus rule. Lory notes that some farmers will need no additional land on which to apply manure, while others may eventually need five times or more than their current land for manure application. The impact from farm to farm is still difficult to predict.
"The phosphorus rule is pretty much a done deal and will be put into place," said Lory. "However, EPA has agreed to look at the idea of 'banking' phosphorus, by allowing phosphorus to be applied for two or three crop seasons and rotate manure applications to other fields until any excess phosphorus has been utilized by the crop."
Nutrient management plans will be required by virtually everyone who applies manure.
"We are working on computer software now that will help producers generate the reports they'll need for nutrient management plans," said Lory. "But the whole system of who writes those plans and who approves them is still up in the air."
EPA's proposed rules require all swine and poultry operations to meet a "zero discharge" requirement. These operations would have to demonstrate to EPA that their manure storage and handling system would never overflow. In Missouri, lagoon overflows are a rare event. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources records show only five cases of lagoon overflows, and none of those due only to heavy rainfall.
"A producer may declare that his lagoon has never overflowed and will never run over, but EPA may not accept that," said Lory. "The alternative would be to cover lagoons, and we estimate that would cost $425 per animal unit, which would be prohibitive for most operations."
What the final rules will mandate and how much it will cost producers to comply are still unclear. Over half of Missouri's agriculture receipts come from animal agriculture. How much can the animal industry invest and still remain viable?
"That's a big question," said Ray Massey, University of Missouri ag economist. "The cost of going to a phosphorus limit and covering lagoons is estimated by EPA at $1.6 billion, and I think they have underestimated that cost by quite a bit.
"There's a U-shaped cost curve associated with complying with the rule changes," he added. "Smaller producers have higher per-unit costs for handling manure. Those costs decrease until you reach a certain point in size, then begin to rise again. The new farm bill has earmarked a lot of money for EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Programs), but the expense of meeting rule requirements may not be covered by much federal cost share."
One effect of the new EPA rules is to encourage even more concentration of animal production.
"If you have high concentration of production, you have more potential for environmental damage," Massey noted. "But you also have more potential for the development of a commercial infrastructure to take care of animal wastes. We're seeing that now. In areas where pork production is concentrated, service industries--big slurry spreaders or dragline injection systems--are springing up. A producer cannot justify investing in this kind of equipment if he's only going to use it for 2 months out of the year.
"If I were a livestock or poultry producer, I'd start looking now at this whole change and start thinking about what may be required down the road," he concluded. "And if I were building a swine system from the ground up, I don't think I'd build a manure lagoon."
|
It's a buyer's market for animal manure
Each year, Joe Laney puts nearly a million drumsticks on American consumers' tables.
Laney operates six broiler houses in southwest Missouri, with a one-time capacity of about 110,000 birds. He turns flocks 4.5 times each year. That's a lot of chickens--and a lot of chicken litter. But Laney is fortunate in a way: A litter-handling infrastructure has grown up in the concentrated poultry producing area.
"I sell litter to a custom applicator for $20 per load of 5 to 6 tons," said Laney. "He re-sells the litter to other farmers; most of it goes on grass pastures."
For Laney, it's a good deal. He earns about $4 per ton on the litter his broilers produce and gets his buildings cleaned out in the bargain. The applicator completely cleans the buildings about once each year. Between flocks, Laney himself removes the packed litter--called "cake"--from beneath feeders and waterers.
"I spread some of the cake on my own grass, but I don't have enough area to take all of it," said Laney. "Three years ago, I built a clear-span stacking shed to hold de-caked litter between full clean-outs of the buildings. The custom applicator usually takes the cake, too, when he cleans out the buildings."
It's a system that has worked well for several years. Now, with new EPA rules on the way, Laney isn't sure how his operation will be affected.
"The phosphorus limitation will mean custom applicators will have to spread litter on more acres," he said. "That may mean they would pay me less for litter or charge the end buyer more."
Nutrient management plans are another uncertainty. Who would be responsible for drafting and maintaining the plans: the seller, the middleman, or the buyer?
"Probably all three of us will be keeping more records, however it all shakes out," said Laney. "That will add to costs and tend to discourage farmers from buying litter.
"At the same time, contracting companies are putting pressure on us to retrofit older buildings," he added. "The retrofits would cost $30,000 or more per building. With all of these costs, a lot of growers will go out of business...and I may be one of them."
|
|