2017 NYC WAP

Precision Feed Management

Program 1/30/2018

Nutrient and Economic

Impact Report

Submitted to: Larry Hulle

Prepared Through Collaboration by:

The NYC WAP PFM Team Cornell Cooperative Extension of Delaware County Watershed Agricultural Council April Wright-Lucas Shylabeth Parenteau

Melinda Gaida Wendy Hanselman

Dale Dewing Cindy McCarthy

Paul Cerosaletti

2017 WAP PFM Program Year Description

2017 represented the second year full year of implementation of the PFM through the

NYC Watershed Agricultural Program (NYCWAP). This second year included initiation of a

second wave of PFM on farms prioritized at the outset of the PFM program for PFM

implementation in year two (2017). This implementation included initiation of feed

management planning using the NRCS 592 feed management standard and WAP Quality

Management Assistance (QMA) processes, as well as routine dietary monitoring using NYS PFM

Benchmarking tools and technical assistance to farmers and their feed industry advisors in

discreet QMA events. The PFM team efforts in Year 2 also included QMA planning and

technical assistance as well as PFM Benchmarking for all Year 1 farms. Anticipating Year 2

program growth, the PFM team challenged itself to maintain consistent and sustained

engagement of all PFM program farms while increasing the number of farms engaged. To

meet this objective the team finally came to full staffing levels of 3.5 PFM planner FTEs with

hiring of another full time PFM planner at the outset of the second quarter of 2017. The team

also took a measured approach to engagement of Year 2 farm, and added ten new farms to the

planning workload, bringing the Year 1 and 2 total of planned farms to thirty one (31).

2017 represented a significant challenge to dairy farms watershed-wide, including those

participating in the PFM program, with substantial wet weather starting early in the crop year.

This caused major delays in corn crop planting and haycrop harvest, ultimately adversely

affecting both yield and quality of homegrown forages crops. This has resulted in negative

impacts to milk production, and in some cases has resulted in farms purchasing forages from

neighbors as well as increasing purchased grain feeding rates, in an attempt to maintain milk

production. Some farms have lost milk production, as they chose not to supplement additional

grain as milk prices soften going into the first quarter of 2018, with no predicted upturns for the

foreseeable future.

1. 2017 PFM Program Farm Engagement

The 2017 WAP PFM program efforts concluded the 2017 planning and implementation year

with the following planning and monitoring statistics:

Table 1. PFM Program 2017 Engagement Statistics as of 12/31/2017

2017 2016-2017

Total Farm PFM QMA Events 373 -

Total PFM Benchmarks completed to date 110 200

Total PFM QMA Annual Implementation Plans 33 57

Total Feed Management Plans completed 10 31

Total PFM Farm planner contacts 869 (not tracked in 2016)

2017 PFM Program Nutrient Management Scope

Through dietary monitoring and PFM Benchmarking, the WAP PFM Program brought under

management scrutiny the total pool of feed nutrients fed the lactating herds of the Year 1 and

Year 2 farms. The pools of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) quantified in Table 2 represent an

extremely large amount of P and N now under management through Precision Feed

Management:

Table 2. PFM Program 2017 Nutrient Management Scope

Total number of lactating cows under feed monitoring 2,171

Phosphorus1

Average pool of feed phosphorus managed/cow/day, grams 83

Total pool of feed phosphorus managed per year, program, kgs 54,985

Average pool of manure phosphorus excretions managed per cow/day, grams 57

Total pool of manure phosphorus excretions managed per year, program, kgs 37,761

Nitrogen1

Average pool of feed nitrogen managed/cow/day, grams 544

Total pool of feed nitrogen managed per year, program, kgs. 360,386

Average pool of manure nitrogen excretions managed per cow/day, grams 397

Total pool of manure nitrogen excretions managed per year, program, kgs. 263,003 1 Nutrient pools summarized for a subset of 1,815 cows on 29 herds for which monitoring was complete enough to

justify inclusion in data summary as of 12/31/2017.

2017 PFM Program Nutrient Management Impact

Through dietary monitoring and PFM benchmarking the feed nutrient management

impacts have been quantified across all farms engaged in year 2 monitoring and dietary

implementation. As feed management is highly unique to each farm and dynamic throughout

the year (feeding cattle is a daily timestep with daily variation possible), as expected herds in

the PFM program exhibited a variety of feed nutrient statuses. However, all farms could be

categorized into one of four scenarios with regards to dietary phosphorus sufficiency

(phosphorus intake as a percent of animal phosphorus requirement) as measured by the PFM

Benchmarks:

1. Always within PFM Guidelines of Less than 110% of animal requirement

2. Began year over P guidelines, but was brought within guideline within the

year.

3. Began the year within guideline, but exceeded P guideline by year end

4. Always over ration P intake guideline of 110% of animal requirement.

With regards to Scenarios 3 and , it might seem alarming initially that herds were allowed to

exceed the dietary P benchmark temporarily after having been in check, or persistently over a

year or more; however this was usually caused by one or more of the following factors:

Herds exceeded dietary P benchmarks late in the year before changes could

be implemented by year end;

Dietary changes are only initiated by PFM planners based upon dietary

trends supported by at least two benchmarks (in order to establish sufficient

grounds to justify ration changes)

Dietary changes are implemented when farm management and feed advisors

are convinced of dietary trends and in agreement and able to implement

change. This can take substantial time on some farms.

Due to the nature of feedstuff used on the farm (eg - forages with high P

content) and/or feed systems constraints (eg – grassfed herds), there is little

ability to affect reduced dietary P intakes in the near term (1-3 years).

Table 3 illustrated the demographics of herds engaged the PFM monitoring in Year 2 based on

the four scenarios detailed above.

Table 3. PFM Program Herd Demographics based in P Sufficiency levels Scenarios.

Ration P Sufficiency Scenario % of Herds % of cows

1. Always within P Intake Benchmark 38% 51%

2. Began year exceeding P Intake Benchmark, but

came within Benchmark by end of Year 17% 11.5%

3. Began year within P Intake Benchmark, but

exceeded Benchmark by year end 21% 18.5%

4. Always exceeded P Intake Benchmark 24% 19%

Examination of the data in Table 3 leads to several conclusions.

The greatest proportion of the herds are always feeding P within benchmark guidelines;

The herds that are always within dietary P benchmark guidelines tend to be larger herds

(there is a greater percentage of the program cows in this scenario category than there

are herds);

45% of herds and 38% of cows have moved into, or are persistently in, a scenario

category calling for active diet P management within the year.

While herds in scenario category 4 represent significant concern, it is worth noting that 71% of

the herds in this category (5 of 7 herds; data not shown) were herds that began planning and

implementation in 2017 (Year 2 herds) and have had the least time to work towards dietary

change, offering perhaps greater likelihood that change will forthcoming in 2018.

In addition to summarizing and studying herds by the four P Intake Sufficiency scenario

categories described above, an additional category of herds was identified and summarized.

These were herds that were identified as having had reductions in P intake implemented and

measured as a result of some form of PFM program intervention, regardless of original

scenario. For instance, it is possible (and in fact we experienced) reductions in P intake in herds

that were persistently overfeeding phosphorus as well as in herds that were persistently within

P Intake benchmark guidelines, and for the resulting P intake and manure excretion reductions

in these herds to be biologically significant. We identified eight herds in 2017 that fit this

description. These herds represent perhaps the clearest measure of program impact as they

illustrate what was achieved in herds where reductions were actually affected within the one

year time step due to PFM program interventions, and when during the year the reductions

occurred (which may not be best captured by the difference between the first and last

benchmark of the year). The reductions achieved on these herds more accurately represent

the scope of what might be possible on other herds in the future as they encounter P intakes in

excess of ration guidelines. These eight herds represent 27.6% of the herds and 24.7% of the

cows in the program. Table 4 presents ration metrics for all program herd scenarios.

Table 4. PFM Program 2017 Nutrient Management Impact

Impact Metric

All

Herds

Scenario 1:

Always w/in

Guideline

Scenario 2:

Came w/in

Guideline

Scenario 3:

Went Over

Guideline

Scenario 4

Always

Over

Guideline

Scenario 5:

All Herds with P Intake

Reductions

Implemented;

Program demographics

% of herds 100% 38% 17% 21% 24% 27.6%

% of cows 100% 51% 11.5% 18.5% 19% 24.7%

Phosphorus

% of Benchmarks over

Guideline 40% 0% 50% 48% 100% 42% kg/c/

yr

%

Reduc-

tion

Change in manure P excretion

Beginning to End, g/c/d 2 2 -8 11 1 -15 5.5 23%

Nitrogen

% of Benchmarks over

Guideline 36% 23% 19% 48% 62% 31% kg/c/

yr

% Reduc-

tion

Change in manure N excretion

beginning to end, g/c/d 7 1 20 51 -31 -28 10.2 7%

Forage and Grain Feeding

Change in % Forage Feeding

level, beginning to end -0.30 -0.47 -0.68 -0.63 0.50 1.4

lbs/c/yr

Change in grain feeding level,

beginning to end, lbs/c/d -0.24 0.05 0.10 -0.37 -0.83 -1.5 548

Economic Impact $/c/yr

Change in Milk Income over

purchased feed cost, beginning

to end, $/c/d

$-0.66 $-0.33 $.58 $-1.19 $-1.61 $0.46 $168

Across all individual benchmarks conducted across all herds, 40% of the phosphorus

intake benchmarks exceeded the P intake Benchmark guidelines of 110% of animal

requirement. That 21% of the herds had P levels move from within guideline to out-of-

guideline is evidence that dietary P are dynamic and require vigilant monitoring. Our

experience over the last 15 years of implementing PFM has been consistent with this

observation. Indeed, one of our Year 2 herds, a herd that had previously been engaged in PFM

for many years joined our program after several years off of the program and had during that

time away from our program deliberately over fed phosphorus in order to combat perceived

reproductive herd problems. This stands as anecdotal evidence that without continual

monitoring and technical support, even farmers who have experience in implementing PFM can

revert to over feeding phosphorus. Another Year 2 herd had been experiencing severe

metabolic problems in the post-freshening period prior to beginning PFM. In a desperate effort

to combat these problems they were over feeding multiple minerals in the diet, to no avail.

When the PFM program provided technical assistance to address the metabolic problem

comprehensively and methodically, were they able to reduce dietary P over feeding.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the herd categories that showed dietary change to move

within P intake guideline (Scenarios 2 and 5) were the only categories to show a decrease in

manure P excretions. Across all farms in the Scenario 5 category collectively, manure P

excretions were reduced 2,470 kg per year.

For nitrogen, 36% of diets exceeded the PFM benchmark guideline (>16.5% crude

protein content of the diet dry matter). While the PFM program does actively monitor, and

in most cases manage diets for nitrogen, for the purposes of this report data was summarized

on a phosphorus reduction priority basis. Therefore, the data presented in Table 4, may not

capture the fullness of the nitrogen management impact that may have been affected through

the PFM program. The inconsistent and manure N reductions do not follow a logical pattern.

Despite this, it is instructive to note that farms where P reductions were implemented did

experience manure N reductions as well. Dietary N levels and manure N excretions are even

more dynamic than P levels, and can be affected by dietary carbohydrate adequacy as well as N

intake.

Forage and grain feeding levels saw little change across herds and scenario categories 1-

4. However herds in scenario category 5 did experience significant increases in forage feeding

levels tied with and caused by concomitant decreases in purchased grain feeding levels.

Decreases in purchased grain feeding levels decrease P imports to the farm. Across all Scenario

category 5 farms, we estimate that grain P imports in the watershed were reduced

approximately 580 kg. in 2017.

Our experience in 2017 in many ways confirms our experience of Year 1 in 2016.

Therefore it bears repeating here our observations noted in the 2016 impact report:

These data underscore the highly dynamic nature of dairy cattle feeding that

is caused by changes in nutrient content of the ration component feeds and/or cattle

nutrient requirement. This serves to highlight the reason that continual monitoring

of diets via PFM Benchmarking is necessary. Had we not been monitoring these

diets with the express intent of managing nutrient status, there is no way of knowing

what percentage of benchmarks may have exceeded the PFM benchmarks. When

we begin working with a farm in PFM, we do not necessarily assume that the farm is

over feeding phosphorus; however, we do assume and expect that there will be

significant variation in P and N feeding levels.

While the program achieved manure P and N excretions reductions, due to natural

variability, we expect reductions to trend over time, but not necessarily linearly.

Additionally, outcomes may continue to emerge as we work with these farms over

time, as it takes time to establish baseline feed nutrient status and variation and to

develop a working relationship in order to make changes in farm forage and feed

management.

Additionally, our experience of 2017 in working with a number of farms on issues indirectly, but

inextricably related to P levels of the diets, gives us reason to note that PFM by necessity in

order to be successful in the long term, must be prepared to engage farmers on all matters

related to animal production in order that any and all barriers to more precise feeding can be

addressed and removed. In order to be successful in managing manure nutrient levels in the

long run, we must be prepared to address the root causes of problems they face as well as help

preempt problems.

Economic Impact of the PFM

The primary metric chosen to assess economic impact is milk income over purchased

feed costs. The data presented in Table 4 below uses a fixed milk price model (price set at

$20.00 per hundredweight) to assess impact, in order to isolate effects of production and feed

cost from fluctuations in milk price. Looking at the beginning to the end of 2017 benchmarks,

milk income over purchased feed cost showed substantial declines in all scenario categories

except categories 2 and 5, which coincidentally or not, were the two categories experiencing

dietary P levels reductions. The positive economic impacts on farms in these two categories

were largely due to either or both increased milk production and decreased purchased grain

feeding levels. Only occasionally did reduced purchased grain costs per ton figure in

profitability increases. Due to continued depressed milk prices and other farm specific factors,

three participating PFM farms exited the industry in 2017, a reminder that milk price is a

primary economic driver and can outweigh positive gains.

PFM Impact Success Stories

The following PFM QMA Impact reports serve to provide specific examples of the ways in which

the PFM program is engaging farmers.

QMA Impact Report

Farm Mountain View Dairy – Dan and Angela Schmid

Planner Shy Parenteau QMA Code: PFM

Date 12/28/2017

Results / Impact

(briefly describe the progress toward QMA goals as well as any increased production or profitability, improved efficiency, improved effectiveness of BMP, etc.)

After the first benchmark it was apparent that there was excess phosphorus in the diet. To be sure that it wasn’t a fluke, we conducted another benchmark with new forage samples. The forages were all relatively high in phosphorus. After looking over the grain ingredients and finding that there isn’t an easy way to remove any phosphorus, we decided that we needed to focus on the forages. The Schmids don’t have many fields near their home (there are few but they are large) so they have had a lot of manure applied to them over the years. Recently they have changed their Nutrient Management Plan to avoid over-spreading on one particular hay field. They are also starting to spread on some fields that are further away. This won’t be resolved over night, but we are certainly aware of the high phosphorus and are working towards correcting it.

QMA Impact Report

Farm Jon-Won Farm

Planner Mindy Gaida QMA Code: PFM

Date October 24, 2017

Results / Impact

(Briefly describe the progress toward QMA goals as well as any increased production or profitability, improved efficiency, improved effectiveness of BMP, etc.)

Implementation of Corn Silage Pad for Reduced Waste of Feed: Palmatiers have traditionally utilized an Ag bag as well as their silos to store corn silage on the farm. Over the spring time of 2017 the mud and uneven pad for the Ag bag was causing great difficulty in retrieving the silage as well as an estimated 5 Tons of wasted feed. The face of the bag was difficult to maintain properly resulting in further feed loss through oxidation. Through the PFM education and demonstration outreach we were able to work with the watershed engineers, Tim Hebbard and Pete Steenland, to formulate a plan to implement a pad with a small budget to decrease the waste of silage and increase the accessibility while ensuring water quality was going to be maintained or improved. PFM contracted Boyle’s Excavating to bring in 5 loads of bank run gravel to build the pad. Prior to the ruble being delivered Todd Palmatier removed all the organic matter down to the hard pan as directed by Pete Steenland. The night prior to the delivery of ruble Todd and son Ty and PFM planner Mindy Gaida placed the construction fabric as engineer Pete Steenland directed which Todd already had on hand, resulting in additional no cost to the program. Once the bank run gravel was delivered Todd utilized his skid steer to level the pad and compact it in. The corn silage storage pad was “exceptional compared to last year” according to the custom harvesters hired to harvest the corn silage. The pad was also able to hold two Ag bags side by side which has never been done before. This is exceptionally positive as it makes the accessibility to the silage for Todd more convenient compared to using tier tower silo due to his knee replacements, and it will also have less feed loss from the silo as there have been issues with their tower silo having excessive spoilage in the past. The pad will help ensure reduced waste of corn silage and help Palmatiers keep enough in their inventory throughout the winter months into spring when the cows go out onto pasture. This will decrease the amount of imported feeds unto the farm as well.

Before: After

QMA Impact Report

Farm TylerVale Farm

Planner Mindy Gaida QMA Code: PFM

Date 12/21/2017

Results / Impact

(Briefly describe the progress toward QMA goals as well as any increased production or profitability, improved efficiency, improved effectiveness of BMP, etc.)

One of the QMA goals set forth with Ed and Duane Martin for 2017 was to focus in on the transitioning cow diets as well as the dry cow diets to reduce or eliminate any metabolic issues that may arise at freshening thus ensuring minimal loss. We have worked with the herd Nutritionist, Butch Ridell, as well as the herd veterinarian, Dr. Jess, to key in on the diets by modeling the dry cow diet. Our intern, Stephanie Bishop, modeled the diet so we were able to take a closer look where there may be an underlining cause. One issue was the lack of exercise/physical activity in the dry cows. Martin’s have placed these cows in a loafing area to be able to allow them the exercise needed to ensure a healthy freshening and this has helped improve the metabolic issues. For the few dry cows that need to be housed inside, the Martins have worked on separating them from the lactating herd so there is no “stealing” from the neighboring lactating cow diet. Water flow was a concern at Tylervale and recently Ed Martin changed out several pipes to ensure adequate water flow. The water flow has improved tremendously according to Duane, though there was no prior measurement of GPM, Duane stated the water pressure is a remarkable difference. Duane is currently seeking bids for high tensile fencing across Route 10 to establish an area for the heifers. Since implementation of multiple strategies to address the transition cow diets there have been fewer metabolic issues. This has allowed us to subsequently address over feeding of phosphorus which had been implemented prior to them participating in PFM in an attempt to address transition cow performance. By the end of the year dietary phosphorus levels have been reduced as well.

QMA Impact Report

Farm SRJF - Albano Farms

Planner Paul Cerosaletti QMA Code: PFM

Date 1/25/2018

Results / Impact

(briefly describe the progress toward QMA goals as well as any increased production or profitability, improved efficiency, improved effectiveness of BMP, etc.)

Frank and Marc Albano have recently completed construction of a new freestall barn and moved their dry and lactating cows into this freestall barn. Previously these cows were housed in a tie stall barn and were fed rations differently than they now are in the freestall. Recently, they began to experience challenges with fresh cow going off feed and doing poorly. While data was being collected by PFM planner Paul Cerosaletti, additional analysis of the herd ration TMR was conducted to assess ration effective fiber adequacy. Additionally, as a result of extensive PFM program records of previous herd rations coupled with up to date feed analysis, it was determined that the herd was in fact short of effective fiber in the diet. All of this information was shared with the herd nutritionist, who lives two hours from the farm, in regular consultation via email, and diets were reformulated within one day to increase effective fiber in the lactating cow diets. This is an example of good communication and team work between the farmer, the PFM program, and the herd nutritionist to address an acute nutritional problem in a very timely manner, bringing PFM program resources and information (both current and historical) to bear to solve a problem.