Environmental Protection Agency

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:28 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

Trump Signals More DEF Rollbacks, Pushes Manufacturers to Lower Equipment Costs

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 19:20:23 GMT

In front of a gathering of farmers, ranchers and growers at the White House, President Trump and EPA announced new guidance that will remove the DEF sensor requirements, which the Small Business Administration (SBA) estimates will save farmers $4.4 billion a year and translate into $13.79 billion for Americans. Administrator Lee Zeldin says the move impacts farmers, truckers, motor coach operators and other diesel equipment operators.

“I have heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix in all 50 states I visited during my first year as EPA administrator,” Zeldin says. “Americans are justified in being fed up with failing DEF system issues. EPA understands this is a massive issue and has been doing everything in our statutory power to address this. Today, we take another step in furthering our work by removing DEF sensors. Farmers and truckers should not be losing billions of dollars because of repair costs or days lost on the job.”

Every farmer now has the Right to Repair their own equipment thanks to President Trump. It’s crazy that our talented farmers were being prevented from doing this previously. This announcement is about common sense. Farmers will be able to spend more time in the field and less… pic.twitter.com/4hROUN45EU
— Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) March 27, 2026

New Guidelines Focus on DEF Sensors

EPA says that sudden speed losses and shutdowns caused by DEF system failures compromise safety and productivity. It calls the issue unacceptable and problematic. In a release, EPA says it plans to continue to pursue all legal avenues to address Americans’ complaints. On Feb. 3, 2026, EPA demanded critical data on DEF system failures from the manufacturers that account for over 80% of all products used in DEF systems. This information will arm EPA with what it needs to permanently address DEF system failures. Thus far, the agency has received data from 11 of the 14 manufacturers, and in less than a month, EPA has turned around preliminary findings to issue today’s guidance, demonstrating Administrator Zeldin’s commitment to fixing this issue.

“Today, by eliminating DEF mandates, the Trump Administration is taking yet another step to free up hardworking Americans to focus on the vital work of feeding, clothing, building, and fueling our nation,” says SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler. “I applaud Administrator Zeldin for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to our continued collaboration to cut red tape for small businesses across the U.S. food supply chain.”

Several ag equipment manufacturers were highlighted during the event at the White House, including John Deere. The company weighed in EPA’s latest announcement about DEF.

“John Deere applauds the EPA’s leadership to provide as much flexibility through agency guidance as possible to limit the frequency of false DEF-quality inducements,” says Kyle Gilley, vice president for global government affairs at John Deere. “Today’s announcement builds upon EPA guidance from February 2026, requested by John Deere, to provide farmers additional tools to complete emissions-related repairs. These announcements are a win for farmers and their ability to keep modern equipment operating in the field.”

EPA says the preliminary review of the warranty data suggests that DEF sensor failures are a significant source of warranty claims and DEF-related inducements. The agency’s new guidance makes clear that under existing regulations, manufacturers can stop inaccurate DEF system failures by removing traditional emission sensors, known as Urea Quality Sensors, and switching to nitrous oxide (NOx) sensors.

EPA also affirms that approved NOx sensor-based software updates can be installed on existing engines without being treated as illegal tampering under the Clean Air Act. This is in line with EPA’s February 2026 Right to Repair clarification guidance , which removed a major barrier keeping farmers from fixing their faulty DEF systems in the field. EPA anticipates the switch will greatly curb errors that traditional sensor technologies have been prone to and reduce the issues Americans face with inaccurate DEF failures.

For more information, see EPA’s Diesel Exhaust Fluid .

Trump Calls on Manufacturers to Lower Equipment Prices If DEF Rolled Back

During Friday’s event, Trump also spoke about the rising complexity and cost of modern farm equipment.

“When you buy a tractor today, you spend 50 percent of your time fixing the environmental — I say environmental impact statement garbage that’s on the tractor,” he says.

He adds that equipment often includes computerized systems that can shut down tractors unnecessarily, increasing repair costs.

“I said to the head of John Deere, ‘Is this a good thing or a bad thing?’ He said, sir, you have no idea how bad it is. It’s made our tractors so complicated. … We want to go back to the old ways, sir. And I said, I agree with you 100 percent.”

During remarks at the event at the White House today, President Trump said EPA is working to further roll back DEF-related requirements and pushed manufacturers to cut equipment costs:

“You’re going to lower the cost of a tractor… they’re going to be able to very shortly…
— Tyne Morgan (@Tyne_Ag) March 27, 2026

The president says the administration is looking into further rolling back DEF requirements, but as he does, he is also urging manufacturers to reduce equipment prices for farmers if the added environmental regulation costs are no longer there.

“Lee (Zeldin), I think we can say, I know you’re in the process of cutting out massive amounts of nonsense that are mandated to be put on your tractors, that all of your trucks that cost your fortune…and I know that they’re going to do this. And I asked one thing, you got to promise me one thing. You’re not going to take any profits. You’re going lower the cost of a tractor. I want you to lower the costs. And if they don’t lower the course, you’ll let me know. And I’ll have to do a big number of those companies. Okay? They’re going to be able to, very shortly, produce a bigger, better tractor and substantially less money. It’s going to be better. It’s gonna be a better tractor at substantially less,” Trump says.

He adds that future tractors will be simpler, more reliable and less expensive.

“I want John Deere and Case and all of the great companies … to give it to you in the form of lower tractor and equipment costs. And I think it’s going to have a huge impact,” he says.

President Trump then directed EPA Administrator Zeldin to explore ways to require, or mandate, manufacturers to lower the cost of farm equipment.

EPA’s guidance issued on Friday is part of a broader effort to address complaints from farmers, truckers and other diesel equipment operators about DEF system failures that cause equipment shutdowns, but Trump says more action on DEF is currently underway.

More DEF Relief? EPA Takes New Action for Farmers and Truckers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:14:40 GMT

On the heels of clarifying farmers’ right to repair their own equipment, EPA is escalating pressure on diesel engine manufacturers over ongoing Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system failures the administration claims continue to sideline farm machinery and trucks.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency is demanding detailed failure data from major diesel engine manufacturers as it considers additional rules aimed at reducing DEF-related shutdowns and derates that have plagued farmers, truckers and equipment operators for years.

The move builds directly on Monday’s EPA right-to-repair guidance announcement that clarified the Clean Air Act does not prohibit farmers from fixing their own non-road diesel equipment, which includes making temporary emissions overrides when necessary to complete repairs.

“As I traveled to all 50 states during my first year as EPA administrator, I heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others rightly complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix,” Zeldin said in a statement on Tuesday. “EPA understands this is a massive issue, which is why we have already established commonsense guidance for manufacturers to update DEF systems.

“Today, we are furthering that work and demanding detailed data to hold manufacturers accountable for the continued system failures,” he added.

While neither announcement fully rolls back DEF requirements on tractors, a step many farmers and truckers continue to push for, both signal movement in that direction.

With today’s news in the mix, here’s what farmers and truckers need to know:

1. Increased Operational Up-Time.

The most immediate benefit is the reduction of “forced downtime.” Under the clarified guidance announced on Feb. 2, farmers can now perform temporary emissions overrides to complete essential work, such as planting or harvesting, even if a DEF failure occurs. The extension of warning periods — specifically the 36-hour window for non-road equipment before a derate kicks in — provides a buffer to finish a job before seeking repairs.

2. Legal Empowerment for Repairs.

EPA has explicitly stated the Clean Air Act cannot be used by manufacturers as a shield to prevent farmers from fixing your own equipment. This clarification removes a major legal hurdle in the right-to-repair movement, potentially lowering repair costs by allowing farmers and independent mechanics to access the tools and software needed to address DEF-related faults.

3. Manufacturer Accountability.

Under Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is demanding warranty and failure data for Model Year 2016, 2019 and 2023 engines from 14 major on-road and non-road diesel manufacturers (covering 80% of the market). That shifts the burden of DEF reliability from the end-user to the manufacturer. EPA says the information will help determine whether persistent DEF problems are tied to specific product generations, system designs or materials, and will inform further regulatory steps in 2026. Manufacturers have 30 days to comply or face potential enforcement actions.

4. Impact on Machinery Values.

Auction data suggests farmers are already voting with their checkbooks. According to Machinery Pete , demand and values remain strongest for pre-DEF used equipment, while interest in DEF-equipped machinery has softened.

If these EPA actions lead to more reliable DEF systems or easier repairs, the high demand (and inflated prices) for older, less efficient equipment might eventually stabilize as newer models become less of a liability in the field.

5. More Changes are Coming.

When asked why EPA has not eliminated DEF requirements entirely,Zeldin said the agency said it is actively building on last summer’s guidance and actively moving toward “common-sense” adjustments that prioritize productivity alongside emissions standards.

EPA’s demand for warranty and failure data follows DEF guidance issued in August 2025 that significantly softened inducement rules. That guidance delayed severe derates, reduced sudden shutdowns and required manufacturers to update software so operators could continue safely working while addressing faults.

For heavy-duty trucks, warning periods were extended to up to 650 miles or 10 hours before derates begin, with weeks of normal operation allowed before speed is limited. Non-road equipment now sees no impact for the first 36 hours after a DEF fault.

EPA has also said that starting with Model Year 2027, new diesel trucks must be engineered to avoid sudden and severe power loss after running out of DEF.

Why EPA Says Farmers and Ranchers Won't Need a Lawyer to Understand the Newly Proposed WOTUS Rule

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 16:10:31 GMT

Agricultural groups have been asking for a new WOTUS rule that eliminates red tape and clears up confusion for farmers and ranchers. As EPA unveiled its latest proposed Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule this week , Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi says the agency’s goal was simple: clarity, consistency and fewer regulatory headaches for farmers and ranchers.

Fotouhi joined “U.S. Farm Report” for an exclusive interview to break down what this new rule means and why EPA believes it hits the mark.

A Rule He Says Brings Clarity and Certainty

Fotouhi says the agency’s top priority is eliminating uncertainty farmers have faced under previous interpretations of WOTUS.

“We really emphasize the need for farmers, ranchers and all stakeholders to have clarity in terms of how broad or narrow federal regulation of waters is in this country,” he says. “From Day 1, we start working on a proposed rule to bring that clarity and certainty to landowners across the country. On Monday, we are able to announce a proposal that is consistent with the law, that provides needed clarity on the extent of federal regulation, and that recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states and localities because they know their resources best.”

He adds that the proposal strikes what he calls a good balance.

“We think we really strike a good balance between protecting our nation’s waters and making sure farmers and ranchers can do the work that feeds Americans and produces the fuel this country relies on — without adding unnecessary regulatory burden to their day-to-day life,” he says.

EPA Says Farmers “Won’t Need a Lawyer” to Understand the New Rule

Fotouhi stresses one of EPA’s biggest priorities in rewriting WOTUS was ensuring farmers no longer need legal help just to determine whether they can work their own ground. He says the agency intentionally crafted the language to be plain, practical and rooted in the realities producers face every day.

“We take a fresh look at the Supreme Court’s direction and try to apply that in language that is easily understandable. Producers should not need a lawyer to understand how this rule applies to their property. We write it in a way that lets farmers look at their land and have a clear sense of whether federal permits are required.”

Fotouhi explains past WOTUS rules often included terminology that was vague, overly technical or open to interpretation, something EPA heard repeatedly during outreach with farm groups.

He says the agency makes a conscious effort to eliminate that ambiguity.

“We listen to farmers tell us repeatedly that the rule has to be understandable,” he says. “So instead of broad definitions that leave too much room for interpretation, we focus on concrete, workable language. We take geographic differences into account, we remove subjective criteria and we make exclusions, like the groundwater exemption, explicit so there’s no second-guessing.”

Fotouhi says that level of clarity is a direct response to years of frustration in rural America.

“We know farmers need certainty,” he says. “They need to know what they can and can’t do without waiting months for an answer. That’s why we put so much effort into making this rule clear, transparent and grounded in what the Supreme Court actually tells us to do.”

EPA Pushes Back on Claims the Proposal Overpromises

Some critics argue the agency risks overpromising. Fotouhi strongly rejects that idea.

“We take a fresh look at all the critical issues the Supreme Court lays out in the Sackett decision,” he says. “We think the previous administration does not faithfully implement that decision when they revise the rule, so we come back, reassess everything and come up with a definition that fully implements what the Court tells EPA and the Army Corps to do.”

He notes the agency made readability a priority.

“We try to apply the Court’s direction in language that is easily understandable, that takes geographic differences into account, and that doesn’t impose unnecessary burdens on farmers when they’re trying to decide if they need a permit,” he says.

Groundwater Exclusion: “We Want It Crystal Clear”

One standout change is the explicit exclusion of groundwater — language EPA says is included to eliminate confusion.

“Groundwater has never been part of the Waters of the United States, but we think it is absolutely necessary to make that exemption clear as day so there is no confusion about whether someone would need a permit for a discharge that may impact groundwater,” Fotouhi says.

He says repeated questions from stakeholders and newer case law convinced the agency to spell it out directly.

“Based on the case law that’s come out in the last few years and the general confusion we hear from stakeholders, we think it is incumbent on us to clarify this as clearly as we can,” he adds.

Final Rule Expected in Early 2026

EPA filed the proposal with the Federal Register , which means the rule’s comment period is officially underway.

“We publish the rule today, and it will be out for public comment for 45 days,” he says. “We know there is an absolute need for certainty and clarity and one nationwide standard, so we move quickly. We are hopeful that in the first few months of 2026, we can have a final rule out for the public.”

RFS: EPA Reviewing Comments, Aims for Certainty

Fotouhi also discusses EPA’s proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes, including record-setting biomass-based diesel levels.

“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right. From day one, Administrator Zeldin is laser-focused on ensuring the RFS strikes the right balance,” he says. “We know farmers and all stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action.”

EPA’s Deregulatory Push: More Actions to Come

Fotouhi says the agency’s deregulatory actions announced earlier this year will have significant impact on agriculture.

“Reducing the cost of energy is one of our biggest focuses,” he says. “Many of the actions we identify are aimed at reducing energy prices for farmers, ranchers and manufacturers so we can reduce input costs and ultimately reduce the cost of the products they produce.”

This is evident through their efforts on WOTUS.

“The WOTUS proposal is a prime example; it’s designed to reduce unnecessary and illegal regulatory burden, and we are undertaking a score of additional actions across offices, working with USDA, the Department of Energy and the Interior Department, to identify ways to reduce input costs for agriculture,” Fotouhi says. “A thriving agricultural sector is a priority for the president, and lowering consumer prices is something we have to achieve.”

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

Avoid Confusion: Clear the Air on CAFOs

Tue, 06 May 2025 13:40:19 GMT

Concentrated animal feeding operations have continued to sustain meat and dairy industries since their implementation many decades ago by providing a steady flow of livestock for food chains for home and consumers abroad.

Contrary to popular belief, Kansas State University extension livestock specialist Joel DeRouchey says CAFOs present a more efficient opportunity to raise livestock with less stress on the environment.

“While CAFOs can get a bad rap due to their ability to house many animals in one location, they face some of the most stringent regulations for environmental protection, which is good for surrounding land and water quality,” he points out on Agriculture Today with the K-State Radio Network .

After considering what’s regulated, how CAFOs handle manure, how it’s applied and the regulations and inspections involved from both the state and potentially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DeRouchey says these operations are in business for a reason.

“They’re doing a very good stewardship for both for the land and water quality,” he adds.

Feedlot

(Shelby Chesnut)

But Josh McCann, associate professor of animal science at the University of Illinois, says it’s understandable people may have questions about CAFOs.

“I think it’s easy to get nervous or ask questions about things that we’re not exposed to, that we aren’t very familiar with,” McCann says.

CAFOs are highly professional environments led by teams of experts who help those animals remain healthy, grow in a productive way and provide an extremely affordable protein for Americans and people around the world, he adds.

“We have some of the very best nutritionists, the very best veterinarians, the very best management experts working at these facilities to help those animals actually grow and prosper,” McCann says. “I don’t think people truly appreciate the amount of effort, investment of time and people and science that goes into this.”

Is Your Operation a CAFO?
CAFOs include cattle and small ruminant feedlots, confined large indoor and outdoor swine and poultry operations and dairy facilities that meet the criteria as a CAFO. Once a CAFO is designated for a site, it has both state and federal requirements under which it must operate.

The challenge is every state is different when it comes to its respective state regulations, he says.

“Permitting of different livestock species could be different within a state and certainly is across states,” DeRouchey says. “But the bigger pictures items are the same.”

To be a CAFO, EPA explains that farms must first be an Animal Feeding Operation (AFO). If a farm does not meet the definition of an AFO, the EPA rules do not apply to it.

The AFO definition has two parts: Part 1 - A lot or facility where animals have been, are, or will be confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period. Part 2 - Where vegetation (crops, forage, post-harvest residues) is not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.

“There are many factors to consider when determining if your farm is a CAFO. Bottom line: Manage your farm in a way that ensures no discharges to WOTUS,” the Illinois Pork Producers Association says on its website .

For example, in Kansas, any facility with an animal unit capacity of 300 or greater must register with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Additionally – regardless of size – any facility that presents a significant water pollution potential must obtain a permit as determined by KDHE.

“Feedlot cattle over 700 pounds would be considered a single animal unit, 700 lb. and less is a half and cattle such as a lactating dairy cow would be considered 1.4,” DeRouchey says. “These figures relate to their feed intakes and the amount of manure produced per body weight.”

Another factor to consider when determining the size of your CAFO is if a farmer has multiple sites where animals are confined, they must determine if those sites are separate AFOs or should be combined. In Illinois, under the IL EPA Livestock Rules, two or more AFOs under common ownership would be a single AFO if the AFOs are adjacent to each other or the AFOs utilize a common area or system for handling or disposing of manure.

“Most situations in which pigs are raised will likely be defined as an AFO,” IPPA says. “If your farm is an AFO, then you must determine if you are a small, medium or large CAFO, which factors in the number of animals that are confined on the farm and whether pollutants are being discharged into Waters of the U.S (WOTUS).”

When determining if the operation has any discharges, a farmer must look at the entire production area including manure storage, feed storage and dead animal composting to determine if there is a discharge.

“CAFOs are strictly permitted to have full containment of all rainwater and runoff that reaches a pen surface, and the same goes for cleaning pen surfaces,” DeRouchey explains. “Manure must be stored in a contained area until it’s moved out to fields for spreading.”

Compliance is Key
Many regulations like these are in place to help keep the environment, water and land safe for multiple generations, McCann says.

Dairy

(Jim Dickrell)

To ensure compliance with these regulations, CAFOs undergo periodic on-site state inspections and a permit renewal where producers update their paperwork and nutrient management plan with any changes to the operation. An essential part of that process is developing a new nutrient management plan that says what’s going to occur with the application of manure to the agronomic crop ground surrounding the facility, DeRouchey says.

“With soil tests and manure samples taken, new projections are completed to ensure that the manure produced on those operations fits all the acreage,” DeRouchey says.

The challenge is those nutrient management plans are pretty region-specific, McCann says.

“Rainfall here in central Illinois is extremely different from rainfall in western Kansas,” he adds. “The appropriate ways you need to manage the nutrients in your animal waste is accordingly also very different. I think that’s one of the reasons why we have a lot of state-by-state regulation within this area.”

Compliance starts before the CAFO is constructed. Assessments, based on the species housed in the CAFO, look at criteria like geography. For example, in feedlots, rainwater drainage containment, manure storage areas, and agronomic manure application plans rank as some of the most crucial considerations.

Be a Good Neighbor
The one thing that’s not regulated directly is odors, DeRouchey says. Owners routinely clean pen surfaces as well on the outdoor facilities because the top layer of manure can turn into dust if it’s there too long, and that can carry odor from the CAFO to surrounding areas.

“We know that large or small operations have odor from livestock,” he adds. “And that doesn’t matter if you only have a couple animals or a lot of animals. What owners often do is look at, where can they potentially put up windbreaks? Where is the prevailing wind coming off of those facilities? How does that impact the surrounding area? How do they minimize potential dust? Because odor really travels a lot on dust.”

Being a good steward and making sure we’re minimizing any potential impact that our livestock farms would have on the surrounding area involves being aware of how it affects our neighbors, DeRouchey says.

“USDA scientists have confirmed that U.S. pork producers’ rigorous biosecurity efforts to keep pigs healthy are working,” says NPPC President Lori Stevermer.

(National Pork Board and the Pork Checkoff)

Eldon McAfee , attorney with Brick Gentry P.C. in West Des Moines, Iowa, says operational environmental management extends to neighbor awareness, communication and good relations.

“Don’t ignore neighbors who aren’t happy with your operation. Keep those lines of communication open,” McAfee says. “For example, when you apply manure, try to let everyone know. Attend educational seminars and obtain certifications to show you are being a good neighbor. Make sure employees are up to date on best practices when it comes to being a good neighbor, too.”

Can We Feed the World Without CAFOs?
CAFOs exist for a reason, McCann says. Some of those reasons are economic-related, and some of those are people-related.

“I would make the case that there are not enough people who want to work in the livestock industry and meet our animal protein needs without CAFOs now,” he says. “It’s pretty hard to imagine feeding a world that really craves lean, healthy, wholesome protein from livestock today without CAFOs. That’s difficult to do in my mind.”

Your Next Read: Don’t Let Your Guard Down: How to Avoid an Ag Nuisance Lawsuit

Top Takeaways from Zeldin’s Confirmation Hearing for EPA Lead and the Impact On Ag

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:36:44 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, underwent hours of testimony Thursday, commenting on everything from year-round E15, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the controversial WOTUS rule. When pressed about climate and environmental policies, Zeldin stated he believes climate change is real.

During the hearing, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) asked Zeldin to ensure access to year-round E15, but he did not make a definitive commitment, responding cautiously. Zeldin stated that while he couldn’t prejudge the outcomes of any processes, he acknowledged the importance of the issue to Sen. Ricketts and President Trump.

His exact words were: “Senator, while I can’t prejudge outcome of processes to follow across the board, I know how important this issue is to you and I know how important this is to President Trump.”

Despite this non-committal response, leaders of ethanol industry groups, including the American Coalition for Ethanol and Growth Energy, expressed appreciation for Zeldin’s commitment to doing his part to ensure nationwide availability of year-round E15.

Zeldin’s Stance on Ethanol
Zeldin’s stance on ethanol has been a point of interest, given his previous opposition to ethanol usage mandates during his time in Congress. Zeldin was asked about upholding legal deadlines for new Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) standards, which are part of the RFS program.

Ricketts criticized the Biden administration for setting RVOs below industry production levels and not meeting the law’s deadlines. Zeldin expressed his commitment to implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written by Congress.

He stated, “If confirmed, I commit to you that I will faithfully execute the law as written by Congress.” This statement was seen as an attempt to reassure senators from agricultural states who are concerned about the EPA’s implementation of biofuel policies.

Zeldin addressed his past opposition to ethanol usage mandates. He acknowledged that his views on the issue have evolved since his time in Congress.

Zeldin stated, “My position has evolved. I’m not in the same place I was years ago.”

He explained that his perspective has changed due to conversations he’s had with farmers, producers, and others in the industry. Zeldin emphasized that he now has a better understanding of the importance of ethanol to rural economies and energy security.

To further illustrate his evolving stance, Zeldin mentioned that he has visited ethanol plants and spoken with industry stakeholders.

He said, “I’ve learned a lot more about ethanol. I’ve visited plants. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the industry.”

WOTUS Rule Opposition
The EPA nominee has been vocal about his opposition to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. He expressed strong criticism of the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate and expand the WOTUS rule. Zeldin argued that the WOTUS rule represents federal overreach and places an undue burden on farmers, landowners, and local governments.

He stated that the rule would negatively impact agriculture, construction, and other industries by expanding federal authority over water bodies and wetlands. The congressman emphasized that the expanded definition of WOTUS would lead to increased regulations and permitting requirements for activities on private property. He contended that this expansion of federal control would hinder economic growth and development in rural areas.

In his statement, Zeldin called for the repeal of the WOTUS rule, advocating for a more limited interpretation of federal jurisdiction over water bodies. He supported efforts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in implementing the rule, arguing that states should have more control over their water resources.

Zeldin’s position on WOTUS aligns with many Republican lawmakers who view the rule as an example of government overreach and excessive environmental regulation. His statements reflect a broader debate about the balance between environmental protection and economic development in water resource management.

Zeldin’s Criticism of EPA Staff
Zeldin made notable comments regarding EPA staff. He criticized EPA employees for what he described as their attempts to undermine the Trump administration’s policies.

Specifically, Zeldin accused some EPA staff members of leaking information to the media and actively working against the administration’s agenda. He expressed concern that these actions were hindering the implementation of policies and creating unnecessary obstacles for the agency’s leadership. The congressman’s remarks were part of a broader discussion on government accountability and the role of career civil servants in executing administration directives.

Zeldin emphasized the importance of loyalty to the current administration’s goals, regardless of personal political beliefs.

Climate Change and Climate Policies
As for his position on climate change, the hearing showed the political dynamics and implications surrounding the issue considering President-elect Donald Trump’s stance, particularly as seen through an exchange involving Zeldin with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Sanders emphasized the existential threat of climate change, framing it as a matter transcending politics. Whitehouse voiced concern about Zeldin’s ability to resist fossil fuel industry influence.

Zeldin stated, “I believe that climate change is real,” marking a departure from previous EPA leaders during the first Trump administration and from President-elect Trump, who has previously labeled climate change a “hoax.”

Regarding EPA’s role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions, Zeldin referenced a 2007 Supreme Court decision, noting that while the ruling grants the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it does not mandate such action. He emphasized that the agency is “authorized, not required” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

When pressed on specific climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Zeldin refrained from committing to particular actions. He expressed a desire to collaborate with scientists and policymakers, stating, “I don’t sit before you as a scientist.”

In response to inquiries about campaign donations from fossil fuel companies, Zeldin asserted that financial contributions would not influence his decisions, emphasizing his commitment to impartiality in his role as EPA Administrator.

Of note:
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin underscored the importance of protecting the environment without hindering economic development. He stated, “We can, and we must, protect our precious environment without suffocating the economy.”

Economists React to Zeldin’s Nomination

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

In the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and prior to this week’s hearing, Farm Journal asked economists about what Zeldin’s past stance on ag issues could mean if he’s approved as the next EPA adminstrator.

Based on Zeldin’s track record, 60% of economists said they don’t think Zeldin’s policies will be positive for agriculture. 40% said they do think his policies will be good for agriculture.

In the survey, economists said:

“I expect there to be fewer new regulations in the Trump Administration. This is positive for agriculture.”
“I imagine many of the tax credits for new demand (either low carbon fuels or carbon programs) will be on the table to be cut.”
“He generally is not a fan of the RFS. My guess is that he will impact the RFS only marginally.”
“A deregulatory agenda could be positive for many farmers, but Zeldin has a record that is not favorable toward biofuels. How he (and the President) will address biofuel issues is unclear--in the first Trump administration, there were many large disputes between pro-biofuel and pro-fossil fuel interests.”
“His track record is negative toward liquid biofuels, which is a big part of our domestic demand.”

Related News:

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:36:34 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has selected former New York congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in his upcoming administration. This appointment signals a potential shift in environmental policy and regulatory approach. Here are the key points about this nomination:

• Zeldin is a former Republican congressman who represented New York’s 1st congressional district from 2015 to 2023.
• He lacks extensive experience in environmental policy, having not served on committees with direct oversight of environmental issues during his time in Congress.
• Zeldin has a lifetime score of only 14% from the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a record of frequently voting against environmental legislation.

Trump stated that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.” The administration aims to maintain “the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet” while pursuing deregulation.

Zeldin is expected to focus on restoring “U.S. energy dominance” and revitalizing the auto industry.

He may be tasked with rolling back several Biden administration environmental regulations, particularly those targeting power plant pollution and vehicle emissions. There are plans to end the pause on constructing new natural gas export terminals and potentially withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Zeldin joined Trump and Sen.-elect Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania for a roundtable on agriculture during Trump’s campaign in September. Zeldin praised Trump for addressing the “threat” of foreign entities buying U.S. agricultural land and highlighted Trump’s trade policies, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which prioritized American farmers and strengthened supply chain resiliency.

Of note to the biofuels sector, In November 2015, Zeldin and several other members of Congress sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns about the proposed 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The lawmakers worried that the proposed 2016 RVOs would require blending more ethanol than could be absorbed by the E10 gasoline market, effectively “breaking through” the blend wall. There were concerns that exceeding the blend wall could drive up the price of E10 gasoline for consumers. Ultimately, the EPA did finalize 2016 RVOs that were lower than originally proposed in the RFS statute, but still represented an increase over previous years. The agency attempted to balance the competing interests and technical constraints in the fuel market.

Meanwhile, discussions are underway about possibly relocating the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C.

Environmental advocates criticized the nomination, viewing it as a potential regression in environmental policy. Zeldin’s record includes opposition to several climate-related bills and support for increased fossil fuel production.

Zeldin’s appointment as EPA Administrator will require Senate confirmation.

John Phipps: What We Still Don't Know About PFAS

Tue, 14 Nov 2023 19:23:16 GMT

Two comments from Maine viewers about municipal sludge:

“Sludge and sewage contain PFAS and the state of Maine has banned using it since 2022. I disagree with the Report John made Sunday morning.” - Eric Edmundson

“I’m curious why John did not mention PFAS in his recent discussion on using waste treatment sludge as fertilizer? Its use has become a disaster here in Maine.” - Rick Blease

It is not a coincidence that two viewers from Maine responded – Maine has the only and strictest limits on chemicals called PFAS in the country, and also previously encouraged the use of municipal sludge. Very few states have any regulations at all.

The EPA continues to study the situation, but has not defined a PFAS contamination limit. PFAS contain carbon-fluorine chains and were widely used in consumer and industrial products, largely due to water repellant qualities. They became categorized “forever chemicals” which strikes me as meaningless since water and granite are forever chemicals if you stop and think about it. There are over 4,000 man-made forever chemicals.

(Farm Journal)

We don’t know how PFAS enter the food chain. For example, soil treated with sludge containing PFAS grows contaminated lettuce, but not potatoes; corn stalks may contain PFAS, but not the kernels.

Despite considerable alarm from Maine farmers – the handful of which I read about were organic producers – there is no consensus on how harmful these substance levels are. It seems that the closer to the consumer the greater the possibility of PFAS being passed from sludge, which complicates growers who consider this close connection a benefit. Not all municipal sludge contains significant PFAS contamination.

(Farm Journal)

In fact, here’s what the EPA says we DON’T know: How to detect PFAS, how much exposure people are experiencing, how we are exposed, how harmful they are, how to remove them from water, and how to dispose of them. Landfills and incinerators may actually be worse than spreading sludge.

PFAS are rapidly being phased out by industry. There are farm operations ruined by PFAS due to the inability to meet organic standards, but no evidence to date of a pervasive threat to people or land.

The debate will undoubtedly intensify as more research is conducted.

EPA’s New WOTUS Rules: What Producers Need to Know About

Tue, 29 Aug 2023 19:25:51 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rules on Tuesday, following a May Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA , that required EPA to revise the WOTUS definition.

“We have worked with EPA to expeditiously develop a rule to incorporate changes required as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “With this final rule, the Corps can resume issuing approved jurisdictional determinations that were paused in light of the decision.”

Under the new rule, two primary changes were made, including:
• Clarification that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act must have a continuous surface connection to navigable waterways
• Removal of the highly debated “significant nexus” test, which was used to determine whether there was a connection between small and large bodies of water

What do these policy changes mean? Private property is better protected from being taken by the government, according to Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.). But this isn’t the first time WOTUS rules have been modified.

Is the new WOTUS definition good for ag?

WOTUS rules have evolved many times in the past 50 years, with each administration crafting their own version of the rules.

In December 2022, EPA revised WOTUS—ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling—to give federal protection to large waterways, like interstate rivers and streams and wetlands that are adjacent to them. Many ag groups did not support these changes and shared their concerns in discussions, and in court. Some, including Ted McKinney of the National Association of State Departments of Ag (NASDA), don’t think EPA got the message.

“The ruling in Sackett v. EPA was a chance for EPA and the Army Corps to correct a deeply flawed, prematurely released rule and work to truly improve water quality outcomes. It is baffling that the revised rule does not accurately address all the issues and questions raised by the Supreme Court, nor does it address many of the questions stakeholder groups raised about the WOTUS rule EPA released at the end of last year,” McKinney said.

Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, mirrored McKinney, saying the new WOTUS definition is another round of whiplash on growers.

“We’re pleased the vague and confusing ‘significant nexus’ test has been eliminated as the Supreme Court dictated. But EPA has ignored other clear concerns raised by the Justices, 26 states, and farmers across the country about the rule’s failure to respect private property rights and the Clean Water Act,” Duvall said.

Related story: WOTUS Ruling Causing Confusion in Key Ag States

Mary-Thomas Hart, chief counsel at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), took a different stance on EPA’s announcement. While she applauded the EPA’s swift transition to a new rule, Hart says the association will monitor changes to ensure cattle producers are protected.

Moving forward, EPA says it plans to host events to communicate WOTUS changes. To kickstart the conversation, the agency scheduled a public webinar on Sept. 12, when it will outline the latest WOTUS revisions. Those interested in attending can register here .

The Digester Learning Curve: What's happened since these digesters fired up?

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

California’s John Fiscalini has formed his own company to help other dairy producers through the permitting process.

Dairy Today has covered numerous U.S. dairy digester and cap-and-trade projects in recent years. These producers tell what they’ve learned since we first featured them.

Wiser for the Experience
John Fiscalini, Modesto, Calif.

When we met California’s John Fiscalini in “The Dark Side of Digesters” (March 2009), he had just fired up his $4 million digester after a frustrating three years of planning, permitting and construction. The launch, however, was short-lived.

Problems with utility phone lines forced Fiscalini to shut down his digester almost immediately. In June, though, it went back online and has been running ever since.

“The digester is running better and takes less time to manage than I anticipated,” Fiscalini says. “There’s no need for a full-time employee. All that’s needed is to walk in and look at dials and gauges four or five times a day.”

The complete-mix, two-tank digester and accompanying generator produce about 500 kW/hr., twice the power Fiscalini’s dairy needs. The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) buys all of Fiscalini’s electricity, selling him back enough to power his 1,500-cow dairy. MID pays him 1¢/kW over regular user rates. It’s enough for Fiscalini to just make the bank payments for the project’s financing. (Only 35% of the cost of the digester was covered by grants.)

The dairy’s manure handling hasn’t changed much, since Fiscalini still processes the solids through a double-slope separator and uses the dried manure for freestall bedding. But he’s noticed a surprising benefit.

“The quality of the manure is substantially better,” he says. “Somatic cell counts have dropped from 200,000 to 100,000. I’m 80% sure [digester-processed solids] are the reason.”

The regional air- and water-quality boards are no easier to work with, Fiscalini says. Regulators still won’t allow him to add off-site waste to the digester, a move that would produce more methane, generate more power and allow him to see a payoff in four years instead of 10, he says.

Fiscalini has received grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission to research his digester’s air- and water-quality impact as well as its economic feasibility. “The grants will help us run the [generator’s] engine more cleanly, make more money and keep the regulatory agencies happy rather than suspicious,” he says.

As the first dairy producer to install a digester under California’s new regional environmental regulations, Fiscalini and his project manager, Nettie Drake, are among the very few who understand the state’s digester permitting process. The two have formed a consulting partnership called Ag Power Development to help guide dairy producers through the digester-construction process.

“Overall, if you take away the experience with the air- and water-quality boards,” Fiscalini says, “we’ve got a cool piece of equipment that’s doing good things.”

Malachy Coyne, Avon, N.Y.

Capitalizing on carbon credits was the driving force behind building a 7-million-gallon covered lagoon at Coyne Farms in western New York (“Taking Credit,” February 2008). The Environmental Credit Corporation (ECC) installed and paid for the lagoon at the dairy, where Malachy Coyne and his family milk 1,000 cows.

Since the lagoon covering was completed in July 2008, carbon credits have fallen sharply in value. In February, they traded below $1/metric ton, compared to earlier highs of $7/metric ton. Even so, Coyne isn’t unhappy.

“No one’s losing any sleep over the low value of carbon credits,” he says. “We and ECC are poised and ready for when and if they become valuable.”

Instead, the dairy is focusing on the covered lagoon’s other benefits. “We’ve seen odor reduction and a lot less rainwater accumulation in the lagoon,” Coyne says.

Karl Czymmek of Cornell University’s Pro-Dairy Program has followed the lagoon’s progress. Using the Dairy Manure Storage Cost Calculator developed by his colleague Tim Shepherd, Czymmek estimates the Coynes save $7,000 to $8,000 a year (at 2¢/gal.) on hauling costs by “avoiding” 400,000 to 500,000 gal. of annual precipitation that would otherwise have landed on the surface of their manure storage.

“There are also up to 65 fewer tanker loads to haul and spread each year, which helps save time, especially in the spring,” Czymmek says.

The Coynes extract the liquids and solids from the lagoon to fertilize their 1,500 acres of cropland.

“The project is all in our favor as a farm,” Coyne says.

Success, Expansion and New Ideas
Lee Jensen, Elk Mound, Wis.

In 2005, Lee Jensen became one of the first U.S. dairy producers to accept this relatively risk-free offer from a digester manufacturer: The company would finance, build and operate an on-site, thermophilic complete-mix digester in return for the dairy’s manure (“Partnering Up,” March 2007).

Since then, Jensen’s Five Star Dairy has seen the digester’s methane gas production meet or exceed project goals. Output today is enough to power 600 homes. Dairyland Power Cooperative not only owns the 775-kw generator but also buys the methane to fuel it.

In addition, Jensen has earned an average of about $25,000/year in carbon credit income. He’s also added 200 cows and heifers to increase his herd size to 1,100.

Jensen and digester manufacturer Microgy, Inc., have ridden the learning curve of digester management. “We’ve learned we could probably get another 50% to 80% gas production out of the system,” Jensen says.

In January, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources gave the project permission to add additional substrate, or waste material, to the digester, which can “greatly enhance gas production,” Jensen says.

The Wisconsin producer is particularly excited about the digester’s ability to score well in gauging biological oxygen demand (BOD), a test that indicates water quality after the process of decomposing organic waste.

“We’ve proven that the digester can dramatically burn up the BODs in raw manure and substrates,” he says. “It does a great job cleaning the manure and waste products and making them safer to land-apply.”

Moreover, the digester cuts air emissions and reduces odor. “Environmentally,” he says, “it’s a no-brainer.”

Jensen is exploring ideas to use the waste heat from the digester and engine to warm water for dairy operations, thus reducing his liquid propane costs. “We’re conducting an energy audit with a national engineering firm to get an idea of where we can get the biggest bang for our buck,” he says.

He’s also considering installing a dryer that would use digester-generated methane as a heat source to dry manure or compost for better bedding or even to dry feed byproducts to feed his herd.

Jensen’s wish list includes the possibility of Dairyland Power installing a second generator for the project. The expansion could generate and sell more power.

“The digester has so much potential,” Jensen says.

Hampered by permitting and financing difficulties, Carl Morris of Joseph Gallo Farms has spent four years trying to build a second digester on the large California dairy.

Harder the Second Time
Carl Morris, Joseph Gallo Farms, Atwater, Calif.

As one of California’s pioneers in the dairy digester field (“Turning Waste into Kilowatts,” February 2005), Joseph Gallo Farms has had five years to perfect the manure-to-kilowatt technology. It’s not, however, getting any easier.

With one digester operating since 2004, the five-dairy operation has been trying to get a second one built for more than four years. Growing difficulties with permitting and financing are making that tough and are also giving the original covered-lagoon digester “serious challenges,” says Carl Morris, general manager and chief operating officer.

“We really like digesters and feel the environmental and other benefits are tremendous,” Morris says. “But increasing standards from air- and water-quality regulators make it more difficult to build and operate them.” California’s mounting environmental regulations could add $1 million to the cost of a midsized digester, he says.

The first digester, on the farm’s 5,000-cow Cottonwood Dairy, provides power for the commercial cheese plant that Joseph Gallo Farms operates next door. When air-quality regulators tightened emission standards to 9 parts per million for nitrogen oxide compounds for a second generator, “we couldn’t consistently meet the requirements, even with catalytic convertors on both engines,” Morris says. “We operated under a variance for over a year.”

Since then, the operation has “made a host of improvements to the system at a cost of well over $100,000,” Morris says. “The system seems to be running fine now.”

One plan for a second digester, located at the farm’s 3,500-cow Santa Rita Dairy, is similar to the first system.

Morris has already successfully marketed carbon credits on the original digester. “They’ve been an important source of revenue,” he explains. “But that market is crazy. It’s become speculative as people try and guess about cap-and-trade legislation.”

Morris has learned that careful planning is important with a digester. All the same, he adds, “Be ready for surprises, no matter how careful you are.”

Bonus content:

Read previous digester stories:

“The Dark Side of Digesters” – John Fiscalini

“Taking Credit” – Malachy Coyne and Carl Morris

See the Dairy Manure Storage Cost Calculator developed by Cornell University’s Tim Shepherd

“Turning Waste into Kilowatts” – Carl Morris, Joseph Gallo Farms

“Partnering Up” -- Lee Jensen

Read more follow-up stories:

“Cargill to convert waste to energy on Idaho dairy” – Bettencourt Dairy

Selling Cow Power in Idaho

“Methane for the Midsized” – Jerry Jennissen

Small Dairy, Big Potential

Malachy Coyne stands atop the 7-million-gallon covered lagoon at
his New York dairy.

Happy with the Outcome

Nutrition Reduce carbon footprints

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

Rick Lundquist

The dairy industry was addressing global warming long before that was cool. We’re producing 59% more milk with 64% fewer cows than in 1944. We use 77% less feed, 65% less water, 90% less land, produce 76% less manure and have a 63% smaller carbon footprint per gallon of milk produced than we did 66 years ago.

We did it by improving production efficiency, which encompasses all inputs and outputs of a production system. One part of that is feed efficiency, defined as pounds of milk produced per pound of dry matter consumed.

What influences feed efficiency (FE)?

More digestible forages increase FE.
Rumen acidosis reduces FE; a stable rumen environment promotes higher FE.
Heat and cold stress use more energy and reduce FE.
Feed additives, ionophores and buffers improve FE.
BST improves FE.
Cow comfort, walking distances and pen or pasture conditions.
Days in milk, age and growth.

The numerator in the equation, milk production, has the biggest influence. The higher the production in most cases, the greater the FE. All the listed items affect milk production.

Optimizing feed intake results in more milk. That’s what a properly balanced and mixed total mixed ration does—it optimizes the nutrients used for milk production.

Depending on age and stage of lactation, an FE of 1.4 to 1.8 is a good benchmark. First-lactation animals may be less efficient because they’re still growing, and very fresh and late-lactation cows will have lower FEs.

Papers presented at the 2009 Cornell Nutrition Conference and 2010 Florida Ruminant Nutrition Conference do a great job of defending the dairy industry and dispelling the often quoted and highly inflated figures on the livestock industry’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that livestock are responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. But 48% of this is attributed to cutting down forests to grow feed. We don’t do that here in the U.S. Our forestlands are actually increasing. The EPA’s estimate for the U.S. in 2009 was that 3.4% (not 18%) of emissions were attributable to all livestock. That’s not bad—and we’re improving.

Bonus content:

Efficiency of Dairy Production and its Carbon Footprint

Demystifying The Environmental Sustainability of Food Production

Western Water Woes: Dairies grapple with uncertain supplies, ever-tougher regulations

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

If he doesn’t get his surface water allotment this year, California’s Mel Medeiros will spend $50,000 to pump groundwater for his dairy and forage fields.

Dark clouds unleash a cold, hard rain as dairy producer Mel Medeiros heads to his freestall barn in central California.

After three years of well-publicized drought, California has received near-normal precipitation this year.

Medeiros welcomes the April rain, but he doesn’t expect it to change the state’s water woes one bit.

“Sometimes it looks like a battle we’ll never win,” says Medeiros, who milks 1,300 registered Holsteins near Laton, 20 miles west of Fresno. “Even if we had enough water, we still have to deal with water-quality issues.”

Medeiros’ concerns echo across the Western dairy industry. Whether it’s California, Arizona or Utah, the story is the same, says Utah dairy producer Brad Bateman. “Water is under pressure from developers and urban encroachment, and agriculture can’t compete,” he says.

Water may be the most coveted commodity in the western U.S., where some call it the oil of the 21st century. Escalating demand for this precious resource, pushed partly by the West’s growing population, has boosted water’s value and triggered questions about its availability and quality. That has intensified scrutiny of dairies’ manure management practices and discharges to surface and groundwater.

In addition, uncertain and expensive water supplies are directly impacting forage production and the feed supply so critical to Western dairy herds.

Christina Medeiros works full-time on water-quality compliance at her father-in-law’s central California dairy. Here she samples wastewater from the dairy’s freestall.

That’s certainly the case in California, where water cutbacks and tough new water-quality regulations vex a dairy industry that’s curbed its annual milk production by half a billion pounds since 2008.

While Medeiros grows some of his own forages and purchases hay from Utah and Oregon, he—like many of the state’s dairy producers—counts on California-grown alfalfa.

This year, California’s alfalfa plantings have dropped to less than 900,000 acres, a 40-year low, says Dan Putnam, University of California, Davis, forage specialist. Alfalfa, among the state’s biggest agricultural water users, has been hit hard by water cutbacks as well as dairy’s downturn.

As a major ingredient in feed rations, alfalfa’s biggest customer is the dairy industry. This year’s smaller alfalfa crop will further stress the state’s beleaguered dairies.

“There’s going to be a shortage of hay this year,” Medeiros says. “Dairymen are broke and they’re not going to buy hay to stockpile it. They’ll buy a load at a time. Come October, there’s not going to be enough to get us through the winter.”

In 2008, when dairy prices soared, hay prices also rose, and Medeiros paid $265/ton for delivered hay. Last year, as dairies tightened their belts, his alfalfa price fell to $165/ton to $170/ton. This year, prices could climb when dairies can least afford it.

“We can’t afford to pay much for alfalfa,” Medeiros says. “And these rains have probably wiped out some alfalfa or hurt its quality. Hay is not going to be any cheaper this year, that’s for sure.”

For many Western dairies, however, water isn’t just about availability or forage crops. Complying with water-quality regulations is a pressing challenge. “The cost of manure disposal is rising faster than the cost of alfalfa,” says Richard Howitt, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who’s written extensively about water.

For Utah dairies, in fact, water-quality regulations are the No. 1 issue, says Mike Kohler, executive director of Dairy Producers of Utah, which represents 90% of the state’s 245 dairies and 90,000 milk cows. “The problem isn’t obtaining water but managing manure under an increasingly aggressive Environmental Protection Agency.”

Utah’s Bateman knows firsthand what that’s like. Two years ago, the EPA forced him to build a $900,000 lagoon at his family’s Elberta dairy (see sidebar).

Moreover, new CAFO rules require Utah dairy lagoons to maintain storage capacity for a 100-year storm. That means 15" to 20" of rain in 24 hours. In Utah, where rainfall averages 15" to 16" a year, heavy downpours aren’t a problem. Meeting the storage requirement is a major cost, about $200,000 for a 250-cow dairy, Kohler says.

Utah’s dairy producers want to comply with the rules, he adds, but coming up with the cash to do it is tough. “Most dairies see water-quality regulations as manageable if there’s a reasonable price for milk. But prices are so bad right now, there’s not enough to pay their feed bills.”

In New Mexico, where groundwater is the major water source for humans as well as farms, the dairy industry has been negotiating with the state’s Environment Department to determine new water-quality regulations.

State legislation passed last year required New Mexico’s Water Quality Control Commission to identify specific requirements for discharging dairy wastewater to protect groundwater quality. The Environment Department says more than 65% of New Mexico’s 150 dairies have polluted groundwater beneath their facilities.

“This is critical,” says Sharon Lombardi, executive director of Dairy Producers of New Mexico. “We understand the need to regulate and protect groundwater, but many of the proposed regulations are not based on good science.”

“Water policy is a tough issue and getting tougher,” says Jay Gordon, Washington State Dairy Federation’s executive director. He operates a 160-cow dairy about 90 miles south of Seattle. “Washington has lots of water,” he says. “We just can’t decide how to use it.”

In April, the state’s livestock producers won a major victory when a judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to limit the amount of groundwater producers could use for maintaining their animals. “But that’s just one battle, and water is a multifront battle,” Gordon says. “Groundwater in particular tends to come back as an issue.”

Groundwater is a major water source for Washington’s 249,000 milk cows. It’s generally agreed that the increase in new homes near dairies in the past 30 years has resulted in declining underground aquifers.

“I consider water quality easier by several orders of magnitude than quantity, not that it’s easy,” Gordon says. “We can manage to keep water clean. We haven’t figured out how to create more water. We can conserve it, but then there is the fight over who gets the saved water.”

Whether the West can resolve its water problems not only depends on finding workable solutions but also on whether the public and the government are willing to acknowledge agriculture’s role in the nation’s well-being, dairy sources say.

“California’s waste-discharge requirements will continue to drive up the cost of milk production,” says Michael Marsh, CEO of Western United Dairymen, which represents 60% of California’s milk output.

Along with the need to develop additional sources of water storage, “California must decide whether agriculture is wanted in the state,” Marsh says. “If so, regulators have to look to the net benefits to society of locally produced food.”

“America has to figure out how to get past the gridlock, where nothing gets done to fix these water issues,” Gordon says. “The challenge is how to make intelligent decisions amid the fighting.”

Gordon is hopeful. His state’s dairy industry has improved its relationships with Washington tribes and federal agencies. There have also been successful cleanup efforts.

And the public perception pendulum may at last be swinging the other way. “People are beginning to understand that if they want to eat, we have to preserve our own food supply,” Gordon says.

Brad Bateman completed construction of a $900,000, EPA-mandated lagoon at his family’s Utah dairy this year.

A $900,000 LAGOON

Two years ago, officials with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came to Brad Bateman’s central Utah dairy and “went ballistic,” he remembers.

Bateman and his three brothers own Utah’s largest dairy. They milk 5,600 cows in a freestall operation near Elberta. For 30 years, the Bateman dairy operated without a lagoon. Instead, manure and wastewater was channeled to a cement holding tank and pumped out to a flood-level irrigation system. Then it was applied to nearly 5,000 acres of cropland. The dairy also had emergency protocols in place to handle spells of heavy rain or excess water.

Not having a lagoon “just wasn’t a big deal,” Bateman says.

But EPA didn’t see it that way. In 2008, the federal agency mandated that the Batemans install a lagoon for manure management. Rather than risk a fine of $17,500/day or losing their permit, the Batemans complied.

Just finished this year, the new lagoon cost $900,000 to build, “at a time when we’re all going broke,” says Bateman, who’s on the board of Dairy Producers of Utah.

“It’s just ridiculous,” he adds. “There’s no common sense. We have regulators in their 20s who are going by the book with no discussion of other, more cost-effective options. We’re going to be regulated out of business. It’s important as dairy producers that we get together and make our voice heard.”

Bonus content:

“Video: Mel Medeiros on California’s dairy woes”

“The Future of Agricultural Water in the West”

See proposed water quality regulations for New Mexico dairies

Washington State’s efforts to find better water policy

Dairy Industry Making Strides Toward Reducing Its Carbon Footprint

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:21:43 GMT

Source: Journal of Dairy Science

Agricultural greenhouse gases (GHG) make up 8.1% of total U.S. GHG emissions. The dairy cattle farming industry is being challenged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining or increasing profitability. In a study published in the Journal of Dairy Science^®, researchers report that farms with lower carbon footprints and higher-producing cows are more profitable, a win-win situation for everyone, including the cows.

Investigators Di Liang, PhD candidate, and Victor E. Cabrera, PhD, from the Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, used the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM), available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to simulate the performance of a representative Wisconsin dairy farm and predict both financial and environmental outputs over a 25-year period. An IFSM simulation takes into account numerous interacting processes that include crop and pasture production, crop harvest, feed storage, grazing, feeding, and manure handling. Read the abstract here.

“We found that greenhouse gas emissions per kg of energy-corrected milk production will be reduced by increasing milk production, decreasing the herd replacement rate, or improving reproductive efficiency. Therefore appropriate dairy farm management strategies could provide a solution that increases the farm profit while decreasing the greenhouse gas emissions,” noted Dr. Cabrera.

In their model, the farm had 100 large milking cows and 100 hectares of rented cropland. Topography and soil type were defined, as were crop mix (alfalfa and corn), numbers and types of farm equipment, as well as planting and harvesting schedules. The researchers measured how the model responded to two major management practices: target milk production, whereby feed allocations are varied to achieve a desired output per animal; and herd-structure as represented by the percentage of young, first-lactation cows.

“The dairy industry is committed to the economic sustainability of our farmers by selecting a new generation of healthy, long-lived, high production cows,” commented Journal of Dairy Science^® Editor-in-Chief Matthew C. Lucy, PhD, Professor of Animal Science at the University of Missouri. “What the models are telling us is that working toward this goal will reduce the carbon footprint of our industry.” He believes that this study demonstrates that reducing dairy carbon footprint is not contrary to farm profitability, and in fact, the two are complementary.

Better Feed Efficiency Lowers Carbon Emissions, Increases Profit

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:20:32 GMT

A German study of organic and conventional dairy farms found that improving feed efficiency under both production schemes not only reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but increases profits as well. The study was published in the December Journal of Dairy Science .

The study involved 81 organic and conventional herds in southern Germany, and was conducted by farm management specialists from Hohenheim University. The researchers found grass-based, organic herds produce on average 1.61 kilogram CO2 equivalents per kg of milk produced compared to 1.45 kg CO2 equivalents/kg for conventional farms. That represents about an 11% difference.

However, by improving grass and forage stands, improving feed efficiency and reducing the acreage needed to feed cattle, organic herds could reduce their GHG emissions and improve profitability by $1.20/cwt. Conventional herds, by improving their feed efficiency, could reduce their GHG emission even more and improve profitability by $1.75/cwt.

The authors’ conclusion: “Improved education and training of farmers and consultants regarding GHG mitigation and farm profitability appear to be the best method of improving efficiency under traditional and organic farming practices.”

Dairy Carbon Footprint 2% of U.S. Total

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:07:47 GMT

Large dairy operations tend to have lower green house gas footprints because of more efficient feed conversion.

Ten research papers and one editorial in the International Dairy Journal confirm the dairy industry’s carbon footprint is 2% of the U.S. total.

According to the life-cycle assessment, which looks at carbon emissions all the way from fertilizer production through consumers’ refrigerators, dairy greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be 2.05 kg carbon dioxide equivalent for every kilogram of fat- and protein-corrected milk.

“This work is noteworthy for its comprehensiveness in looking at every stage of the fluid milk life cycle and for its data collection method,” says an editorial which leads off the special Supplement to the April issue of the International Dairy Journal. More than 500 U.S. dairy farms submitted data.

“Based on the amount of milk produced in the United States, the dairy industry accounts for approximately 2% of the total U.S. GHG emissions,” says the editorial. This is about a third less than the global dairy industry’s GHG output, which contributes 2.7% of global emissions.

One of the papers included in the Supplement notes that large dairy operations tend to have lower GHG footprints because of more efficient feed conversion. But their use of lagoons for manure storage is one area where losses occur and more efficiency could be gained, if it could be done cost effectively.

The entire set of papers can be found here .

Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:39:33 GMT

By: Suanne Klahorst, University of California, Davis

In a 1,000 year old village in Germany (Juehnde), methane is not a dirty word. The recovered methane from a manure-fueled bioreactor feeds the burners that heat water for every household in the village. The same hot water provides heating. These households benefit from living adjacent to a livestock economy whose manure was once just a smelly nuisance. The manure is transported by truck to an enclosed bioreactor, thereby reducing odor and feeding a system that powers an entire community. Frank Mitloehner once called this village home. Now a professor and air quality UC Cooperative Extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis, Mitloehner thinks that if this village can do it, so can California.

It is easy to see how Mitloehner was inspired to study ways that California can take advantage of its plentiful supplies of animal methane. In eight bovine bio-bubbles that function as airtight barns, he captures and measures every emission from his resident livestock in order to understand how methane emissions vary with feed and herd management.

At UC Davis, a commercialized version of a similar methane bio-reactor has been patented and licensed by Ruihong Zhang, professor in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering. It has been constructed at the local landfill and will be used to demonstrate a sustainable village on the UC Davis campus.

Mitloehner recently hosted a seminar for the Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety at UC Davis. Since the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) committee released its 2006 report entitled, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” he has challenged two key misleading sentences in the report. The phrase compared the contribution of livestock emissions to that of transportation. By saying the contributions to climate change were similar, the report led many environmental advocates to the conclusion that eating less meat was the equivalent of taking cars off the road, setting up a meat vs. miles tradeoff that exaggerated the methane contributions of livestock everywhere.

Mitloehner’s response was the publication Clearing the Air, Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change. After his paper was released, BBC, CNN and other media published his science-based estimate that the livestock contribution in the U.S. is 3.4 percent of U.S. emissions. Globally, 18 percent of warming was estimated to be livestock related. This estimate included livestock in the broadest sense - changes in land use, deforestation and desertification in developing countries.

In spite of Mitloehner’s paper, the meat vs. miles perception has persisted among advocates, while press about transportation GHG has dwindled. Toyota took advantage in their advertising by showing how Prius emissions were more favorable than those of a sheep.

Nonetheless, Mitloehner showed that U.S. methane emissions remain flat, while developing countries are increasing animal production to meet the demand for eggs, meat and dairy, especially in Asia. But why is the U.S. so low?

Mitloehner shared a few facts that help explain the phenomena:

The U.S. has fewer dairy cows. Today’s 9 million dairy cows supply 60 percent more milk than the 16 million cows in production in 1950. That means there is increased efficiency per cow for the same methane produced.

Thirty percent of the methane in dairy production is from manure in ponds. There is the potential for recovery on the approximately 1,500 California farms, where the average herd size is 1,100 head.

Methane has 20 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, but when burned to heat water or to generate power, its warming potential is reduced by a factor of 20.

The more fiber in the feed, the more methane is released by the rumen of the animal. One dairy cow in the U.S. produces an average of 20,000 lbs of milk per cow annually, the same amount of milk as five cows in Mexico, or up to 100 cows in India for the same, or less methane per cow. Reasons: low fiber diet, less parasites and less disease result in large differences in production per cow.
Mitloehner occupies that middle space between the economically driven farmers who survived years of falling milk prices and the sustainable advocates that want dairy to either disappear entirely or retreat into historical practices. When he is not serving on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) or the National Academies Institute of Medicine, he keeps company with local farmers and students and he answers to science.

Dairy addicts like myself, whose ancestors have evolved on milk for over 10,000 years, are likely to continue to frequent the organic dairy cases, hopeful that there are mutual benefits to paying higher prices for local labels in returnable glass bottles as a way to sustain the farms.

In reality, California has been exporting surplus dairy products to growing populations since the 1890s and that won’t change soon. Those markets do more to keep dairies profitable than my weekly milk and yogurt purchase. Lactose for pharmaceuticals and whey proteins for infant formulas are shipped internationally from several of California’s mammoth cheese factories, sometimes worth more the cheese itself.

Mitloehner believes that “sustainable intensification” is the solution to keeping local dairies viable. He believes that science will provide the path to better regulation. The dairy nations that seem determined to get at the truth - New Zealand, France, Ireland and the Netherlands - have formed an international partnership at FAO entitled LEAP to address the issues. Mitloehner’s leadership as chair of the partnership will keep methane bioreactors on the agenda.

USDA Announces REAP Awards for Farm Digesters

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:37:10 GMT

USDA is making investments of more than $21 million in energy projects nationwide.

Source: USDA

USDA has announced funding for 631 projects across the nation that will help agricultural producers and rural small businesses reduce their energy consumption and costs, use renewable energy technologies in their operations, and conduct feasibility studies for renewable energy projects.

Grant and loan funding is made available through USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which is authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill.

REAP helps producers reduce energy costs and increase production efficiency. Under the terms of REAP, up to 25% of an eligible energy production or conservation project can be funded through a grant, and additional support can be provided in the form of a loan. Since the start of the Obama Administration, REAP has helped fund nearly 7,000 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects nationwide.

With today’s announcement, USDA is making investments of more than $21 million in energy projects nationwide.

REAP offers financial assistance to farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements. These federal funds leverage other private funding sources for businesses. REAP also helps the conservation of natural resources and the development of new forms of energy that reduces America’s dependence on fossil fuels and creates a stronger rural economy.

Four REAP grant recipients are using funds to construct or install anaerobic digesters at their sites:
• Dovetail Energy, LLC (Ohio) - Construction of an anaerobic digester
• Green Lane Energy, Inc. (Oregon) - Construction of an anaerobic digester
• Statz Brothers (Wisconsin) - Purchase and installation of an additional anaerobic digester
• Butler Farms (North Carolina) - Improvements for an anaerobic digester

Click here for the current list of recipients for REAP grants and loans or for more information about the REAP program.

Please note that some states are still in the process of finalizing their REAP awards and another message will be distributed when those awards have been announced.

For more information about AgSTAR, please visit its website .

Cattlemen Air Concerns as EPA Nominee Goes Before Senate

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:36:36 GMT

Cattlemen express concerns as EPA Administrator nominee goes before Senate in confirmation hearing.

Source: National Cattlemen’sBeef Association

Yesterday the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the confirmation of Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the departure of former administrator Lisa Jackson earlier this year. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) said it hopes that if McCarthy is confirmed, that she will work to develop a more positive working relationship with the agriculture industry.

“Whether it is releasing producers’ personal information to activist groups or trying to regulate all ponds and puddles across the U.S., EPA has not worked cooperatively with the cattle industry under the current administration,” said NCBA Deputy Environmental Counsel Ashley McDonald. “We sincerely hope Ms. McCarthy, if confirmed by the Senate, would work to improve this relationship which will ultimately have a more positive impact on the environment than the current anti-agriculture attitude that is prolific within the agency.”

During the hearing, McCarthy, who is currently the head of EPA’s air office, was questioned on issues such as the Spill Prevention Control and Counter measure (SPCC) rule and whether she would commit to not creating a national database with information on agricultural operations around the country, with most of these questions asked by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), who made known her concerns about the proposed CWA expansion, an issue important to farmers and ranchers across the country and a policy priority issue for NCBA. Fischer also urged McCarthy and EPA to ensure that regulations are made on sound publicly available science subject to a thorough analysis.

“We have bridges to build with the farming community,” McCarthy said during the hearing, also saying that “I’m a meat eater myself.”

However, McCarthy would not commit to supporting the Farmers Undertake Environmental Land Stewardship (FUELS) Act, which was recently introduced in the House and Senate and would lessen the burden of the SPCC rule on farms and ranches. McCarthy also could not commit to not creating a national database which would make producer information publicly available and readily searchable through EPA’s website. McDonald said these two statements by McCarthy call into question whether she truly wants to build relationships with the agricultural community, including cattle producers.

NCBA: Cattlemen Score Victory on Dust Vote

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:34:36 GMT

Source: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

In a bipartisan showing, the House voted 268-150 in favor of Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s (R-S.D) Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011(H.R. 1633). National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Bill Donald calls today’s vote a win for regulatory certainty for cattlemen and women.

“Unfortunately, taking EPA’s word that farm dust will not be further regulated provides absolutely no relief to those cattle producers already faced with dust regulations. We saw legislation as the only option to give all ranchers across the country any sort of peace of mind,” said Donald, who is a rancher from Melville, Mont.

“Cattlemen and women worried about being fined for moving cattle, tilling a field or even driving down a dirt road should rest assured knowing that will not be allowed to happen on our watch. The bill provides much-needed certainty for cattlemen.”

Donald said the fact EPA was even considering regulating dust at levels that would push much of the country into non-compliance was reason enough to move forward with H.R. 1633. NCBA Deputy Environmental Counsel Ashley Lyon said the legislation recognizes that dust from agricultural activities has never been shown to have an adverse health impact at ambient levels.

H.R. 1633 first gives states and localities the authority in regulating dust by preventing the federal standard from applying where states or localities already have dust measures in place. In places where there is no state or local control, the bill also would exempt farm dust from the Clean Air Act unless the EPA administrator can prove it is a significant health problem and that applying the standard is worth the costs.

Donald said it is because of commonsense policymakers like Congresswoman Noem and the original cosponsors Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) and Robert Hurt (R-Va.). He said agriculture rallied behind this bipartisan legislation. Specifically, NCBA orchestrated a letter signed by 194 agricultural organizations that was sent to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Donald said NCBA wanted to be clear that this legislation was supported across the board by all of agriculture.

The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it was introduced by Senators Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and has support from 26 bipartisan senators.

EPA Issues Compliance Orders to Six CAFOs in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:33:56 GMT

The following information was released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

EPA Region 7 announced today that it has issued administrative compliance orders to six concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, directing those operations to correct a range of violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

Region 7’s latest round of CAFO enforcement activity, aimed at encouraging producers’ compliance with the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program, involves five beef feedlots, including three in Nebraska, one in Kansas, and one in Iowa; and an egg layer operation in Nebraska.

The majority of livestock and poultry producers in Region 7 understand the importance of protecting our water resources, and they work hard to ensure their operations comply with state and federal laws, EPA Regional Administrator Karl Brooks said. However, when an operation fails to meet its responsibilities, EPA will continue to work closely with our state partner agencies and stakeholders to enforce the Clean Water Act and encourage compliance.

Stormwater runoff from CAFO production areas such as confinement pens, feedstock storage areas and manure stockpiles, and runoff from land application areas, can cause exceedances of water quality standards, pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and its habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of waterways.

According to the administrative compliance orders issued by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan.:

M.G. Waldbaum Company, d/b/a Bloom N Egg Farm, Bloomfield, Neb. - An inspection of the egg layer operation in September 2010 found that it was illegally discharging wastewater from poultry manure stockpiles into a tributary of Little Bazile Creek in Knox County. Sample results indicated high levels of E.coli bacteria and other pollutants discharging into the tributary. The order requires the operation to cease all production area discharges, install runoff controls, and comply with the Clean Water Act. The operation, which has a capacity of 4,448,000 birds, was confining approximately 3.1 million layer hens at the time of the inspection. The operation has applied for an NPDES permit.
A.J. Jones, d/b/a Callicrate Feeding Company, St. Francis, Kan. - An inspection in February 2011 identified significant NPDES permit violations, including failure to maintain adequate wastewater storage capacity, failure to meet Nutrient Management Plan requirements, failure to conduct operations within areas that are controlled in a manner capable of preventing pollution, and failure to maintain adequate records. The order requires the operation to comply with all terms of the Clean Water Act and its NPDES permit, and to coordinate with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment on its compliance. The order requires the operation to comply with the terms of its Nutrient Management Plan, including sampling and recordkeeping requirements. The feedlot has a permitted capacity of 12,000 cattle and was confining approximately 3,219 cattle at the time of the inspection.
Michael and David Uecker, d/b/a Dave Uecker Livestock, Norfolk, Neb. - An inspection of the beef feedlot and stream sampling in July 2011 found that the operation was illegally discharging manure, litter and process wastewater into a series of drainage ditches before discharging into an unnamed tributary to the North Fork of the Elkhorn River in Madison County. The operation has a capacity of 900 cattle and was confining approximately 450 cattle at the time of the inspection, classifying it as a medium CAFO. The order requires the operation to apply for an NPDES permit, and construct feedlot waste controls or reduce the number of cattle that it confines below the regulatory threshold.
John Reigle, d/b/a Reigle Farms, Madison, Neb. - An inspection of the beef feedlot in June 2011 found several NPDES permit violations, including illegal discharges from a holding pond to an unnamed tributary of Tracy Creek in Madison County, failure to timely notify state authorities of the holding pond discharge, failure to maintain adequate wastewater storage capacity in the holding pond, failure to maintain an accurate staff gauge in the holding pond, unauthorized discharges of livestock waste from land application fields, failure to maintain wastewater application records and failure to perform a liquid waste nutrient analysis. The order requires the operation to comply with the Clean Water Act, its NPDES permit and Nutrient Management Plan, and to cease operations in parts of its facility where wastewater cannot be properly managed. The operation has a permitted capacity of 9,000 cattle and was confining approximately 8,600 cattle at the time of the inspection.
Ritter Feedyards, LLC, Beemer, Neb. - An inspection of the NPDES-permitted beef feedlot in April 2011 found the facility was discharging manure, litter and process wastewater into Rock Creek and an unnamed tributary of the Elkhorn River in Cuming County. The order requires the operation to comply with the Clean Water Act and its NPDES permit, and to construct feedlot waste controls. The facility has a permitted capacity of 1,200 cattle and was confining approximately 1,038 cattle at the time of the inspection.
SandS Cattle Company, Council Bluffs, Iowa - An inspection of the beef feedlot in May 2011 found that the operation discharges manure, litter and process wastewater into a series of drainage ditches that flow into an unnamed tributary of Mosquito Creek in Pottawattomie County. The operation has a capacity of 999 cattle and was confining approximately 730 cattle at the time of the inspection, classifying it as a medium CAFO. The order requires the operation to apply for an NPDES permit and construct feedlot waste controls, or reduce the number of cattle it confines below the regulatory threshold.

Cattle Groups File Lawsuit Against EPA

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:33:22 GMT

Source: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Florida Cattlemen’s Association (FCA) filed a lawsuit today, April 28, 2011, challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s determination letter and final rule establishing numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for Florida’s lakes, rivers, streams and springs. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee. According to NCBA Chief Environmental Counsel Tamara Thies, the groups are asking the court to do two things.

“First, we ask the court to set aside and hold unlawful the letter and rule because they are arbitrary, capricious, go beyond EPA’s statutory authority and are in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,” said Thies. “Secondly, we ask the court to set aside the letter and rule and stop EPA from further action on both due to the irreparable harm Florida agricultural producers will suffer if the agency’s actions are not stopped.”

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), each state must develop water quality standards that relate to the designated uses the state chooses for its waters. In a review of its water quality standards, Florida determined on its own that numeric criteria would be appropriate. On Sept. 28, 2007, EPA approved Florida’s revised Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan. Environmentalists then sued EPA for failure to develop new water quality standards for Florida. EPA initially contested the argument. However, in a December 2008 memo, EPA staff caved to the environmentalists, laying the foundation for EPA to establish numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. According, to Jim Strickland, FCA president and a cattle rancher from Myakka, Fla., EPA’s plan will likely serve as a model for other water basins across the country.

“There is no reason to believe that this is only a Florida or Florida agriculture issue. It touches every homeowner in the state. EPA has indicated that this rule in Florida will be a template for the rest of the country. I have no reason whatsoever to believe Florida is the only target,” said Strickland. “I believe if this rule isn’t stopped dead in its track, it will be a model for every water basin in the country, including the Mississippi River Basin, which is the lifeblood of rural America.”

Strickland said EPA’s plan is not just an attack on the cattle industry or rural America. He said the NNC rule will cause substantial financial damage to an already struggling economy. This rule is estimated by EPA to cost Florida approximately $113 million in implementation costs and roughly $35 million annually. However, other experts predict this rule carries a much heftier price tag. A study conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the University of Florida and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc., concluded that the economic impact could easily reach $3.1 billion in implementation costs and annual costs could top $974 million. The study also predicts 15,000 agricultural jobs will be lost.

“This isn’t good for Florida. This isn’t good for America. We are not alone in our opposition to the NNC rule. Both Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam and their predecessors have filed suit on behalf of the state of Florida. Our elected leaders have been outspoken against this rule. Furthermore, just last week our own Department of Environmental Protection asked EPA to rescind this rule,” said Strickland. “EPA is overreaching with this mandate and their methodology is flawed. EPA has little to no regard for farmers and ranchers and obviously no respect for congressional intent.”

Front Gate

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:31:41 GMT

A Greener World

My wife and I spent a weekend with friends in Taos, N.M., last month, and among the sights to see was the local fad food store. I don’t go into those much, so it is always interesting to see what the people inside look like—dour and hungry, mostly—and what stuff costs. Which is bunches.

That may be why all the shoppers are skinny. They can’t afford to eat much when it costs that much.

And the bumper stickers in the parking lot indicate they are all saving the whales or the planet, or giving world peace a chance. Fine. It’s a free, if overpriced, country.

Perspective. But days after the weekend, I see another study reminding us that the technology these folks so abhor allows us to produce more food with less impact on the environment.

Isn’t this too obvious to mention, much less study? Why would anybody suppose, for instance, hybrid corn’s 200-bu. yields are somehow less harmful than the straight varieties’ 100-bu. yield? Gosh, to get X tons of corn to feed the X billion people in the world, you plow half as many acres, spray half as many acres, clear-cut half as many acres of rainforest, support half as many workers.

But, that’s old technology, isn’t it? Mankind has been improving corn yields since the South Americans began selecting from grama grass-looking native species. So that’s not scary to these folks. That’s “natural.” That’s “organic.”

Not so, for Roundup Ready corn or growth promotants for cattle. Those things are “unnatural” and I suppose “inorganic” and no matter how many tests science and government regulators may have on hand to prove efficacy and safety, they are somehow “dangerous.”

This latest study I learned about from a July blog by my colleague at Dairy Today, Jim Dickrell. Reporting on a study released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding environmental impact of “natural” and “organic” milk free of bovine somatotropin (BST), Jim responds: “To produce the same amount of milk, you need 33% fewer BST-treated cows than organic cows and 35% less land area. At the same time, the fewer BST-treated cows will excrete 45% less nitrogen, 39% less phosphorus and reduce overall global warming potential with fewer methane emissions by 19%.”

“Anything that gives us an increase in milk yield—long-day lighting, cow comfort, Rumensin, reducing mastitis—will reduce dairy’s carbon foot print,” Jude Capper, lead author of the NAS milk study, told Dickrell.

Choices. We’ve got the same challenge in the beef industry. Here we are with the government limiting the use of Rumensin in chickens because a bunch of activists fret it “might” be an antibiotic, while we’re worrying about a food crisis.

You’ll find the same sort of conclusions in a 2004 report Thom Elam and Rodney Preston produced for the Growth Enhancement Technology Team.

They found without the technological improvements of the past 50 years, we would need 180 million head of cattle to produce the U.S. beef supply—nearly twice the current population. An additional land area equal to the combined acreage of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Kansas would be required to provide the additional pasture and feed grains.

It’s pretty obvious, but it is my unstudied but firm perception many of the right-brainers who pay extra for natural and organic foods are the same right-brainers who fret about agriculture’s environmental impact.

Reflection. If these right-brainers thought about it, they would realize their food buying habits are increasing their carbon footprints.

Some lessen the hypocrisy score by also arguing there should be fewer mouths to feed. (Though few have volunteered themselves as a sacrificial mouth.) If you can find an ethical way of reducing population, that’s grand. If not, I don’t think the fairest method of population control would be limiting food production to starve the extras.

Before I get too crosswise with my friends who produce natural and organic beef, let me rush to say that’s fine. Nice niche. Good luck.

But don’t start with me about how much better your cattle operation is for the environment. You’re just wasting resources.

Steve Cornett is executive editor of Beef Business Journal. He can be reached at scornett@farmjournal.com .

Top Producer, Summer 2008

Clean Water Act Violation: $50,000 Fine for Iowa Farm's Manure Runoff

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:22:25 GMT

A livestock farm in southeastern Iowa has been fined $50,000 after the owner and an employee plead guilty to charges of violating the Clean Water Act while discharging manure.

In a press release from the Department of Justice , it is outlined that Scott Allen Etcher, age 55, and Benjamin Allen McFarland, age 29, from Etcher Family Farms of New London, Iowa, were sentenced following guilty pleas to Discharge of a Pollutant. The sentencing occurred on Feb. 26, after both Etcher and McFarland had pleaded guilty on Oct. 25, 2018 , to criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.

The guilty plea determined that on or around July 22, 2015, agricultural waste pollutants were negligently discharged. Benjamin McFarland, an employee of the farm, had knowingly applied liquid manure from the concentration animal feeding operation industry (CAFO) via an umbilical discharge hose onto nearby farm land. The liquid manure then runoff directly into an unnamed tributary to Big Creek. The application of the manure, which was deemed as a “pollutant” by the court, was an unpermitted discharge and had been done under the supervision of the owner and operator of Etcher Family Farms, Scott Etcher.

In an email to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Farm Journal was told that court filings by the Iowa Secretary of State indicated that the CAFO was a dairy farm.

Under the sentencing, Etcher Family Farms will serve a five years of organizational probation, pay a $50,000 fine and a $400 special assessment payable to the Crime Victims’ Fund.

Terms of the probation include:

The prohibition from discharging any pollutants to a water of a the United States except in compliance with a permit from the approved authority
Etcher Family Farms will establish, implement, and enforce an Environmental Compliance Plan and the organization will not seek early termination from probation until all obligations of the plea agreement are satisfied and the Environmental Compliance Plan has been fully implemented for two years
Etcher Family Farm should pay for independent laboratory analysis of samples collected by either the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Etcher Family Farms will publish a public notice of the agreement and underlying facts in a national trade publication serving the CAFO

In addition, Scott Allen Etcher, owner of the farm, will also serve a five year probation and is to pay a $25 special assessment to the Crime Victims’ Fund. Benjamin Allen McFarland, employee on the farm, was sentenced to two years of probation and a $25 special assessment payable to the Crime Victims’ Fund.

The case was investigated by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. The case was prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Iowa.

Some Southern Idaho Residents Worry About Proposed University Dairy

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:01:01 GMT

Some Jerome County residents are worried that plans for a big new University of Idaho-operated dairy could befoul the local air.

Judy Holland lives a mile south of Interstate 84 in the southern Idaho town of Eden. Holland told The Times-News that she and others are furious and don’t want a stinky dairy near the freeway. But Jerome County commissioners say such hostility is premature because the University of Idaho hasn’t yet purchased land or chosen a location for its planned $45 million world-class agricultural research facility.

Once UI decides where it would like to build the Center for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, it will need to go through the local permit and zoning process.

The Idaho legislature has set aside $10 million for the project this year and is expected to throw in another $5 million.

Concerns as New Rules Aim to Curb Manure Pollution

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:00:11 GMT

Washington environmental regulators have released new permit rules aimed at reducing the amount of manure pollution that gets into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water from large dairy farms and other animal feedlots.

The rules will change the regulatory landscape for the state’s 230 dairies with more than 200 cows, as well as other so-called concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. Embracing the rules may shield dairies from government fines or lawsuits by environmental groups, but will mean taking on new obligations with uncertain costs, The Capital Press reported .

“Every farmer will look at this very differently,” Jay Gordon, policy director for the Washington State Dairy Federation, told The Capital Press. “Some will sleep better at night knowing they won’t get sued, or at least are less likely to get sued. Others will say, ‘Why do I need this?’ It means more regulations, more paperwork and more burdens. We’re very concerned about that.”

But environmental groups say the rules don’t go far enough and fail to protect drinking water. Environmental groups had pushed for dairies to line manure lagoons with synthetic material and install wells to monitor groundwater, steps the Washington Department of Ecology was unwilling to take, The Capital Press reported.

“Ecology was presented with an unprecedented opportunity to protect the environment and public health,” said Andrea Rodgers of the Western Environmental Law Center. “It is outrageous that Ecology has given permission for industrial agricultural facilities to dump pollution into our drinking water.”

The groups said that hand application of manure, ponds used to store manure, compost areas and cow pens are significant sources of pollution, but Ecology failed to include measures in the permit to prevent such pollution.

About 200 dairy farms could be required to get the new water-quality permit. Smaller dairies are exempt. About 10 concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, were required to have the permit under the older rules.

Nitrates are a problem when manure which contains nitrogen is applied to fertilize crops or when manure stored in ponds seeps into groundwater. Bacteria from animal waste can also foul shellfish beds and create health risks for people.

Ecology will offer two versions of the permit, a concession to the dairy industry and opposed by environmental groups.

One permit will be for dairies that discharge pollutants into groundwater and surface water. Because the federal Clean Water Act covers surface water, environmental groups unhappy with Ecology’s enforcement could sue dairies that have this permit. The other permit will regulate groundwater discharges and wouldn’t be subject to enforcement through third-party lawsuits.

California Targets Dairy Cows to Combat Global Warming

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:00:00 GMT

California is taking its fight against global warming to the farm. The nation’s leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock.

Despite strong opposition from farmers, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September that for the first time regulates heat-trapping gases from livestock operations and landfills.

Cattle and other farm animals are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Methane is released when they belch, pass gas and make manure.

“If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming,” said Ryan McCarthy, a science advisor for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up rules to implement the new law.

Livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, with beef and dairy production accounting for the bulk of it, according to a 2013 United Nations report.

Since the passage of its landmark global warming law in 2006, California has been reducing carbon emissions from cars, trucks, homes and factories, while boosting production of renewable energy.

In the nation’s largest milk-producing state, the new law requires dairies and other livestock operations to reduce methane emissions 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. State officials are developing the regulations, which take effect in 2024.

“We expect that this package ... and everything we’re doing on climate, does show an effective model forward for others,” McCarthy said.

But dairy farmers say the new regulations will drive up costs when they’re already struggling with five years of drought, low milk prices and rising labor costs. They’re also concerned about a newly signed law that will boost overtime pay for farmworkers.

“It just makes it more challenging. We’re continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don’t exist,” said Paul Sousa, director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen.

The dairy industry could be forced to move production to states and countries with fewer regulations, leading to higher emissions globally, Sousa said.

“We think it’s very foolish for the state of California to be taking this position,” said Rob Vandenheuvel, general manager for the Milk Producers Council. “A single state like California is not going to make a meaningful impact on the climate.”

Regulators are looking for ways to reduce so-called enteric emissions — methane from the bodily functions of cows. That could eventually require changes to what cattle eat.

But the biggest target is dairy manure, which accounts for about a quarter of the state’s methane emissions.

State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that’s not nearly enough to equip the state’s roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with the local utility, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the grid.

But co-owner Arlin Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer, says he couldn’t afford one if he had to buy and run it himself.

“The bottom line is it’s going to negatively impact the economics of the California dairy industry,” Van Groningen said of the new law. “In the dairy business, the margins are so slim that something like this will force us out of state.”

State officials say they’re committed to making sure the new regulations work for farmers and the environment.

“There’s a real opportunity here to get very significant emissions reductions at fairly low cost, and actually in a way that can bring economic benefits to farmers,” Ryan said.