Environmental Protection Agency

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

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:09:55 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:

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

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:14:41 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.

Speakers Tell EPA Not To Mess With Clean Water Act 401 Rule

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:47:06 GMT

The EPA held its second and final listening session regarding Section 401 of the Clean Water Act on July 30. The session was part of the agency’s call for comments that it says it will use to determine if a new rulemaking on Section 401 is necessary.

For almost all of those who gave public testimony, the answer was “no.”

“We encourage EPA not to introduce a new rulemaking associated with section 401 of the Clean Water Act,” said Julie MacNamara, national water projects coordinator for Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. “We do not believe a new rulemaking is necessary, and we strongly oppose any regulatory changes that would limit the ability of states and tribes to protect their own water resources.”

The CWA’s Section 401 outlines states’ and tribes’ role in certifying, denying or limiting federal projects that could impact federal waters in their jurisdiction. Examples of when a Section 401 certification process might happen include the Army Corps of Engineers issuing a Section 404 discharge of dredge or fill material permit or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issuing a natural gas pipeline license.

Over 230 remote participants joined the Section 401 listening session, and more than a dozen people gave prepared testimony. Most who spoke represented environmental- or water quality-focused nonprofits, though there were also a couple state-level officials, lawyers, representatives from industry, and even private citizens.

Section 401 Rules: 2020 vs. 2023

The focus for many commenters boiled down to the so-called 2020 Rule versus the 2023 Rule for Section 401.

In her introductory overview, Lauren Kasparek — Section 401 team lead and biologist in the EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds — explained the 2020 Rule was the first amendment to Section 401 since it was enacted in 1972. The 2023 Rule represented revisions to the 2020 Rule that generally realigned Section 401 implementation with earlier interpretations.

“If you want regulatory certainty, I encourage you not to whipsaw the country back to the 2020 Rule,” advised Kelly Wood, senior counsel with the Washington state attorney general’s office. He urged EPA to look back at the feedback the agency received in lead up to both the 2020 Rule and the 2023 Rule. “People around the country that actually implement Section 401 are almost universally opposed to making sweeping changes. That is for the simple reason that the interpretation of Section 401 that had successfully governed that work without problem or controversy for 50 years prior to the 2020 rule, and was restored in the 2023 rule, simply works. Almost all Section 401 certifications are granted on time, without controversy, without fanfare.”

A common complaint about the 2020 Rule voiced by many commenters was that it limited the role of states and tribes in safeguarding water quality.

“It’s that role specifically granted to states and tribes that’s threatened by the EPA rulemaking contemplated by this administration, just as it was by a similar attempt to limit state and tribal authority in a previous rulemaking by the first Trump administration,” said Nancy Stoner, senior attorney at the nonprofit Environmental Law and Policy Center, in reference to the events that led up to the 2020 Rule.

“At that time, 19 states and D.C. challenged that rule, alleging that it could upend 50 years of cooperative federalism by arbitrarily rewriting EPA’s existing water quality certification regulations to unlawfully curtail state authority under the Clean Water Act,” she added.

Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, also described the 2020 Rule as “grossly illegal” and as having “dramatically weakened state and tribal authority.”

Concerned About States Rights

Many commenters framed potential changes to Section 401 away from the 2023 Rule as a likely states’ rights issue. Jaimie Sigaran, associate director of American Rivers, called it “a bedrock principle of cooperative federalism ,” for example.

“This authority is not just a bureaucratic hurdle; it reflects the delicate constitutional balance between state sovereignty and federal oversight,” he said. “We’ve heard from [EPA Administrator Lee] Zeldin that he emphasizes the importance of state primacy in water issues. He’s advocated for joint federal and state solutions, not federal preemption. So, we need to support this cooperative federalism model.”

Jim Murphy, legal counsel for National Wildlife Federation, also referenced Zeldin and the Trump administration’s stated goals.

“This administration and administrator Zeldin have repeatedly promised that they will provide the cleanest water,” Murphy said. “They have also expressed a desire to return more power to the states to protect their own resources. Leaving the current rule in place will help advance both of these goals.”

Critical Comments on CWA Changes

In addition to offering their recommendations to the EPA, several commenters offered criticism. For some, the stated motivation for the call for comments is a non-issue.

Wood, referencing the nearly five years of litigation following the 2020 rule, said that he has “been struck by what industry has not been able to show here, and that’s any actual harm from the well-established scope of Section 401.”

Stoner offered a similar observation.

“Having read this administration’s criticisms of the 2023 Section 401 rule, I was surprised to see that it doesn’t actually talk about traffic or climate or noise or any of the other broad readings that this administration claims it is used to address,” she said.

For Devine, the whole comment solicitation effort was suspect, characterizing it as disingenuous and a waste of time.

“EPA’s current notice practically begs the polluting industries to give it an excuse to undo the law by submitting any examples of specific legal vulnerabilities, implementation challenges or regulatory uncertainty. This is essentially an admission that the agency has no basis to change the regulation,” he said. “Anyone can see where this is going. No matter how weak the examples industry lobby groups put forward, EPA will likely say that the input it solicited shows that there are concerns with the rule that justify weakening the regulation.”

He added his perspective that, if the 2023 Rule changes or reverts to the 2020 version, the future would also be foreseeable.

“The kinds of changes the EPA’s notice suggests it is considering would make the rule unlawful,” he said. “The final regulations will inevitably be challenged in court, and I fully expect they will be struck down. In the meantime, a bunch of damaging projects will likely barrel forward without adequate protections for state and tribal waters.”

Key Updates: How Two Legal Developments Could Impact Glyphosate Cases

Mon, 12 May 2025 19:53:07 GMT

This past week had two developments around Bayer’s campaign to reframe how regulations around pesticides are interpreted and applied by the court system. Earlier this spring, Bayer leadership confirmed it’s engaging in the multifront approach to limit its legal liabilities as the only domestic manufacturer of glyphosate.

To-date Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer.

Bill Anderson became CEO in 2023, and one of his commitments was to get the glyphosate litigation “under control” by 2026.

Two “wins” for the company have come in the past several days.

Supreme Court Brief

On May 9, 10 agricultural groups filed a brief encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case regarding glyphosate (and other pesticide) labeling.

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide on whether it’ll hear the case, with the key question being whether manufacturers of pesticides are liable under state law for “failure to warn” of alleged cancer or other health risks when federal regulators have evaluated the product’s safety and determined its uses are safe.

Groups named supporting the submission of the brief: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Sorghum Producers, North American Blueberry Council, and Western Growers.

Second State Signs Law Reinforcing EPA’s Authority

In late April, North Dakota was the first state to have legislation signed into law reasserting federally approved pesticide labels are the law and companies can not be subject to litigation when those laws are followed.

Georgia becomes the second state to sign into law a bill that reinforces the authority of EPA’s science-based rulings that crop protection products are safe when used as directed.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has signed SB 144, which is a bill that has gone through the state’s legislature to re-affirm the authority of EPA and its scientific rulings on the safety of crop protection products.

“This is a major victory for Georgia’s top industry: agriculture,” said Will Bentley, president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council. “By reinforcing science-based regulations for crop protection products, this law provides Georgia’s farmers and agribusiness with the certainty they need to remain competitive and contribute to a strong food and fiber supply chain. We appreciate Governor Kemp and the Georgia Legislature for prioritizing policies that benefit Georgia farmers, agribusinesses and consumers alike.”

Starting last year, Bayer has worked at the state level with legislators to introduce legislation to put a focus around pesticide labels and liability. This year, the company expanded its efforts to 10 states.

“The signing of SB 144 by Governor Kemp demonstrates that Georgia stands with its farmers, who work tirelessly to produce safe and affordable food for communities throughout the state. We thank Governor Kemp and the legislators, farmers and ag groups that supported this important piece of legislation,” said Brian Naber, president, Crop Science North America & Australia/New Zealand Region. “At Bayer, we are committed to developing agricultural innovations that help farmers thrive. This is important not only for Georgia’s farmers and American agriculture, but also the everyday American worried about the cost of groceries, which could increase if these vital tools went away. We hope states around the country considering similar legislation will also support farmers and the tools critical to their success.”

Bayer officials have said the courts will continue to interpret the laws, but they are optimistic the state laws will bring greater legal certainty around claims about the warning label.

Could Government Efficiency Efforts Break the Dam in EPA’s Pesticide Approval Backlog?

Mon, 12 May 2025 16:09:44 GMT

Earlier this month, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced the next phase of organizational improvements for the agency. For agriculture, the focus went to 130 science positions that were being reallocated.

With EPA’s authority over reviewing the science of pesticides, and a current backlog of 504 new chemicals in review plus 12,000 pesticide reviews that are overdue compared to their expected timelines, the industry has been watching a ballooning backlog.

“We’ve been trying to get more resources to help to reduce the backlog, and we’ve been advocating for Administrator Zeldin to provide additional resources,” says Terry Kippley, president and CEO of the Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology. “And so we’re still waiting on some details, but they have announced that there’s 130 scientists that could be moving over into the chemicals division and the chemicals division is the division that growers care about and agribusiness cares about because it includes the Office of Pesticide Programs [OPP], and they’re responsible for getting the tools out into the field.”

Two core causes of the backlog:

There have been two key factors adding up to the slowdown and now backlog of pesticide processing, regulations and approval.

1. Underfunding and interagency performance.

Specific to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Congress has underfunded its activities. Registrants agreed to a fee structure helping pay for the services provided by EPA, known as PRIA 5, which increased industry fees by 30%.

Congress has continually funded the EPA at low levels, and the OPP significantly below the $166 million asked for in appropriation.

“For many reasons every year they’ve only been giving approximately 80% of that number,” Kippley says. “From the farmer perspective, if you have a deal with a local co-op, and you say I’m going to give you 30% more money. But then you find out that you’re only getting about 80% of that agreed upon number. That’s a problem.”

Kippley says right now, for OPP, it adds up to being short about $32 million.

“We’d like to have them allocate that additional $32 million dollars, so that in the end OPP has the resources to consistently deliver and execute these timelines, so that everybody has certainty.”

2. The COVID-19 pandemic brought an unexpected workload

During the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions added up in addition to EPA being responsible for testing and approving hand sanitizer products.

“I’ve had nearly a 30-year career dealing with regulated products, and I can say we’ve had certainty out of EPA in the past,” Kippley says. “Maybe wasn’t always perfect, but until COVID it was really operating in a way that we could do business, and they have just received so much more work with so many fewer resources. It’s really a difficult situation to manage.”

Will DOGE be the answer to the two issues that have amassed this backlog?

It has yet to be seen. One retiree from EPA is skeptical that even with an influx of 130 scientists transferred into the OPP, any benefits in terms of approvals won’t be seen for 18 months.

“If they allocate all of the transfers to new registrations — and ignore the FIFRA renewals — and if they are creative, by the time the Trump administration is over, things could be caught up,” they say.

One reason is the recent wave of early retirements, which currently employs 550 total scientists and 100 of those taking the early out package, which went into effect on May 5.

US EPA Plans to Cut Staff to 1980s Levels, Dissolve Research Office

Mon, 05 May 2025 18:41:07 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans on Friday to slash its budget by $300 million in fiscal year 2026, reduce staffing to 1980s levels and dissolve its research and development office as part of a sweeping overhaul of the agency.

The reorganization will consolidate several key offices, reflecting plans to cut regulatory red tape and promote more energy development, as laid out in President Donald Trump’s executive orders, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video message.

“With these organizational improvements, we can assure the American people that we are dedicated to EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” Zeldin said, adding the agency will be better positioned to match Trump’s goals to “unleash American energy, revitalize domestic manufacturing, cut costs for families and pursue permitting reform.”

Critics including the Union of Concerned Scientists said the staff cuts and changes in organization of the EPA would force staff members to follow the political program of the president rather than scientific evidence.

Zeldin said EPA staffing will fall to a level last seen when President Ronald Reagan occupied the White House in the 1980s, when the agency was led by an administrator who was critical of it. In 1984, the EPA had just over 11,400 staff members compared
to more than 15,100 in 2024.

The reorganization follows weeks of speculation about staff cuts and Zeldin announcing the cancellation of billions of dollars of EPA grants.

Major changes to the agency’s structure include shifting scientific research from the Office of Research and Development to different program offices, such as a new office of applied science that would align research with the politically-appointed administrator’s policy priorities.

Researchers had warned that dissolving the research unit would undermine scientific independence.

The EPA also announced it was dissolving the Office of Science and Technology, which helped develop scientific research and guidelines for water policy.

Other changes will include creation of an Office of State Air Partnerships within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation that will work with state permitting agencies to resolve permitting concerns and process state plans to meet federal rules.

It will also add 130 positions to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to work on reviewing a backlog of over 504 new chemicals and over 12,000 pesticides.

The 1,500 research and development staff would need to apply for around 400 of the newly created positions in other offices, employees were told in an all-hands meeting at EPA on Friday. It was not clear what would happen to those employees that do not get new positions.

The agency extended the deadline by a week, to May 5, for accepting a deferred resignation for employees.

The EPA will also elevate issues of cybersecurity, emergency response, and water reuse and conservation, it said.

Advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday said that shuttering the EPA’s scientific arm that conducts independent research and folding it into policy offices will turn the EPA into a purely political agency.

“Dismantling this office, along with the administration’s plans to reclassify scientists as political appointees ... could very well turn a premier science agency into a political arm of the president,” said Chitra Kumar, managing director of UCS’ Climate and Clean Energy Program.

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Leslie Adler and Nia Williams)

Breaking Down EPA's New Action Plan for Insecticides

Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:59:59 GMT

In the trio of Endangered Species Act (ESA) enforcement regulations — herbicide, insecticide and fungicide — the industry now has two of the three to consider.

The final herbicide rule was released in 2024, and just yesterday EPA released its final insecticide rule. This comes after the draft insecticide rule was first released in July 2024, and the final rule takes into account the public comments provided during the comment period.

These EPA regulations are a response by the agency to enforce ESA at the agency level rather than through litigation and the court system.

As new insecticides are registered and existing products are re-registered via the FIFRA process, they will need to comply to the new rule. Unlike the herbicide final strategy already being applied to the label for BASF’s Liberty Ultra, the industry does not have a product to look to as it applies to the insecticide rule, yet.

“Late yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final Endangered Species Act (ESA) Insecticide Strategy. The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) plans to thoroughly review the proposal and provide feedback to the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), addressing any questions or concerns that may arise,” says Richard Gupton, senior vide president of public policy and counsel for the Agricultural Retailers Association. “At first glance, it appears that the agency is considering the input from impacted agricultural stakeholders, which is encouraging. We will gain a clearer understanding once new labels are registered, and we can observe whether commercial applicators and farmers are afforded the necessary flexibility to utilize these products without facing undue regulatory burdens or additional operating costs.”

3 Steps Behind the Rule

Step 1

Establishes the potential for population-level impacts to the listed species as not likely, low, medium, or high. The low, medium, and high categories indicate a potential concern for population-level impacts that may need mitigation

Step 2

Identifies levels of mitigations that reduce spray drift and runoff/erosion to non-target habitats (e.g., low impacts would be addressed with fewer mitigations than medium or high potential impacts). EPA developed menus that identify mitigations that the Agency has determined to be effective at reducing spray drift and runoff/erosion in different parts of the country.

Step 3

Applies the mitigations by geography, crop type, etc. In those cases, EPA would specify the mitigations on the general pesticide product label. In other cases, mitigations may only apply in geographically specific areas (referred to as Pesticide Use Limitation Areas or PULAs). For geographically specific mitigations, the pesticide labeling would include a direction for the user to access EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two (BLT) website to determine whether they are in an area that requires mitigation.

Mitigation Efforts

Similar to the herbicide rule, retailers and farmers can expect to calculate necessary mitigation efforts including spray drift and runoff/erosion considerations.

Per the Final Insecticide Strategy, farmers and retailers can expect EPA is working to:

develop a process to qualify individual conservation programs that could achieve 9 mitigation points
reconsider using descriptions of protected areas or habitat, as opposed to (or to supplement) the descriptions of managed areas (e.g., what is not a protected area) in the Final Insecticide Strategy.
Develop refined Pesticide Use Limitation Area (PULA) maps2 to limit the spatial extent of off-target mitigations to specific areas to protect listed species and to minimize impacts to applicators
continue to work with stakeholders to evaluate drift-reducing adjuvants as a mitigation measure for insecticides.
work with stakeholders to identify additional mitigation options including potential offset opportunities for insecticides and other types of pesticides.
develop a mobile-friendly application tool for growers and other applicators that provides efficiencies in compiling the label information and helps pesticide users consider their options and understand how their current practices, location, and field properties relate to any required mitigations.

EPA sessions seek input on WOTUS rework

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:57:45 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency will begin a series of five listening sessions next week on defining “waters of the United States” — or WOTUS — following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against the agency . Beginning April 29, the sessions aim to get “targeted input” from stakeholders.

The EPA is asking for input on topics including the concepts of “continuous surface connection” and “relatively permanent,” as well as jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional ditches.

Listening sessions are scheduled for:

Tuesday, April 29, 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET — Session for states (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
Wednesday, April 30, 1-3:30 p.m. ET — Session for tribes (virtual).
Thursday, May 1, 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET — Session for industry and agriculture (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
Thursday, May 1, 1-3:30 p.m. ET: — Session for environmental and conservation (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
To be determined — session for the public.

Participants must register to attend the listening sessions. Visit the EPA’s WOTUS outreach and engagement page to register .

To attend in-person, participants must register at least 48 hours ahead of the event. Virtual listening sessions will be held via Zoom. Participants can preregister to give a three-minute testimony, but speaking slots are limited and given out on a first-come, first-served basis

Your next read:

EPA plans to revise WOTUS

Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:46:29 GMT

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin says the EPA will work with the Army Corps of Engineers to review the definition of “waters of the United States.”

The agencies will move quickly to ensure that a revised definition follows the law, reduces red tape, cuts overall permitting costs and lowers the cost of doing business in communities across the country while protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution, Zeldin said in a news release.

The EPA said given the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, it is time for the agency to address WOTUS in a way that provides U.S. farmers, landowners, businesses and states with clear and simplified direction.

“We want clean water for all Americans supported by clear and consistent rules for all states, farmers, and small businesses,” Zeldin said. “The previous administration’s definition of ‘waters of the United States’ placed unfair burdens on the American people and drove up the cost of doing business. Our goal is to protect America’s water resources consistent with the law of the land while empowering American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families to help Power the Great American Comeback.”

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land and need clear and practical water regulations.

“USDA supports EPA’s revisions to WOTUS that provide certainty and recognize the key role that agriculture plays in protecting our natural resources,” she said. “We’ll keep pushing for policies that let producers focus on what they do best — feeding, fueling and clothing our nation.”

EPA will start its review by obtaining input from stakeholders, according to the release, and it will seek targeted information on the key challenges and will undertake a rulemaking process to revise the 2023 definition of WOTUS with a focus on clarity and simplicity. The agency said it will provide guidance to those states implementing the pre-2015 definition of WOTUS to ensure consistency with the law.

EPA said its review will be guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which stated that the Clean Water Act’s use of “waters” encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming streams, oceans, rivers and lakes. The Sackett decision also clarified that wetlands would only be covered when having a continuous surface connection to waterbodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right, the release said.

Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark.; Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.; Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa; Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.; Western Caucus Chairman Doug LaMalfa , R-Calif.-01; Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.-03; and Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall joined Zeldin for the announcement.

USDA says nearly all fresh produce meets EPA standard for pesticide residue

Fri, 06 Jan 2023 19:00:37 GMT

Consumers can feel confident that fresh fruits and vegetables are safe to consume, according to the USDA’s annual food pesticide residues report, published Dec. 21 in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The 2021 Pesticide Data Program report showed that over 99% of food samples tested for pesticide residues were within EPA tolerance levels.

In 2021, a total of 423 samples were reported to the Food and Drug Administration as being over the EPA tolerance level. In 54 of the test samples, pesticide residues exceeded the EPA’s tolerance level, including the following fresh fruits and vegetables:

Green beans – 31 samples exceeded
Winter squash — seven samples exceeded
Peaches — five samples exceeded
Fresh blueberries — four samples exceeded
Celery — two samples exceeded
Eggplant — three samples exceeded
Broccoli — one sample exceeded
Pears — one sample exceeded

Other takeaways for fresh produce:

Imported produce made up 24 of 54 samples with pesticide residues exceeding EPA tolerance levels.
One green bean sample contained three pesticides exceeding the EPA’s established tolerances.
373 fresh fruit and vegetable samples registered pesticide residues for which no tolerance was established.

Each year, USDA and EPA work together to identify foods to be tested on a rotating basis. In 2021, 10,127 samples were tested from 19 different fresh or processed fruits and vegetables, dairy and grains. The program partners with cooperating state agencies to collect and analyze pesticide residue levels on selected food commodities.

The goal of the annual sample data is to support regulators, farmers, processors, manufacturers, consumers and scientists with clear and accurate insights into the levels of pesticide residues found on widely consumed foods.

Related news: How Wegmans has built a ‘strong food safety culture’

USDA tests a wide variety of domestic and imported foods, with a strong focus on foods that are consumed by infants and children. EPA relies on this data to conduct dietary risk assessments and to ensure that any pesticide residues in foods remain at or below levels established by the agency.

The annual pesticide residue results are sent to the FDA and EPA in monthly reports as testing takes place throughout the year. FDA and EPA are immediately notified if a Pesticide Data Program test discovers residue levels that could pose a public safety concern.

Washington State Dairy Fined $17,000 for Violating Water Pollution Control Act

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:38:42 GMT

Violations include improperly applying manure to a field in the rain and operating a leaking waste water system that led to polluting salmon habitat.

Source: Washington State Department of Agriculture

OLYMPIA – The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has cited Edaleen Dairy in Lynden for two violations of the state’s Water Pollution Control Act, including improperly applying manure onto a field and allowing polluted water to enter tributaries that lead to a creek identified as salmon habitat.

Together, the violations carry a fine of $17,000. The dairy is located in Whatcom County, which borders Canada.

Washington’s Dairy Nutrient Management Act requires dairies to develop plans to manage the manure produced by their cows. WSDA’s Dairy Nutrient Management Program ensures dairies comply with this requirement and enforces parts of the state’s Water Pollution Control Act as they relate to dairy operations.

Inspectors with this program visit all of the state’s dairies approximately once every 22 months to examine how dairy owners manage manure and clean water on their property. Inspectors also review soil tests, manure nutrient analysis results, manure application and movement off farm, and irrigation records. The purpose is to ensure the manure is managed in a way that protects surface and groundwater from nutrients and bacteria in the manure, which can be harmful to human health and aquatic life.

The Edaleen Dairy inspection began in November 2012 after a complaint was made that a worker was improperly applying manure to a field in the rain, which can accelerate manure nutrients leaching into groundwater or lead to runoff into ditches and streams. A WSDA inspector visited the dairy twice over the next few days and found that material from the dairy’s manure digester, called digestate, had been applied to a field saturated with water. The inspector also found standing water in some areas of the field and evidence that water with digestate in it had flowed into a nearby ditch. This violation included a $9,000 fine.

In addition, the inspector found a leaking valve in a waste water system. An analysis determined this polluted water contained fecal matter at rates in excess of state regulations, and it had leaked into ditches that ultimately lead to Bertrand Creek, identified as both salmon habitat and a human recreation area. This violation included an $8,000 fine.

The dairy has been cooperative in addressing issues raised through these inspections. It has 30 days to pay the penalty or appeal to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board, an independent body whose members are appointed by the Governor.

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

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

(Farm Journal)

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.

(Farm Journal)

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.

(Farm Journal)

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

New Tool Calculates Dairy Farm Carbon Footprint

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:38:55 GMT

Source: Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy

The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy® today announced new science-based resources available for dairy producers, processors, industry partners and stakeholders. The resources help the industry act on the unprecedented scientific research commissioned as part of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Commitment — a collective effort of the dairy value chain to measure and improve the sustainability of U.S. dairy from farm to table. The Innovation Center, established under the leadership of dairy producers, launched the Sustainability Commitment in 2008.

As part of this commitment, the dairy industry initiated a series of scientific life cycle assessments (LCA) of fluid milk, cheese and whey. With this body of work, the U.S. dairy industry is striving to create the most transparent and documented dairy LCA database available. Due in part to its rigorous science-based approach, it was chosen to be the pilot industry participating in the National Agricultural Library of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide an open-access, prototype LCA database and tools.

“We are very glad to have the dairy industry’s leadership,” said Dr. Simon Liu, director of the National Agricultural Library at the USDA. “The goal is to continue to expand the data in the National Agricultural Library so that we can advance the science and meet the growing demand for quantitative data that helps to identify opportunities for innovation and improvement.”

The dairy industry is already using the findings to improve sustainability and provide consumers with credible information about where their food comes from and how it is made. “These science-based resources are powerful examples of our industry’s vision to sustainably deliver nutrient-rich dairy foods and beverages to the table, starting with the dairy farmer and continuing through the dairy supply chain,” said Barbara O’Brien, president of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.

The three new resources available include:

• U.S. Dairy’s Environmental Footprint, a quick reference guide that taps into the public’s interest in learning about the foods they eat and the environmental impact of their choices. The book features:

• Easy-to-read information and graphics explaining LCAs and the journey of a gallon of milk from the beginning of the life cycle when crops are grown to feed cows and milk is produced, through processing, packaging, distribution and finally to the purchase, consumption and packaging disposal of a gallon of milk by the consumer

• Background on the dairy nutrient cycle, dairy’s contribution to health and nutrition and its role in the global food system

• LCA key findings on U.S. dairy’s carbon and water footprint as well as best management practices on farms, in dairy processing plants, and for transportation of dairy foods and beverages

A scientific publication , a special issue of the International Dairy Journal, which features 10 peer-reviewed articles highlighting findings from the fluid milk LCAs (April 2013 issue).

Farm Smart™, an online tool currently in development, which combines key learning from the research with engineering and best management practices to help dairy producers calculate their environmental footprints.

The goal of Farm Smart, available at USDairy.com/FarmSmart, is to integrate scientific analysis with farm-specific data to provide powerful, yet easy-to-use decision-making tools for dairy producers. It is currently focused on voluntary self-assessment in four environmental areas: energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and water use. Future versions of the tool will help producers identify and assess management practices in order to be as cost-efficient and productive as possible.

“Farm Smart will deliver a whole new level of decision support to help dairy producers forecast the outcomes of different management practices they are considering for their dairy facility or field,” said Doug Young, general partner of Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center in Union Springs, N.Y. “For example, if a producer is considering moving to conservation tillage or precision fertilizer practices, the tool will help a producer estimate the reduction in input costs and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Currently being tested by producers, Farm Smart was developed by academics and the Innovation Center and began with an initial investment by dairy producers in 2009. Since then, Farm Smart has attracted major support from other funding partners.

“Dairy producers have a long-standing commitment to both nutrition and environmental science through National Dairy Council and the Dairy Research Institute, an affiliate of the Innovation Center,” O’Brien said. “Their initial investment in environmental science has been more than doubled through direct and indirect grants from USDA and other funding sources, reflecting growing recognition of the importance of the solid, science-based approach the industry is taking.”

In 2008, the dairy industry committed to a Sustainability Roadmap with the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of fluid milk by 25 percent and build business value by at least $238 million by 2020. The Innovation Center launched a portfolio of innovation projects to achieve this goal, including Farm Smart. To learn more about the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Commitment, the reduction goal or the projects and tools currently available, visit USDairy.com/Sustainability.
###
Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy® is a forum for the dairy industry to work together pre-competitively to address barriers and opportunities to foster innovation and increase sales. The Innovation Center aligns the collective resources of the industry against common priorities to offer consumers nutritious dairy products and ingredients, and promote the health of people, communities, the planet and the industry. The Board of Directors for the Innovation Center includes dairy industry leaders representing key producer organizations, dairy cooperatives, processors, manufacturers and brands. The Innovation Center is staffed by Dairy Management Inc™. Visit USDairy.com for more information about the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.

Second Annual U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards Announced

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:38:59 GMT

Source: Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy

The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy® is announcing the winners of the second annual U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awardsat a special ceremony in Washington, D.C. The program recognizes dairy farms and businesses of all sizes for practices that advance the industry’s commitment to healthy products, healthy communities and a healthy planet.

“The strength of the award winners’ stories illustrates why consumers can be confident about choosing their favorite dairy foods and beverages,” said Barbara O’Brien, president of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, which was founded by dairy producers. “These and thousands of other actions being taken every day — both large and small — contribute to the industry’s overall commitment to a healthy future for the next generation.”

The winners were selected based on results that delivered triple-bottom-line results to advance economic, environmental and social sustainability. An independent panel of judges — which included experts from academic institutions, government, dairy science organizations, nongovernmental organizations and media as well as environmental and dairy industry leaders — also assessed the potential for adoption by others as well as demonstrated learning, innovation and improvement.

“This year’s winners include dairy farms and businesses from across the country who took steps to reduce their environmental impact, improve their profitability and increase their contribution to a sustainable 21st century food system,” said Molly Jahn, professor of genetics and agronomy at University of Wisconsin-Madison and a member of the awards’ judges panel.

The 2013 U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards Winners include:

Outstanding Dairy Farm Sustainability

Petersen Dairy Farm, Appleton, Wis.: When the city of Appleton, Wis., decided to build a high school less than half of a mile from Petersen Dairy Farm, the Petersen family began exploring composting as a way to manage the dairy’s manure and associated odors. Now compost is sold at the dairy by the 5-gallon pail or truckload, primarily to home gardeners. Visitors witness firsthand how their old newspapers are recycled as bedding for the cows, or mixed with manure, composted and ultimately returned to their gardens for use as mulch and to their yards for plant food. By turning their urban location into an asset, the Petersens prove that cows can be good neighbors.

Prairieland Dairy, Firth, Neb.: A creative partnership among four families put this dairy on the path to long-term prosperity and allows employees at Firth, Neb.-based Prairieland Dairy to focus on their specific talents. Sustainable design is reflected in every aspect of the facilities, which were built to be efficient and low-impact while maximizing cow comfort. Automatic cooling, waste management and pest control systems are just part of the solution. Prairieland Dairy also taps into the natural power of wind, gravity, and the geothermal properties of well water to reduce the use of energy, water and equipment, for savings estimated at more than $200,000.

Skyridge Farms, Sunnyside, Wash.: Dan DeGroot, owner of Skyridge Farms, a dairy in Sunnyside, Wash., cultivated an organization that optimizes performance and preserves the environment. Since 2003, DeGroot has improved lighting, added occupancy sensors and installed a programmable logic control system. The management team can automatically control lighting, fans, and soaker and flush systems. By doing so, they maintain optimum performance, reduce costs and keep the herd comfortable. This upgrade alone yields a 20 percent energy savings annually across the five freestall barns. With composting, Skyridge Farms harvests manure nutrients, provides quality bedding for the herd and eliminates 600 truckloads annually previously used to transport manure.

Honorable mention McCarty Family Farms, Rexford, Kan.: The McCarty Family, owners of McCarty Family Farms, have revitalized their rural northwestern Kansas community by providing more than 100 direct jobs, creating a need for additional housing and in turn increasing school enrollment. McCarty Family Farms’ unique “cow to cup” partnership with Dannon and the addition of an on-site processing plant has improved economic stability while aggressively reducing their environmental impact. The plant has yielded significant progress toward the dairy’s water reduction goal. Approximately 59,400 gallons of raw milk from the three dairies is processed through an evaporator every day to remove excess water before being separated into cream and skim milk. Every drop of the water removed during the evaporation process — 39,000 gallons per day — is reused throughout the dairies.

Outstanding Dairy Processing & Manufacturing Sustainability

Unilever, Henderson, Nev., plant: Since 2010, Unilever plants worldwide have been implementing the company’s Sustainable Living Plan — an initiative that is working to improve consumer health and well-being, to reduce environmental impact and to enhance livelihoods. Employees at the Henderson, Nev.-based ice cream plant worked side by side with environmental experts to analyze energy efficiency and water usage. The team identified an opportunity to reconfigure, automate and optimize systems to reduce electricity use by 13 percent, natural gas use by 16 percent and water consumption by more than 1.1 million gallons per year. The Unilever ice cream plants in the Americas division regularly meet and share best practices to help reach Unilever’s ambitious environmental goals.

Outstanding Achievement in Energy Efficiency

Ballard Family Dairy & Cheese, Gooding, Idaho: Energy efficiency is sometimes overlooked, but at Ballard Family Dairy & Cheese in Gooding, Idaho, the Ballards see it as a way to reduce their overhead costs and eliminate propane use. An energy audit and a team of energy management experts helped identify four primary areas of savings, which included using solar thermal power for the hot water system, installing LED lighting, replacing vacuum pumps and adjusting the milk cooling process. The Ballards achieved their goals, saving $23,000 annually and reducing the dairy’s carbon footprint by 121,500 pounds per year, while decreasing its water footprint by 365,000 gallons annually.

Outstanding Achievement in Renewable Energy

Green Valley Dairy, Krakow, Wis.: At Green Valley Dairy in Krakow, Wis., the management team’s “waste not” philosophy has them constantly evaluating opportunities to reclaim energy, recycle water and repurpose manure nutrients. In 2005, Green Valley Dairy set out to build on this belief. The management team determined that anaerobic digesters would help manage manure nutrients and reduce odors while decreasing the dairy’s carbon footprint. Although it was one of the first digesters in Wisconsin, the benefits of this plan quickly gained public support. Today, three anaerobic digesters have the capacity to produce 1,200 kWh of “green” electricity — most of which is used on the dairy or sold to the local utility.

Honorable mention Fulper Family Farmstead, Lambertville, N.J.: Fulper Family Farmstead in Lambertville, N.J., has focused on environmentally friendly activities, including soil conservation, crop rotation and farmland preservation, since the dairy’s origin in 1909. As operating costs continue to rise, the Fulpers found that a solar energy system would increase energy efficiency, sustainability and revenue, while decreasing the farm’s carbon footprint and utility costs. Installed in 2011, the free-standing, ground-mounted system creates 500 kWh daily — enough to cover all of the operation’s electricity needs and power approximately 100 homes. Today, the farmstead sells $30,000 in renewable energy credits annually.

Collaborative Partnerships Instrumental in Advancing Industry’s Sustainability

“This awards program is a great example of how systemwide collaborative efforts can help dairy contribute to a bright future,” said Paul Rovey, an Arizona dairy producer, member of the judges panel and chair of Dairy Management Inc™. “We are proud to share these examples of dairy’s ongoing commitment to stewardship and sustainability, which is made even more powerful because of collaborative relationships with partners.”

Adding their support to the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Commitment and the Sustainability Awards program are this year’s gold- and silver-level sponsors. Gold sponsors include the Center for Advanced Energy Studies/Idaho National Laboratory, DeLaval, DVO Anaerobic Digesters, Elanco, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), World Wildlife Fund and Zoetis (formerly known as Pfizer Animal Health). Silver-level sponsors include Dolphin WaterCare, quasar energy group, Syngenta and the U.S. Dairy Export Council®.

The awards program is part of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Commitment, an industrywide effort to measure and improve the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the dairy industry. Since its launch in 2008, the Sustainability Commitment has gained the support and participation of more than 700 professionals across the industry as well as others from academic, government and nongovernmental organizations.

To learn more about the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards, the winners and the best practices in place at their operations, visit USDairy.com/Sustainability/Awards .
###
Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy® is a forum for the dairy industry to work together pre-competitively to address barriers and opportunities to foster innovation and increase sales. The Innovation Center aligns the collective resources of the industry against common priorities to offer consumers nutritious dairy products and ingredients, and promote the health of people, communities, the planet and the industry. The Board of Directors for the Innovation Center includes dairy industry leaders representing key producer organizations, dairy cooperatives, processors, manufacturers and brands. The Innovation Center is staffed by Dairy Management Inc™. Visit USDairy.com for more information about the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.

Cuomo in Billion-Pound Manure Fight as New York Promotes Yogurt

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:41:31 GMT

The lawsuit protests the governor’s recent permit allowing more dairy cows in the wake of growing yogurt demand.

Freeman Klopott

All that stands between dairy farmer Kerry Adams and expanding her herd of cows to tap New York’s booming yogurt industry is 1 billion pounds of manure.

Adams was planning to take advantage of a change Governor Andrew Cuomo pushed through this year that allows farmers to increase their herds to 299 from 199 before permits are required, which can add more than $150,000 to expansion costs. Then environmental groups sued to block the move, saying expanding dairy production will add 1 billion pounds (454 million kilograms) of unregulated cow dung annually, damaging waterways.

“It’s frustrating,” said Adams, who is keeping her herd at 195 while she awaits the lawsuit’s outcome. “As farmers, we’re very conscious of being stewards of the land.”

Led by Greek-style yogurt and its biggest U.S. maker, New Berlin, New York-based Chobani Inc., producers of the fermented milk product have added more than 1,300 jobs upstate since 2007. Cuomo, 55, a first-term Democrat heading into an election year, says yogurt is a key to boosting the region’s struggling economy.

New York is a natural home for companies seeking to cash in on the Greek yogurt craze, said Andrew Novakovic, a Cornell University professor who studies the agricultural economy. It’s the third-largest milk-producing state, providing access to the 50 million people who live between Boston and Washington.

Local Windfall

As state yogurt production climbed to 695 million pounds in 2012 from 267 million in 2009, the New York dairy industry hasn’t grown as rapidly, according to Novakovic. Greek yogurt has three times more milk than the traditional product, Novakovic said. The companies can pipe milk in from other states, though that doesn’t help New York’s farmers, he said.

“All of our milk comes from the Northeast, and the majority is from New York,” said Russell Evans, marketing director for Johnstown, New York-based Fage USA Dairy Industry Inc., which is spending $100 million to double its yogurt-making capacity. “It was a natural extension for us to move upstate to where there is a ready supply of milk and a strong transportation network.”

As in some other states, milk prices in New York are set by federal regulators. Even with increased demand from yogurt producers, prices aren’t rising, according to Novakovic and the New York Farm Bureau. To increase profits, farmers need to produce more milk, which means adding cows.

Not Cheap

By increasing the herd limit to 299, the state expected that 285 farms would add 25,000 cows over the next decade, creating 875 agricultural jobs and reversing a trend over the last decade in which the number of New York milking cows dropped by 9 percent, according to the Environmental Conservation Department’s review of the change, which took effect in May.

A permit requires farmers to handle the increased manure load. They must pay a certified planner as much as $15,000, obtain engineering designs for new systems that can cost $50,000 and execute them for about $100,000, the review said. That’s in addition to the $382,000 needed for cows, land and holding pens.

Adams, 59, a fourth-generation farmer in Shortsville, raised the issue during the Yogurt Summit Cuomo convened in August 2012. The meeting brought together dairy farmers, yogurt executives and state officials to discuss boosting economic development upstate. One of the main topics was a call to change the permit limit to help smaller farms, said Steve Ammerman, a spokesman for the New York Farm Bureau.

Court Challenge

“The summit laid the groundwork to increase milk production, which takes a lot of planning for family farmers,” Ammerman said by phone. “Now, farmers looking to grow don’t want to cross the 199 threshold because of this pending lawsuit.”

The suit, filed last month in state Supreme Court in Albany by environmental groups, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Riverkeeper, said New York is putting rivers, lakes and drinking water in danger because farmers will add cows without manure-mitigation systems. Cow dung carries bacteria that can cause sickness and nutrients that can spur algae blooms, which kill fish and can harm humans, according to the lawsuit.

Kate Hudson, the watershed program director for Riverkeeper, said the state should have provided funds for farmers to implement manure-handling plans rather than changing the requirements.

‘Inappropriate Attempt’

“This is an inappropriate attempt to create an economic benefit by sacrificing environmental protection,” Hudson said by phone. “We’ve challenged the process as well as the outcome.”

In its review of the regulation change, the state said farmers would be encouraged to add manure-mitigation systems even if they don’t exceed the 299 limit. The Health Department has separate regulations to protect drinking water, the review said. Cuomo also is providing funding to help farmers build anaerobic digesters, which process cow feces -- along with the byproduct from Greek yogurt manufacturing -- and capture methane to produce electricity.

“At the Yogurt Summit, Governor Cuomo heard firsthand how these overly burdensome regulations prevented growth and created barriers that kept New York dairy farmers from providing milk to fuel this state’s booming Greek yogurt industry,” Rich Azzopardi, a Cuomo spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “Easing this regulation was the right thing to do and we’re confident the courts will agree.”

Adams and Travis Rea, whose family has owned a dairy farm north of Albany in Cambridge for 215 years, said they’re planning to mitigate their manure as they grow anyway. Both, though, are holding off on expanding until they know the outcome of the lawsuit.

“We don’t have much money day to day and we’re up against groups that do,” Rea said by phone. “The environmentalists, they kind of scare me.”

The case is Riverkeeper Inc. v. Martens, 4166/2013, New York State Supreme Court, Albany County.

Dairy Sustainability Award Nominees Sought

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:35:01 GMT

Source: Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy

The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, established under the leadership of dairy farmers, is now accepting nominations for the second year of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards. The award program recognizes dairy farms, businesses and collaborative partnerships for their contributions to healthy people, healthy products and a healthy planet and showcases that sustainability makes good business sense.

Nominations are open through Nov. 15, 2012, to all segments of the U.S. dairy value chain — from farm to table — for the following categories:

• Outstanding Dairy Farm Sustainability
• Outstanding Dairy Processing & Manufacturing Sustainability
• New this year! Outstanding Achievement in Renewable Energy
• New this year! Outstanding Achievement in Energy Efficiency

“It is a commitment to continuous improvement and leadership that sustains dairy farms and businesses from one generation to the next, regardless of unpredictable weather or economic conditions,” said Paul Rovey, owner of Rovey Dairy and chairman of Dairy Management Inc.

“Through the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards, we want to recognize individuals across the dairy supply chain for their successes as a result of innovation, ingenuity and persistence.”
This year’s gold-level sponsors include the Center for Advanced Energy Studies/Idaho National Laboratory, DeLaval, DVO Anaerobic Digesters, Elanco, MilkPEP, Pfizer Animal Health, and World Wildlife Fund. Silver-level sponsors include Dolphin WaterCare, quasar energy group, Syngenta and U.S. Dairy Export Council.

An independent panel of judges will evaluate all nominations based on the program’s or project’s results as measured by triple-bottom-line success — economic, environmental and social. Judges also will assess: the potential for adoption of the practices by other dairy farms and businesses; demonstrated learning, innovation and improvement; and scalability.

“According to research conducted on behalf of the Innovation Center, sustainability isn’t about the size, age or location of a dairy operation. It’s the management practices that make the difference,” said Barbara O’Brien, president of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. “Shining a light on best management practices helps ensure that consumers can continue to feel good about choosing their favorite dairy foods and beverages.”

The inaugural U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards recognized seven dairy operations in March 2012 from across the dairy supply chain.

One of the seven winners was Blue Spruce Farm , which has reduced energy use, costs and greenhouse gas emissions by implementing new technologies in lighting, milking, milk cooling, barn construction, ventilation and water heating. It was the first dairy farm to participate in the successful Central Vermont Public Service’s Cow Power program, which allows consumers to purchase renewable energy generated on a dairy farm.

“We feel a sense of satisfaction and pride when we enter a grocery store and see shelves stocked with affordable, nutritious, safe dairy products,” said Marie Audet of Blue Spruce. “We are proud that we are able to deliver all this while being good stewards of the land, being good neighbors, and helping to keep America’s working landscape vital and productive.”

The awards are part of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Commitment, an industrywide effort to measure and improve the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the dairy industry. Launched in 2008, the Sustainability Commitment has the support and participation of hundreds of organizations across the industry as well as others from academic, government and nongovernmental organizations.

Winners of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards will be announced in April 2013. In addition, honorees will share their stories and passion for sustainability on a national scale in forums and venues, and will be featured on USDairy.com/Sustainability .

Deadline for applications is Nov. 15, 2012. There is no fee to enter. For more information or to nominate, go to USDairy.com/Sustainability/Awards .

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy is a forum for the dairy industry to work together pre-competitively to address barriers and opportunities to foster innovation and increase sales. The Innovation Center aligns the collective resources of the industry against common priorities to offer consumers nutritious dairy products and ingredients, and promote the health of people, communities, the planet and the industry.

The Board of Directors for the Innovation Center includes dairy industry leaders representing key producer organizations, dairy cooperatives, processors, manufacturers and brands. The Innovation Center is staffed by Dairy Management Inc. Visit USDairy.com for more information about the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.

Pew Livestock Report Biased, Say Animal Scientists

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:19:25 GMT

The Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) has analyzed the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production’s report “Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America” as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) response to the report. After a review by FASS’ Scientific Advisory Committees, FASS agrees with AVMA that there are significant flaws in the Pew report.

As an organization dedicated to sound science as the foundation of any policy recommendations, FASS is concerned that the process utilized by the Pew Commission to ensure an unbiased work product was insufficient. As pointed out by the AVMA, the process for gaining scientific expertise in the technical reports was biased and did not incorporate the findings and suggestions of a significant number of participating scientists. This represents a fundamental problem in the way the report was constructed.

In addition to procedural deficiencies, there are substantive problems with many of the recommendations in the report. For example, the Pew report recommends restricting the use of antimicrobials in food animal production to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance to medically important antibiotics. Banning the use of antibiotics before science-based studies and risk based evaluations are done to determine if there is an actual risk to human health would be detrimental to animal and human health. Additional research is needed to determine what, if any, policy changes to antibiotic use are appropriate.

In the area of animal welfare, the Pew report seems to assume that all intensive farming operations are inherently inhumane. It is possible to have good animal welfare in both small and large scale production systems and there are positive and negative trade-offs when choosing among different production systems. FASS also believes that housing type cannot be considered in isolation from other important factors that influence animal welfare, including management, feeding systems, environmental features, and animal type.

FASS encourages policy makers and other interested parties to consider both the Pew report and AVMA response when looking at policies for animal agriculture. FASS appreciates that both Pew and AVMA recognize the value of more research. It is important to maintain a continued dialogue on these issues and increase support for additional research in the area. Science must be the foundation as animal agriculture looks to the future.

The Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) was formed in 1998 by the three founding Member Societies: the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), and the Poultry Science Association (PSA). The mission of FASS is to strengthen the common interests and collective good of member societies through a unified science-based voice that supports animal agriculture, animal products, and food systems globally.

Researchers alter cow diets to help environment

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:20:06 GMT

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - In order to tell what is going on inside the digestive tract of a dairy cow, there is nothing quite like taking a look. So on a steamy August day inside the research barn at Pennsylvania State University, graduate student Chanhee Lee reached into a hole that had been surgically cut into the side of a brown-haired bovine. Out came a brownish handful of partly digested feed -- well on its way to being broken down by the rich mix of microbes inside the cow’s rumen.

“That’s one of nature’s wonders,” Alexander N. Hristov said.

Yet the by-products of the animal’s digestive system also are among nature’s problems, both in the air and in impaired water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay. Hristov, Lee, and their colleagues are experimenting with sophisticated diets to reduce harmful pollutants that emerge from, ahem, both ends of the cow.

The stakes are high. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed mandatory reductions in pollution from Pennsylvania and the five other states in the bay’s watershed, each of which is in the midst of determining where the cuts will be made.

Agriculture is a prime target. It accounts for a large share of pollution, in the forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Livestock manure is loaded with nitrogen, which is useful as fertilizer but is an environmental threat when it washes into waterways. Along with phosphorus, nitrogen fosters the growth of excess algae, eventually robbing the water of oxygen.

Some farmers have reduced this runoff pollution by planting vegetative buffers and erecting fences to keep cattle away from streams. Yet of the 250 million pounds of nitrogen that pollute the Chesapeake watershed each year, farms still account for more than 100 million pounds, according to EPA estimates - more than 40 percent of the total.

Enter the scientists.

Cows consume nitrogen in the form of protein in their feed. Some of it is used to produce milk. More than half is excreted as waste.

The Penn State scientists asked: Could they reduce the amount of protein in the diet - and thus the amount of nitrogen in the cow’s manure - without affecting milk production?

So far, the answer seems to be yes.

Hristov and his colleagues are conducting several experiments, funded by a $226,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

They have fed cows a diet that contains 14 percent protein, down from the typical 17 percent or more. They also supplemented the diet with small amounts of two amino acids, methionine and lysine, that are essential for milk production.

“We know more about feeding cows than people,” Hristov joked.

Milk production remained steady in a group of 36 cows on the special diet, although the concentration of protein in the milk decreased slightly. A larger, 120-cow study is scheduled for the fall.

Farmers have experimented with lower-protein diets before, primarily to make their livestock more efficient, said Glen A. Broderick, a dairy scientist at the USDA’s Dairy Forge Research Center in Madison, Wis.

“You can maybe formulate your diet for less money,” Broderick said.

Increasingly, diets are tweaked for environmental reasons as agriculture comes under more regulatory scrutiny, but the 14 percent protein formula at Penn State is unusually low, Broderick said.

Whether science alone can get the job done remains to be seen. Pennsylvania has 550,000 dairy cows, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and environmentalists warn that some farmers do not have enough land to accommodate the animals’ manure regardless of its nitrogen content.

“There are definitely large pockets in the state where there are way too many nutrients for the land base,” said Kim Snell-Zarcone, an agricultural and water policy analyst for the environmental group PennFuture.

Cows pollute the air as well.

Nitrogen in urine can break down to form ammonia, a gaseous pollutant that hampers air quality. And methane, a greenhouse gas that is blamed for global warming, comes out the cow’s front end - through belching.

Once again, the Penn State team is trying to address the issue through diet. One feed additive that has shown early promise might seem more at home in a good marinara sauce: oregano.

In a small group of cows that ate food seasoned with the herb, methane emissions declined by 40 percent - though Hristov cautioned that he must repeat the experiment to make sure it wasn’t a fluke.

Why oregano?

First, the scientists took samples of material from a cow’s rumen - one of its four stomachs. They extracted the material through the hole that had been surgically cut in the animal’s side; it is easily closed up again with a plastic plug, causing no apparent distress to the animal.

The scientists then took the rumen material and added 200 different plant and herbal compounds, to see which ones generated the least methane.

Oregano was among the best, so they tried feeding it to actual cows. Hristov said he had already applied for a patent on this odd dietary supplement, in case the early findings from the dairy barn hold up.

If nothing else, it lends the place a welcome hint of fragrance.

Contact staff writer Tom Avril at 215-854-2430 or tavril@phillynews.com .

Indiana Tightens Up

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:32:12 GMT

Manure regulations for medium-size farms effective July 1

Indiana livestock producers with 300 or more dairy cattle or 600 or more swine will face tightened manure regulations on July 1.

Effective on that date, herds larger than these trigger levels will be required to have 180 days of

Bonus Content

Link to Indiana Confined Feeding Operations

manure storage, up from the current 120-day limit. In addition, no manure can be spread from these operations on snow-covered or frozen ground, according to Tamilee Nennich, a Purdue Extension specialist.

In addition, Indiana will reduce the phosphorus limit from 400 parts per million (ppm) to 200 ppm. The new limit will be phased in over a seven-year period.

The main feature of the new standard is that if soils contain more than this limit, livestock producers will not be able to spread manure on those fields, Nennich says. This will likely require producers to haul manure farther when fields exceed the level.

Smaller livestock operations could also come under these regulations if they have a pollution discharge to waters of the state, says Todd Janzen, an attorney based in Indianapolis, Ind. “Every small livestock operation is only a phone call away from becoming a regulated farm,” he says.

Discharges could come from such things as cattle in streams, feedlots, manure overflow from a pen into a ditch, silage leachate escapes from bunker silos and contaminated runoff from field tile.

Smaller livestock operations that apply manure during winter should apply at 50% of the normal agronomic rate, on fields with less than 2% slope and more than 40% crop residue.

The key to all of this is to maintain complete and accurate field records of manure applications, Janzen says. Without those records, regulators are unlikely to give smaller livestock producers much leeway should a problem occur.

Regulations Hindering Digester Development in California

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:33:08 GMT

Despite the difficult hurdles it’s faced building its digester system, California dairy is praised as ‘an environmental hero.’

Source: Western United Dairymen Weekly Update

California’s Fiscalini Farms held a special event June 29 to thank the many partners who helped make its methane digester system a reality, but several speakers pulled no punches in pointing out the many regulatory hurdles facing digester development in the San Joaquin Valley.

Modesto-based Fiscalini Farms started work on its digester system more than three years ago, said owner John Fiscalini.

“I expected to be among the first to be finished, and now I’m the only one who has completed a system of this type,” Fiscalini said. “Very few people are willing to follow in my footsteps.”

The reason for the delay is clear, said Fiscalini. “Regulation, additional regulation, over regulation, and burdensome regulation,” he said. “I believe there are a few regulators who would like to regulate the regulations.”

The financial toll has been high. Originally estimated at $2 million, the project’s cost is now estimated at $4.5 million. “Economic viability with digesters is something that does not happen,” noted Fiscalini. “What we get for our power is what we pay to produce our power. There is really no return on investment.”

Sustainable Conservation, a San Francisco-based environmental group, has been an advocate for the Fiscalini system since the start. Project manager Allen Dusault echoed the concern over regulatory barriers facing this green energy project. “John is an environmental hero,” said Dusault. “John is a person who has stepped up and really done things.”

Outlining the various regulations and conflicting demands from state and federal agencies, Dusault said, “I have never seen such difficult hurdles for anyone to overcome when they are trying to do what the state is asking them to do. As an environmentalist, I have found it really shameful the way the agencies have treated you, John.”

Noting he has worked on digester issues for 10 years, Dusault said, “So far we have not been able to reduce the barriers but we’re not going to stop trying.”

Congressman Jeff Denham (R-Atwater) was on hand to lend his support to Fiscalini and praise him for his efforts to develop digester technology. “Thank you for your leadership, for being a leader who was willing to make a sacrifice and work through this bureaucracy and work through our government,” Denham said.

Referring to the recent state mandate that utilities provide 33% green energy by 2020, Denham said, “If we’re going to have 33% renewable energy, it will be ag that leads the way. You’ve got my commitment that I will try to get government out of our lives so we can succeed as an industry and promote more jobs here in California.”

Farmers Have the Greatest Stake in the Environment

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:21:16 GMT

(Farm Journal)

The Crandall brothers milk 270 cows on their fifth-generation farm.

By Brad and Mark Crandall, Battle Creek, Mich.

We have worked hard on our farm in the last 10 years to achieve our goal of being very environmentally responsible.

Our biggest challenge has been working with a combination of old and new facilities. We have built and updated all animal housing to modern cow comfort standards, but we still milk in a parlor built in 1957. We properly manage all wastewater and runoff, but it’s not as efficient as we would like it to be. We also recycle all milk cooling water but have to pump it from the old parlor to a newer freestall barn.

Our main goal in the next five years is to build a new milking center, and tie all of our manure and wastewater handling systems together.

In regard to air quality, our primary concern is odor mitigation. Our 270-cow farm is located just five miles from the city of Battle Creek, and only one mile from a densely populated private lake. We strive to be both a beautiful part of the local landscape and to never be noticed for our odors. To achieve this, we incorporate manure as soon as possible, avoid spreading completely near densely populated areas unless conditions are optimal, and try to avoid storing excess manure on farm in the summer months.

Aside from odor, we disagree with the notion that most dairy farms have any negative impact on air quality. We would argue that the open spaces we provide and the crops we grow improve the local air quality. We also consider the idea that carbon dioxide is hazardous to be ridiculous.

Our greatest asset is our natural resources. As farmers, we have the greatest stake in being the best environmentalists.

Farmer-Government Program Improves California Air Quality

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:21:20 GMT

Source: NRCS news release

Results tabulated from the first two years of a new voluntary air-quality program show farmers are making significant improvements in reducing nitrous oxide emissions, which are precursors of ozone.

Ed Burton, State Conservationist for the California division of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), made the Oct. 25 announcement at the Souza Dairy Farm near Fresno, where he also committed $24 million to the program for 2011.

The program splits with farmers the cost of replacing the oldest and most polluting combustion engines on the farm, with new technology that runs 75% cleaner. Using this program California farmers have replaced engines on 814 old tractors and other farm equipment in the past two years and reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 1,349 tons.

“To put this in perspective, these emission reductions are roughly equivalent to removing 408,000 cars from California highways,” said Burton. “Think about it. That many cars would stretch from Washington State to Mexico.”

Farmers interested in participating in NRCS programs have from now until Nov. 13, 2010 to sign up at their local NRCS office to be considered for the first funding round of fiscal year 2011.

“California’s farmers have responded enthusiastically to our efforts to improve air quality,” added Burton. “We look forward to seeing what they can achieve in 2011.”

The new program, part of the 2008 Farm Bill, was first rolled out in 2009. The primary goal is to help farmers and ranchers achieve air-quality conditions set by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Producers in the 36 California counties that are currently not in compliance with one or more of these standards were eligible for the new program. The program can operate for two more years under current authorizations.

While the new program in California specifically targets nitrous oxide emissions from combustion engines, NRCS and farmers collaborate on air quality work on nine conservation practices to further air quality goals for PM10, PM 2.5, ozone, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). These include practices such as the engine replacement program, conservation tillage, treating farm roads to reduce dust, using machinery that reduces VOCs in orchards and more.

In the past two years, NRCS has received more than 5,000 applications for the diesel emissions reduction program, funding 814 of these at a cost of $43.4 million. Additionally, NRCS has joined into 420 contracts for other types of air-quality conservation work, at a cost of $6.4 million. Farmers typically contribute 50 percent. In 2009 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District provided $3 million to increase the cost share rate for some of the farmers in their district.

Burton credited the effective partnership that has supported the policy, technical and educational work necessary to achieve the air quality benefits. “Conservation, farming and environmental groups all got behind the effort to help put California agriculture on the leading edge of conducting business in a cleaner, greener way that protects the air and complies with local and state regulations,” concluded Burton.

The partnership includes the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the Environmental Defense Fund, California Farm Bureau Federation, Nisei Farmers League, Western United Dairymen, California Cotton Growers and Ginners, Resource Conservation Districts, California Citrus Mutual, California Grape and Tree Fruit League, California Dairy Campaign, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and the USDA’s Farm Service Agency.

Several partners joined with NRCS in 2009 to host 15 workshops throughout the Central Valley to alert and educate producers about air quality and the opportunities available through the Farm Bill program.

New Air Quality Regulation: A Milestone for California Dairies

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:21:29 GMT

As new Rule 4570 is adopted, dairy families credited for efforts to improve air quality

Source: Dairy Cares

Just a few years ago, air quality officials viewed the dairy industry with skepticism. They saw dairies as a large part of the San Joaquin Valley’s air quality problem, and sometimes portrayed dairies as unwilling to do their part to improve air quality.

Thankfully, times have changed. This month marked another major step forward in an improved working relationship between Valley dairy families and air quality officials. On October 21, the air district adopted a revised version of its air quality regulations for dairies, known as Rule 4570. The new version of this rule for valley livestock operations, including dairies, will further reduce emissions in a practical, cost-effective manner.

As the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Governing Board adopted the new rule, its members repeatedly recognized and credited the dairy industry and individual dairy operators for their work to improve air quality in the valley over the past several years. Board members thanked dairy industry organizations for investments in research needed to keep the rule practical and cost-effective. Several Board members reported that they had visited dairies and personally witnessed the efforts of dairy families to reduce air emissions.

Air district managers also recognized that as a whole, dairies are responsible for just 1 percent of the valley’s ozone problem. Though this is a comparatively small share, they noted that many businesses, some with even smaller shares of the emissions, have been regulated over the years. They reported that these small reductions have added up, resulting in a nearly 60 percent reduction in valley pollution since 1980.

The new Rule 4570 is based on management practices developed by the air district from the latest emissions research, with input from dairy organizations, University of California scientists, and other stakeholders. Dairy Cares coalition members made every effort throughout the process to ensure that the adopted rule is manageable for dairy families.

The original Rule 4570, adopted in 2006, has been widely viewed as a success story. Not only did the rule reduce emissions from dairies by more than 25 percent, it included practices that dairies were able to adopt and make part of their daily routine, without incurring unreasonable costs or operational disruptions. While the new Rule 4570 has some important differences, it is hoped that it, too, will be a success story, with minimal disruption to daily operations, and manageable costs.

How Rule 4570 differs from the earlier version

The new rule covers dairies with 500 or more milking cows, while the earlier version applied only to dairies with more than 1,000 cows. Another important difference is that while the older version of the rule focused on reducing emissions only from cows and manure, the new rule puts more emphasis on silage emissions. That’s because the latest research shows that feed is a more important source of smog-forming emissions than manure or cows. So the new rule includes more practices related to reducing emissions from silage.

As before, dairy producers will also have time and help as they work to understand and implement the new rules. Permit applications for the new rule aren’t due until April 2011. The California Dairy Quality Assurance Program will provide free informational workshops across the San Joaquin Valley in early 2011, to ensure that dairies receive the information and assistance they need to remain up-to-date on air quality compliance. Once applications are filed and permits are issued, dairies will have a year to come into full compliance with the rule.

While any new regulation poses costs and burdens, Rule 4570 can truly be viewed as a milestone for the dairy industry and air quality officials. Dairy families and air quality officials have partnered to ensure that valley air quality continues to improve and that the economic sustainability of dairies is protected. By giving well-deserved credit to dairy families for their efforts so far, the air district is helping to ensure that this productive partnership continues for years to come.

Dairy Cares is a statewide coalition supporting economic and environmental sustainability and responsible animal care. Our members include the Alliance of Western Milk Producers, Bank of the West, Bar 20 Dairy Farms, California Dairies Inc., California Dairy Campaign, California Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America-Western Area Council, Dairy Institute of California, Hilmar Cheese Co., HP Hood, Joseph Gallo Farms, Land O’Lakes, Milk Producers Council, Ruan Transport Corp., Western United Dairymen, and others. For information, visit the Dairy Cares web site or call 916-441-3318.

Washington State Awards to Projects to Improve Dairy Manure Management

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:40:36 GMT

Department of Agriculture provides $35,000 to help dairies manage manure, protect water.

Source: Washington State Department of Agriculture

OLYMPIA — The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has awarded grants to two projects that aim to improve manure management on dairies in two very different ways.

The grants were awarded by WSDA’s Dairy Nutrient Management Program , a water quality program that enforces the state’s Dairy Nutrient Management Act, designed to protect all of the state’s water from nutrients in the manure. The grants include:

• $20,000 to the Whatcom County Conservation District to evaluate waste storage ponds and seepage rates at dairies. Many manure lagoons in use today were built before current standards were set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. This project will evaluate older ponds and include a seepage test to see how much of the nutrients from the manure are actually leaching into the ground beneath the ponds and, potentially, into groundwater.

• $15,000 to the Washington State University’s AgWeatherNet , a network of automated weather stations operated by WSU. Applying manure to frozen ground can increase chances of manure running off the field and into nearby bodies of water. This project will gauge temperature from the top two inches of soil in the Yakima Valley through a network of probes. Farmers can get near real-time soil temperatures through a web interface or by subscribing to a soil temperature alert system to help them time their manure applications.

The grants were funded through the civil penalties WSDA issued to dairies that have violated the Dairy Nutrient Management Act. In all, six grant proposals were received. Visit here for more details on the projects that were funded.

Minnesota Study Finds Inconsistency Among Dairy Environmental Regulators

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:40:59 GMT

Source: Minnesota Milk Producers Association

The Minnesota Milk Producers Association commissioned a report on Environmental Regulations to gain a better understanding of the experiences and perspectives dairy farmers have toward environmental regulations in Minnesota. Findings from this report will be utilized by Minnesota Milk as they prepare comments on Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) newly released amendments to state rules regulating animal feedlots.

“This report confirms that there’s inconsistency from regulators leading to an environment of uncertainty amongst dairy farmers,” stated Pat Lunemann, President of Minnesota Milk and dairy farmer from Clarissa, MN. “MPCA has an opportunity to make the implementation and facilitation of the new rules logical and consistent by working with dairy farmers to understand our operations and how we are good stewards of the land.”

In addition to providing comments to MPCA on their rule revisions, Minnesota Milk will also look at working with MPCA to implement some of the action items that stemmed from this report, including implementation of a training program specifically for agency staff members with whom dairy farmers interact, expanding basic and dairy-specific agricultural educational outreach to legislators and other rule makers, and create an emergency response tool kit for dairy farmers.

The report was facilitated and developed by Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center (MAWRC). The entire report, “Environmental Regulations: A Review of Milk Producer Experiences and Perspectives in Minnesota” can be viewed at www.mnmilk.org .

ABOUT THE MINNESOTA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Minnesota Milk Producers Association works to “Advance the Success of Minnesota Dairy Producers.” They are a grassroots organization for the industry with a democratically elected board of dairy farmer directors. For more information, visit www.mnmilk.org .