Region 2 Location Map

research, education and extension
Animal Waste Management for Small Farms
blue line dividing header from body of page

Regional Program Priority
Issue Areas


Animal Waste Management

Drinking Water and Human Health

Nutrient Management

Watershed Management

Regional Initiatives

Animal Waste Management for Small Farms

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management

Water Quality Trading

Watershed Management

Water Reuse

Success Stories

Regional
Advisory Committee

Programs by State/
Commonwealth/
Territory


Annual Meetings

Home

Previous Page

The following is a brief summary of the water quality issues, work to date, and capabilities associated with Animal Waste Management for Small Farms:

Small farms are a major constituent of agriculture within Region 2, and small animal farms may be a significant source of water pollution. These operations are generally unregulated and need additional assistance services to help them manage water quality impacts. According to Ag Census (1997) statistics, over 40,000 farms in Region 2 average under $50,000 in annual income from agriculture products sold. The USDA currently defines a small farm as one with less than $250,000 in gross receipts annually. There are a total of 60,000 farms in Region 2 that fall within this definition. The region’s cattle farms (with the exception of the Virgin Islands) average 77 cows, swine farms average 57 pigs, and poultry farms average 3,260 chickens (all types). A recent survey taken of New Jersey horse farms found over 7,000 horse farms in the state; estimates of horse farms are not found in Ag Census statistics.

Most of these small farms do not fall under the EPA Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation regulations, and the associated comprehensive nutrient management planning requirements. Also, most of these farms do not take advantage of assistance provided through Farm Bill and related programs, either because of lack of awareness or an inability to contribute requisite matching funds for capital improvements. Many of these farms operate in suburban areas, where there is increased pressure to improve environmental management. This pressure results from nuisance concerns by new residents unfamiliar with farming operations, and from the need for farmers to reduce pollution loading to water bodies that are impaired as the result of intensive land use. States in Region 2 are aggressively moving forward in developing EPA mandated Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for many of these impaired waters (both New Jersey and New York have committed to developing hundreds of TMDLs within the next two years). TMDL implementation and evolving state and local regulations will add to the pressure on these small farms to manage their runoff.

States within Region 2 have identified agriculture as a significant source of nutrient and pathogen pollution in numerous impaired water bodies. In New York State, agriculture has been identified as a major source of impact/impairment in approximately 33% of the rivers and streams and 24% of the lakes and reservoirs included on the state’s priority water body list. And in New Jersey, the state DEP has identified agriculture as a major source of watershed impairment, especially for phosphorous and fecal coliform. While data is not available on a regional or state scale to identify the pollution contribution associated with small animal farms, given the large number of these facilities region-wide and that there is a concentration of these farms in many watersheds, it is likely that these facilities have a significant water quality impact in many areas of our region.

During the Region 2 Program 2003 annual meeting, faculty and other stakeholders met to share information on animal waste issues, describe work underway and capabilities at each institution, and plan regional collaboration. As a result of these discussions, we were able to better define the small animal farm population in the region, and identify attributes present in this population throughout the region (including limited resources, with some significant exceptions for horse farms, and relative isolation regarding access to information generally and as related to environmental management). The discussions also yielded an understanding of the complementary capabilities of our four institutions, information gaps related to the location and water quality impacts of small farms in the region, and the need to adapt assessment tools and management practices to meet the needs and capabilities of these farms. From this and other stakeholder discussions, the animal waste team identified the following regional animal waste management needs that can be effectively addressed through regional collaboration:

1. Identify small animal farmers on a watershed scale;
2. Adapt self-assessment tools small farmers can use to determine waste management needs;
3. Promote manure manage programs to horse farmers;
4. Promote composting as an appropriate technology for use by small farmers;
5. Tailor diet management methods for use on small farms to reduce nonpoint source pollution;
6. Initiate a regional on-farm biogas project, building on UPR and Cornell experience.

Each of the Land Grant Universities (LGUs) in the region has programs in place to assist small farms. For example, Cornell works with small farms to improve feeding regimens as a cost saving method to reduce nutrient pollution. Rutgers is testing cost effective horse manure composting techniques and the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) designs low cost manure storage facilities for limited resource farms. The Region 2 Program has also contributed to LGU efforts in animal waste management by facilitating regional discussion and by providing resources to the LGUs to advance their work in this area. At UPR, this work has included design of a model egg laying operation, including a state of the art dry litter management system. UPR has also carried out a chicken waste lagoon closure project. In New Jersey, the Region 2 Program facilitated projects to test water quality in a river adjacent to several small dairies and review feeding regimens at these facilities; and to review the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Steward Curriculum (LPES) for use in New Jersey. Input was also provided to New York State in its adaptation of LPES. These projects were all carried out to improve animal waste management and facilitate regional collaboration.

Project leads:

Michael Westendorf
Rutgers University/Cook College
Department of Animal Sciences
213E Bartlett Hall
Cook College, P.O. Box 231
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Phone: 732 932-9408
Fax: 732 932-6996
westendorf@aesop.rutgers.edu

Rafael Davila-Lopez
University of Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 21120
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00928
Phone: 787 767-8281
Fax: 787 772-9115
radavila@upr.edu

blue line dividing footer from body of page