AWARE NEWS

June 2001,volume 6, number 1

http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/aware/

Editor: Dr. L.M. Risse                                   Assistant: T.M. Bass

In this issue:

·    Greetings from the Editor                                                                                               1

·     Update on GA’s Animal Feeding Regulations                                                                  2

·     Nutrient Management Plan Update                                                                                 2

·     Operator Trainings                                                                                                        3

                  Layer Operator Training

                  Dairy (and other species) Operator Training

                  Swine Continuing Education Units

·     Voluntary Poultry CNMP Trainings and Poultry Litter Testing Huge Success                   4

·     Extended Public Comment Period on Large Animal Feeding Operations Still Open            4

·     Georgia Tech Report on Litter Usage Options                                                                 5

·     Third Party Enterprises Needed for Best Success of Value-Added Litter Utilization          5

·     GA Citizen’s Attitudes Towards Animal Agriculture and Environmental Issues                 5 

·     Needs Assessment and Profile of the Georgia Pork Industry                                            6

·     Fines and Prosecutions for Non-Compliance are Real                                                      6

·     APWMC 2001-2002 Request for Proposals                                                                    7

·     Calendar                                                                                                                       8

Greetings from the Editor

Greetings and welcome to the first AWARE news of 2001.  Hopefully, this year you will get more than one issue.  I would like to apologize for not getting more information out last year.  It was a busy year in the area of manure management and it seems I spent too much time working on the issues and not enough on communication and education.  To resolve this problem, I’ve done what any good administrator would; hired someone else to help me.  We would like to introduce and welcome Tommy Bass as our newest educational program specialist in the area of animal waste.  Tommy graduated from the University of Georgia in 1997 with a degree in Animal Science and went to Montana State University to get a Masters degree in Agricultural and Extension Education and to work with their pollution prevention program.  As luck would have it, we were able to hire him this month through funding from the Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division(P2AD) and an USDA Initiative for future Agriculture and Food Systems grant.  Tommy will be helping us with livestock operator training and certification programs, nutrient management planning, and developing and testing environmental management systems for the poultry industry.  Most importantly, he is going to help me get this newsletter out in a more timely manner.

Update on GA’s Animal Feeding Regulations

            In 1999, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources proposed new regulations for the swine industry.  These rules were finalized in April of 2000.  Then in January of 2001, new rules and regulations were proposed for non-swine animal feeding operations (AFO’s).  These regulations only apply to operations with liquid manure handling systems.   Both the swine and non-swine regulations are amendments to Georgia’s Rules for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6.

            Operations are regulated according to the number of “animal units” they maintain.  An animal unit (A.U.) is the method that EPA uses to standardize the regulations across animal species.  Different regulations apply for AFOs with 300 A.U. or less, 301 - 1,000 A.U., 1,001 - 3,000 A.U. and more than 3,000 A.U.  Table 1 gives the number of animals of different species in these categories.

There are several things common to the swine and non-swine regulations.  Both regulations focus on the operations developing and following a comprehensive nutrient management plan (CNMP) and having a Certified Operator.  Smaller operations (301 to 1,000 A.U.) have to apply for a Land Application System Permit (LAS) and larger operations have to obtain the more detailed NPDES permit.  Both these permits must be obtained from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.  A copy of the complete regulations can be obtained from the AWARE website under the policy and regulations link.  Registration forms and NPDES permit forms are available from EPD.  The NPDES forms (Form 1 and Form 2B) are also available from the USEPA website - http://www.epa.gov/owm/npdes.htm#forms.  We have also completed an extension bulletin that summarizes the regulations that will be linked to the AWARE page shortly.   We have also heard that the Department of Natural Resources may combine the swine and non-swine regulations but that will not be considered until later in the summer.

            The new regulations require changes in the way AFOs do business and have some rapidly approaching deadlines.  Swine operations must have certified operators, CNMP’s and permits submitted by October 31, 2001 while the other operations have an additional year.  Producers need to begin planning to meet these requirements now.  While these regulations may appear complex, they are designed to protect both the farmer and the environment.  Compliance with these regulations will provide the farmer documentation that they are making a reasonable effort to operate their farm in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

Nutrient Management Plan Update

            Comprehensive nutrient management plans are the keystone to these regulations.  A CNMP is a strategy to make wise use of the nutrients on the farm while protecting water quality.  In Georgia, a CNMP must contain the following information:

·     a scaled map of the farm showing information such as property lines, land use, field boundaries, surface water, well locations, and buffers   (see the Extension publication - Maps for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans for details)

·     nutrients produced from either site specific data or book values

·     nitrogen available for land application on an annual basis

·     details about the land application system such as the system type, frequency of irrigation, crops, and Best Management Practices used

            (continued on next page)

(continued...)

·     nutrient balance (the amount of nutrients generated on the farm versus the amount of nutrients that can be used by crops on the farm)

·     a mortality management plan for typical annual mortalities and catastrophic mortalities

·     a list of the records kept on the farm

·     an emergency response plan

·     a closure plan

            CNMPs must be developed by Certified Planners.  The Georgia Department of Agriculture will certify planners and maintain a list of certified individuals.  The certified planners will include NRCS personnel, county agents, certified crop advisors, and other professionals who have attended the CNMP training and demonstrated they can develop an acceptable CNMP.  Currently, there are no certified individuals in Georgia. Guidelines and policies for certification are being developed and should be finalized soon.  Many county agents and some consultants have been through a State approved training program and will be certified when the policies are finalized.  Future certification trainings will be offered.  Watch your AWARE newsletter for more information.

            Depending on the size of your operation, these plans can be complex and will require considerable time and information to develop.  You should begin collecting this information as soon as possible. There are resources to help you develop your plan.  You can obtain assistance from your county extension agent, NRCS personnel, and from various consultants.  There are also various extension publications that can help.  Many of these publications and other tools are available on the AWARE website.

Operator Trainings             In addition to permitting and CNMP’s, all animal feeding operations with more than 300 AU will also be required to have a certified operator.  Last year, approximately 70 swine operators were certified.  The rules for obtaining this certification are available from the Department of Agriculture or at the AWARE website.  Essentially, it requires a two day training program, a test, and then regular continuing education.  To assist you with meeting these requirements, the follow training sessions are planned: Layer Operator Training: Two training sessions are planned for July 17th, 2001 at Gainesville College and July 20th, 2001 at the Pierce County Extension Office in Blackshear.  These special training sessions are only open to poultry producers that have previously completed the “Voluntary Nutrient Management Plans for Poultry Producers Training”.  For additional information or to register, contact Dr. Dan Cunningham at 706-542-1325 or dcungham@arches.uga.edu. Dairy (and other species) Operator Training: This workshop will be held August 21st and 22nd, 2001 at the Rural Development Center in Tifton, Georgia.  While the training is being sponsored by the Georgia Milk Producers, it will be open to any producer needing to be certified.  If enough individuals from other sectors register, species specific break-out sessions will be provided.  Registration details were not available at the time of this printing so watch the AWARE website for future updates or contact John Worley at 706-542-9065 or jworley@engr.uga.edu. There will be several other opportunities to obtain certification before the October 31, 2002 deadline.  An additional training session is being planned for January or February in Eatonton, Georgia.  More sessions may be offered in 2002 if a need is demonstrated.  Watch the AWARE news or contact your livestock association for more details.  For each of these training sessions, we are doing everything possible to minimize the costs to the producer.  However, developing the notebooks, securing a facility, and providing refreshments does take time and money so registration fees may be required.  Swine Continuing Education Units: Once certified, the rules require that operators obtain four hours of continuing education every two years.  Georgia Swine Producers have a chance to earn four hours continuing education credits by attending the Georgia Pork Producers Annual Pork Congress at Veterans State Park, Lake Blackshear on July 19th.  Contact Roger Bernard (912-477-8200 or 800-537-5988) of the Georgia Pork Producers for more information.

Voluntary Poultry CNMP Trainings and Poultry Litter Testing Huge Success

            Dry litter poultry operations were exempted from the new regulations passed in Georgia last year.  This is partly due to the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate these operations in their CAFO permits but also due to the tremendous voluntary efforts they have made. Less than two years ago Georgia started a voluntary training program to certify poultry producers in creating their own Certified Nutrient Management Programs (CNMP).  Henry Marks, head of the poultry science department of the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences says, “The statewide program ensures growers have the know-how to handle litter (a combination of wood shavings and chicken droppings) in a way that protects and enhances the environment.”  This litter can be a valuable resource to fertilize crops or pasture when properly applied.  This program was originally profiled in August of 2000, by Judy Purdy and can be found at: http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/aware/.  It was also recognized with a Governor’s Pollution Prevention Award last year.  As of this spring, Poultry Extension Unit is pleased to announce that over 98% of the states broiler and breeder producers have been trained.  The number is likely higher based on individual training and advising going on at the county level. 

The second component to this endeavor is the free litter testing performed by the Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratory.  Thanks to an appropriation by Gov. Roy Barnes and the Georgia General Assembly, 3000 samples have been tested in the 13 months since its inception.  This is an increase from the usual figure of less than 200 samples annually. 

Extended Public Comment Period on Large Animal Feeding Operations Still Open

The U.S. EPA proposed new water pollution permitting controls in January that would apply to large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and could require Georgia to modify its recently released regulations. Throughout March, EPA held eight public meetings across the country to provide additional information and encourage public comment on the proposal.  Recently, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman extended the public comment period for 75 additional days beyond the original deadline. The 75-day extended comment period will allow public comments through July 30th.

            These new regulations could have substantial impact on agriculture in Georgia.  The complete proposal is around 300 pages but the EPA has factsheets and guidance documents to aid in the interpretation of these rules. The following changes just a couple of examples of things being considered:

·     Using a two tiered or three tiered system that will drop the current definition of a CAFO from 1,000 AU to either 500 or 300 AU,

·     Including new animal types such as dry litter poultry operations, dairy heifers, and nursery operations in the permitting and calculation of animal units,

·     Eliminating the provision that allows for a discharge in a 25 year, 24 hour storm,

·     Including all land application areas in the defined CAFO and requiring more detailed documentation when manure is transported off site,

·     Requiring co-permitting where as integrator has “substantial operating control” over a grower,

·     Increasing the public access to information such as nutrient management plans on permitted operations,

·     Requiring all permitted operations to document that they are not contaminating ground water (ie. Monitoring),

·     Requiring buffers to surface water (100 ft.) and limited access of confined animals to surface water

The EPA has estimated that the cost of compliance for CAFO operators in the U.S. will be around $900 million and several land grant Universities have challenged this number saying it will be much higher.  In Georgia alone, the number of permitted operations could increase from less than 100 to as many as 5,000.

Why should you comment?  Because they want your input and it could make a difference. We know that public interest groups will be commenting and some have indicated that they feel the EPA is not going far enough.  In many places, there is a substantial lack of information and understanding of agricultural systems in these rules.  The EPA needs better information and the agricultural community is in the position to supply it.  The AWARE website has a link to many documents that explain the proposal in detail and provide all the information necessary for making your concerns known.  Remember, a useful comment now will have a lot more impact than a complaint later.

Georgia Tech Report on Litter Usage Options

            John Pierson and Craig Wyvil of the Georgia Tech Research Institute recently completed a report entitled “An Evaluation of the Potential for Excess Manure Nutrients from Poultry Litter in Georgia and A Review of Alternative Litter Usage Options.”  Surprisingly (I just can’t compliment Tech in public without some barb) the report provides a very comprehensive and useful review of poultry litter utilization options in Georgia.  It estimates that 1,529,712 tons of broiler litter were generated in 1999 and discusses current utilization as well as training programs and matching services.  It then focuses on providing solutions to areas where excess litter (countys with more nutrient supply than demand) by documenting the respective strengths, weaknesses and economics of eight different utilization schemes.  Some of these include power generating ventures such as those commercially available through Fibrowatt, Nexant, Ferco, and CHx Engineering, Fertilizer Production Ventures such as Duke/Harmony and AgriRecycle and other processes such as a fuel oil option from EnerTech Environmental and a process for making building blocks from Babb International.  The report concludes that the technical aspects of these options are generally well known, however, the economics in Georgia for transporting and converting litter remain unclear.  Some of these ventures are beginning large scale production facilities in the Mid-Atlantic that may shed insight on the economic issues.  While the report does eliminate some of the options from further consideration, the lack of economic data prevents a more detailed evaluation.

            Inquiries concerning this report should be addressed to: The Agricultural Technology Research Program, GTRI/EOEML/FPTD, IPST Engineering Center, Atlanta, GA 30332-0823

Third Party Enterprises Needed for Best Success of Value-Added Litter Utilization 

The Foundation for Organic Resource Management (FORM) has released a report title, “Off-Farm Litter Management and Third Party Enterprises.”  This report outlines strategies for processing litter into value-added products for sale into commercial markets.  The report authors, H.L. Goodwin (U of Arkansas), Janie Hipp (Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture), and Jim Wimberly of FORM describe a situation where a for profit or non-profit, depending on economic conditions, entity would form a “litter-bank” and act as a litter wholesaler to companies wishing to utilize the litter for further processing.

            Transferring ownership of the litter removes the producer from liabilities to the third party.  As it stands, environmental liabilities lie on the shoulders of contract producers, while corporations own the birds.  Approximately 95 percent of production is actually done by small independent farmers in contract with one of the major poultry corporations.  The authors outline why it is so difficult for producers to deal with manure management, the government and the public.  Regulations, odors and water pollution are some of the issues to be dealt with.

            Third parties are needed to focus on litter utilization for such products as commercial compost.  These entities would dedicate themselves to creating products, exploring markets and considering new systems and technologies.  For more information please contact: Dr. H.L. Goodwin, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayettville, AR 72701, (501) 575-2182.  The report should be published at www.organix.org in the near future.

GA Citizen’s Attitudes Towards Animal Agriculture and Agricultural Environmental Issues

            In light of food quality and environmental concerns expressed by State policy makers, The Center For Agribusiness and Economic Development felt it would be helpful to explore just how the typical Georgia resident views Animal Agriculture and Animal products. Thus they conducted a population survey on attitudes towards animal agriculture and agricultural environmental issues in January and February. The complete survey summary can be found at our web site under publications: www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/.
            A brief review of the responses reveals the survey population, while concerned about issues in animal agriculture, have no substantial objections to the presence of animal agriculture in Georgia. The majority of respondents felt animal agriculture was important to their county of residence and was an appropriate use of land. One of the most revealing questions of the survey shows that over 300 of the 395 respondents are willing to support MORE animal agriculture in their county. The survey also indicates that Georgians are satisfied with the competence of their policy makers and feel future policy should focus on assisting small farms. Georgians further feel that zoning and environmental regulations do have a role in protecting the general public and that tougher environmental regulations may be

(continued on next page)

(continued...)

justified around animal operations. Respondents indicated a willingness to pay slightly higher prices in order to protect water quality, although they believe both contract operators and farmers should pay for any necessary environmental clean-up efforts. Odor from animal operations was not found to be a significant nuisance in the state. When asked about the role of corporate versus family farms, the survey group tended to contradict themselves, agreeing that corporate farming should be allowed in Georgia but indicating a belief that family farms were negatively affected by corporate farms. Earlier in the survey, the survey population agreed that helping family farms was an important policy issue. Ethics in the production of animals for consumption were not a major concern with the sample. Finally, the sample population indicated food safety was not an overwhelming concern.

(Supplied by John McKissick, Professor and Extension Economist, Extension Program Coordinator-Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development 201 Conner Hall University of Georgia, Athens GA. 30602 Phone: 706-542-1861 Fax: 706-542-4131.)

Needs Assessment and Profile of the Georgia Pork Industry

A survey of Georgia pork producers was conducted last summer at a waste management training in Cordele.  The survey was brief, yet broad based, and was  intended to get a profile of hog production in Georgia and to determine how Extension programs could better meet the needs of swine producers.  Slightly more than 50% of the producers in Georgia were on hand to complete the survey.

            Topics covered included Producer Profile, Marketing, Programming, Information Transfer and Producer Outlook.  Fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondents indicated innovative waste management programs as their first or second choice in types of trainings or programs they wished to receive.  Marketing assistance and on-farm consulting were also high ranking in the category of desired programs.  Also related to waste management, mortality management received a write in mention as a desired training.  Once again waste management ranked highest when producers were asked, “information on what topics could help your business most”.  Marketing information was ranked second, followed by nutritional information and reproductive information.

            When asked about where they received their information certain trends were very evident.  For topics such as feeding programs, herd health, genetic information and reproductive information 50% of producers indicated that they use a consultant as their primary source of information.  Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents ranked Extension as their primary source of information on marketing, 38% genetic information, 32% buildings information, 30% regulatory information, 28% feeding, 26% herd health, 26% reproductive information and 23% waste management.  As far as preferred methods of delivery, land mail ranked higher than electronic formats.  Popular press and Extension publications ranked highest as material most likely to be read, over newsletters, scientific articles, company literature and web material.

(Adapted from report by Tim Schell, Extension Swine Specialist.)

Fines and Prosecutions for Non-Compliance are Real

            The following are some headlines from the past year of farmers and food processors cited for regulatory violation.  Let’s make sure the producers we work with or ourselves don’t become the next statistic.

Mississippi Poultry Executive Indicted

Former corporate officer indicted on 55 counts of negligently violated the Clean Water Act.  The violations occurred at a Mississippi rendering plant were failure to correct known problems led to numerous discharges of improperly treated waste water into a local creek.

Second Mississippi Plant Sentenced

After his company was fined $14 million, the CEO was personally fined $300,000 and ordered to serve 4 months home confinement, 3 years probation, and 200 hours of community service after Clean water Act violations related to waste water discharges at his animal rendering plant.

(Fines and Prosecutions continued...)

Rancher Charged with Clean Water Violations Related to Wetlands Destruction-

A Phillipsburg, Montana rancher was responsible for the discharge of pollutants into a local creek as well as for the destruction of wetlands along the same creek.  The rancher directed construction activities at the wetlands and discharged fill materials into wetlands without a permit.

Dairy Fined $48,000 for Manure Overflow

A California dairy was investigated after ongoing overflows from lagoons were discovered.  The overflows were released into a flood channel, which drained into a tributary in the Santa Ana Watershed. 

APWMC 2001-2002 Request for Proposals

            The ANIMAL AND POULTRY WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTER (APWMC) is a center composed of approximately 18 Universities and several industries.  The University of Georgia has been a member since 1999.  They have recently released their  2001 - 2002 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP). The objective of the RFP is to solicit proposals for research, development and demonstration initiatives that address needs in animal waste management including, but not limited to, the following priority areas (not prioritized):

·     Unit or system approaches that effectively (technically, economically, and socially) manage or treat livestock and / or poultry manures (specific emphasis on the environmental variables: N form andtransport, P and other metals, pathogens, odor and dust emissions).

·     Unit or system approaches that effectively (technically, economically, and socially) manage or treat livestock and / or poultry mortalities (specific emphasis on methods of  recycling and pathogen control).

·     Nutritional approaches that effectively (technically, economically, and socially) reduce nutrients (including metals), and odors in livestock and / or poultry excreta.

·     Development of value-added products from livestock and /or poultry manures (or  mortalities) that are socially acceptable and have market potential.

The PROPOSAL DEADLINE is 5 PM September 1, 2001.  All proposals must come from member institutions so the competition for these funds is not national in scope.  Usually, 30 to 50% of the projects submitted are funded (At least from the last two years).  The University of Georgia has had two projects funded (Poulty Litter for Erosion Control, Risse, 2000 and P index work in Georgia, Radcliffe, 1999).  I encourage all interested agents, specialists and researchers at the University of Georgia to apply.  The complete RFP will be posted on the AWARE website soon.

Take a look at:  http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/aware/

Editor:  Dr. Mark Risse

Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Driftmier Engineering Center, University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-4435, (706) 542-9067   (706) 542-8806 (fax), mrisse@engr.uga.edu

Assistant:  Thomas M. Bass

Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Driftmier Engineering Center, University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-4435  (706) 542-2735, tmbass@engr.uga.edu

To get on the mailing list to recieve copies of the AWARE news, please contact Cathy Felton at (706) 542-3086 or feltonc@engr.uga.edu.  Out of state subscribers will be requested to make a one time donation of $25 to cover the costs of postage and handling.  This issue and all back issues are also available on our web page.

cc:        Dr. Gale Buchanan

            Dr. William Lambert

            CAES Department and District Heads

The University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension Service

College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

The University of Georgia and Ft. Valley State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating.

The Cooperative Extension Service offers educational programs, assistance and other materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin,

age, sex or disability.  An Equal opportunity/affirmative action organization committed to a diverse workforce.