Agriculture and Nitrogen Deposition in RMNP

Jon Slutsky

La Luna Dairy

Wellington, Colorado

Personal Information

Livestock producer, dairy farmer

Origins

Member of Larimer County AAB since 2001

Board of Directors of WACC since 2005

Member of WQCC

Member of CLA

Member of RMNP Ag Subcommittee

Summary

Ag contributions to Nitrogen Deposition in The Park

Buy- in in the industry

Why producers should care about ND and actively try to reduce NH3 emissions

What Ag has done so far

Ammonia Inventory (2002) Ag contribution to ND in The Park

Ammonia emissions from farms

Dairies and feedlots.

Other sources of ammonia

Ammonia Inventory Ag-the low hanging fruit

Urban sources of NH3 (and NOx)

Population is growing, especially along FR

Urban emissions will increase with population

Industry and Local Government

Power plants (NOx)

Wastewater treatment plants (NH3)

Sludge deposited in eastern plains (NH3)

2002 Colorado Ammonia Inventory

Producer Hesitation Not all producers on board, believers

Can’t see NH3. Most know it is there (duh!) but some feel it is insignificant.

Farmers not prone to go along with regs that impact their lives or bottom line.

Certain amount of anti-government feeling the result of

Low margins

Large risk

Cheap food policy

Feeling that consumers and government take us for granted (don’t know or care where food comes from).

Already heavily burdened with regs and reporting.

Agriculturists’ Concerns

Producers must be convinced of their role before they will make changes.

Just now getting on board with water quality regs. Have had a large financial impact on ag

Some water quality regs can have cross media impacts on air, especially ammonia emissions.

Why Should Producers Care About and Reduce NH3 Emissions?

The right thing to do. Most have a link to the land and environment

Historically have been stewards of land and water (need to add air)

Respect wildlife and nature

Want to (and now have to) produce our product responsibly. Consumer demands.

Enjoy “country living”; clean air and water, wildlife

Outdoor Sports, hunting and fishing

Reducing emissions is good for the bottom line

BMPs are mostly cost effective Nitrogen is expensive Fertilizer costs

• Cost of N and all fertilizers increasing • Costly to apply(fuel)• Want it available for crop utilization

• Timely incorporation or• Loss to atmosphere

Feed costs• Cost of Protein• Loss in Urine (wasted $$)

Higher BUN impacts reproductive performance Excessive N in soils can reduce yields.

Implementation is now voluntarily could forestall mandatory BMPs and regs

What Has Ag Done So Far? Already some of us are using BMPs that will be

recommended. Manure and lot maintenance

Using good nutrition (not overfeeding N)

Monitoring MUNs (dairy) using nutritionist

Monitoring rate of gain using nutritionist

Soil sampling and agronomic rate of application

Incorporation of fertilizer within 24 hours

What has Ag done? Supported Research

Helping produce a good data base and educational tools. CSU Ammonia BMP Study

Website

Video (You tube)

Other University Studies Producer support and cooperation

CSU, CLA and Industry partners helped with matching funds to produce National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool with a CIG grant from NRCS.

Education “Ag Air Quality Symposium” (2010 & 2012)

Two days in two locations.

Speakers from Ag, CSU, EPA, RMNP.

Producers and industry reps attended.

Public outreach- fertilizer usage. Partner with Environmental Defense Fund, CDPHE

Brochure on RMNP and Nitrogen Deposition