ANIMAL NUTRITION TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE January 20,2000 A Conference Developed by the Agricultural Nutrient Reduction Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Nutrient Subcommittee This document is a summary of the Animal Nutrition Technology Exchange. Support for this conference and the development of this document were provided by The Reiily Group ------- ANIMAL NUTRITION TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE January 20, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 PROGRAM PRESENTATIONS 6 Watershed and Regional Nutrient Balance Issues - Dr. Les Lanyon, Professor of Soil Fertility, Penn State University Managing the Nutrient Content of Rations to Achieve Animal Production Goals and also Minimize Environmental Consequences - Dr. William B. Roush, Associate Professor of Poultry Science, Penn State University PANEL 1 10 "Optimizing Nutrient Levels in Feed Through Balanced Mixes While Minimizing Nutrient Outputs" Dairy - Dr. Charles Stallings, Professor/Extension Dairy Scientist, Virginia Tech * Swine - Dr. Ken Kephart, Associate Professor of Animal Science, Penn State University PROGRAM PRESENTATIONS, cont 12 Economics of Enzyme Technology and Cost/Benefits - Dr. Darrell Bosch, Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech PANEL 2 13 The Status and Progress of Implemented Feeding Strategies" Poultry - Winston Turner, Broiler Production Manager, Tyson Foods * Dairy - Dr. Rick Kohn, Associate Professor of Animal Science, University of Maryland * Swine & Poultry - Joe Garber, Nutritional and Analytical Services Coordinator, Wenger Feed, Inc. SUMMARY FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 16 Ğ Identify barriers to adoption and ways to increase adoption * What practices can work now - economically and environmentally? * Identify knowledge gaps and future research needs SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS 18 LIST OF REGISTRANTS 19 ------- INTRODUCTION During the past several years, considerable attention has been directed at the potential environmental impacts of agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A primary focus has been on the potential nutrient loadings to surface and groundwater resulting from animal agriculture sources. In this context, a wide array of alternative practices and uses have been suggested to reduce the effects of current manure management practices. There is an emerging body of science-based information on the formulation of animal rations that have the potential to cost-effectively achieve the objectives of producers and also result in potential reductions in the nutrient content of manures at the point of excrement. These reductions can be achieved in a number of ways. One example is the incorporation of enzymes into rations (required in Maryland beginning in 2001) in order to improve the ability of animals to utilize a greater proportion of the nutrients that are ingested. The Chesapeake Bay Program's Agricultural Nutrient Reduction Workgroup (AgNRWG) planned a technology exchange in the Winter of 2000 to serve as a mechanism to begin to develop a broader understanding of the latest advances in animal nutrition and the ability of these advances to provide cost-effective tools to reduce the nutrient content of animal waste at the point of excrement. The technology exchange involved individuals from each of the jurisdictions representing: state lead agencies state associations of swine, livestock, dairy and poultry producers state environmental organizations state agribusiness associations that represent processors and suppliers Agricultural Experiment Stations state Cooperative Extension state conservation agencies, and state offices of the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency The objectives of the Animal Nutrition Technology Exchange were to engage participants in discussions to: Assess the current science-based technology avaiiable to produce cost-effective animal feeds tha,t minimize the nutrient content of animal manures at the point of excrement Assess the current level of adoption of these technologies by feed producers Identify and assess the barriers to adoption of these feed technologies by feed producers Identify and assess the barriers to adoption and utilization of nutrient reduction feeding strategies by farmers; and Identify the technology needs required to accelerate the adoption and utilization of appropriate reduction strategies in animal agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, ------- PROGRAM January 20, 2000 Moderator: Roydan Powell, Assistant Secretary Maryland Department of Agriculture. 9:00 AM - Welcome - Dr. Thomas Simpson, Chair, Chesapeake Bay Program, Nutrient Subcommittee 9:10 AM - Watershed and Regional Nutrient Balance Issues - Dr. Les Lanyon, Professor of Soil Fertility, Penn State University 9:55 AM - Managing the Nutrient Content of Rations to Achieve Animal Production Goals and also Minimize Environmental Consequences - Dr. William B. Roush, Associate Professor of Poultry Science, Penn State University 10:55 AM - Panel 1: Optimizing Nutrient Levels in Feed Through Balanced Mixes While Minimizing Nutrient Outputs" Dairy - Dr. Charles Stallings, Professor and Extension Dairy Scientist, Virginia Tech Swine - Dr. Ken Kephart, Associate Professor of Animal Science, Penn State University. Poultry - Dr. William B. Roush, Associate Professor of Poultry Science, Penn State University 12:45 PM - Economics of Enzyme Technology and Cost/Benefits - Dr. Darrell Bosch, Professor Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech 1.25 PM - Panel 2: The Status and Progress of Implemented Feeding Strategies" Poultry - Winston Turner, Broiler Production Manager, Tyson Foods Dairy - Dr. Rick Kohn, Associate Professor of Animal Science, University of Maryland Swine & Poultry - Joe Garter, Nutritional and Analytical Services Coordinator, Wenger Feed, Inc., 2:35 PM - Breakout Groups. Breakout Group discussion topics include: 1. Identify barriers to adoption and ways to Increase adoption. 2. What practices can work now - economically and environmentally? 3. Identify knowledge gaps and future research needs. 3:35 PM - Report from Breakout Groups and discussion. Chaired by Royden Powell 4:00 PM - Closing Remarks and Adjournment. Royden Powell. ------- ABSTRACTS Watershed and Regional Nutrient Balance issues - Dr. Les Lanyon, Professor of Soil Fertility, Perm State University Introduction Changes in the amount of nutrients available to agriculture have made possible changes in the organization of agriculture at field, farm, watershed, and regional levels. The new patterns of organization in agriculture have resulted in new consequences from the production methods Reactions by various interest groups to these consequences are contributing to new expectations for agriculture. Because each action in agriculture has many consequences, the new expectations and the means to achieve them must be sensitive to the factors that have contributed to the specialization in agriculture and not just a react ion to a subset of the consequences. Increased Nutrient Availability Unease about the ability of agriculture to sustain itself because of nutrient scarcfty continued from the 19* century into the 20th century. As we begin the new millennium, concerns about nutrient scarcity have been replaced by concerns about the consequences of nutrient excesses. This dramatic change was based on the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere by industrial processes that were pioneered to ensure the ability of nations to fight world wars. The nitrates so commonly used in agriculture can be, under the right conditions, explosives. It was the military dependence on the explosive character of nitrates that led many nations to build nitrogen fixation plants. These plants were later converted from military to agricultural purposes. Phosphorus is currently mined from geologic deposits rather than recaptured from biological sources such as animal and human bones. We no longer scour battlefields for bones, nor rely on recapturing the nutrients in the wastes from slaughtered animals to sustain agricultural production. Changes in the Organization of Agriculture Although those who advocated for increased nutrient availability envisioned the need to offset nutrient deficiencies in crop production, changes in organization of agriculture were made possible by the continuous supply of nutrients from new sources. Because fertilizer could replace the nutrients exported from farms in harvested crops, recycling nutrients in manure from animals on tiie farm was no longer an essential tactic to sustain the productivity of farms. Fertilizer made it possible for some farms to specialize in crop production and other farms to specialize in animal production. In addition to the production advantages that are often due to specialization, the result was a new pattern of nutrient flow. Nutrients from primary sources such as the atmosphere and geologic deposits were processed into fertilizer and shipped to cash crop farms. The nutrients built soil reserves and were taken up into harvested crops that were transported to specialized animal production facilities. Although there are some nutrient balance issues related to crop production, they are mostly related to the efficiency of nutrient recovery by crop plants. Nutrient balance in animal agriculture is another issue. Animals naturally excrete a large proportion of the feed nutrients they consume as "waste." Ecologically this excretion is critical to the functioning of natural systems. So, unlike crop production in which improved efficiency can reduce the nutrients required for production, animal agriculture will always have a large part of the nutrients consumed by the animals end up in the waste because the biology of animals defines trie limits. Consequences of New Patterns of Organization The concentration of animal agriculture has contributed to the accumulation of nutrients in some areas in excess of the crop utilization potential of nearby fields. These excesses can be lost as nitrate leaching into groundwater or as phosphorus being lost in runoff from agricultural landscapes. The degradation of water resources has attracted attention in many locations and ------- stimulated calls for cleaning up the sources of pollution. At the same time, the associated economies of scale and advantages of size in agriculture have created a widely distributed and very powerful system of production. Instead of being constrained by the local crop production for feeding animals, this new system is able to access feed and other production inputs from many locations. Thus, the concentrated animal production units can be fueled with the lowest cost feeds that are available in the market These units also have power in marketing products for processing or may actually be integrated with the processing units. Local, small scale production that can not take advantage of "low-cost" inputs, nor negotiate with processors is at a disadvantage in comparison to the concentrated and integrated operations. Reacting to the Consequences of Agricultural Production Although many programs are underway to reduce the loss of excess nutrients from agriculture, these often address symptoms of the organization of agriculture as perceived by special interest groups. For instance, those interested in water quality in a particular area may not realize that the concentration of animals is based on very rational business principles and a host of factors that encourage the organizations involved. Furthermore, there may be social advantages for the farmers involved because intensive animal agriculture may be the most viable of the agricultural alternatives available to them in an intensely competitive agricultural economy. Responses by governments to those concerned about the consequences of agriculture wilt also have their own collateral consequences in addition to the intended impacts on water quality improvement. Future actions must take into account the full spectrum of consequences, not focus solely on the intended outcomes. Decision-makers must factor into their decisions the implications of their actions for the next iteration in the evolution of agriculture. They will be creating a new set of conditions and factors to which businesses and farmers will react. As the seemingly simple introduction of fertilizer to offset nutrient deficiencies in agriculture made entirely new patterns of organization possible, the new business environments they create will stimulate new relationships and organization. Reacting to the consequences of watershed and regional nutrient balances is not like fixing a broken food producing machine. It involves the setting of parameters for a dynamic, evolving system whose managers will explore the possibilities of those parameters and fashion new patterns of organization. Those in agriculture and those affected by the consequences of agriculture have stakes in the outcomes of the new patterns. It is likely to be in the best interest of all to respond with this in mind. ------- Managing the Nutrient Content of Rations to Achieve Animal Production Goals and Also Minimize Environmental Consequences - Dr. William B. Roush, Associate Professor of Poultry Science, Penn State University Feed formulation management has the potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution at the nutrient input stage. This management strategy includes: (1) the development of analytical physical and nutritional enhancements for ingredients, (2) the accurate determination of the nutritional requirements of animals, and (3) examination of alternatives to linear programming to more accurately meet requested nutrient levels. Analytical, physical and nutritional enhancement of ingredients includes the improvement of the availability and digestibility of nutrients and the determination (prediction) of nutrient levels and their variance in ingredients. Artificial neural networks have been shown to be an effective alternative to regression analysis for predicting amino acid levels in ingredients based on proximate analysis values. Treatments and additives that reduce excess concentrations of nitrogen indude supplementing the diet with commercially available amino acids and feed formulation based on digestible amino acid values and ideal amino acid profiles. Phosphorus pollution can be reduced by formulating on the basis of available phosphorus and by adding enzymes to the diet mat will release phosphorus from phytate. Also, nutrient pollution can be reduced by phase-feeding diets to match the changing nutrient needs of the animal. Multivariate experimental designs (response surface methodology) can efficiently and effectively define the requirements of animals for nitrogen and phosphorous and their interaction with other nutrients and energy factors. Computer modeling for ruminants, swine and poultry holds promise for defining nutrient requirements under varying environmental conditions. Algorithm alternatives to linear programming are being investigated for more effective formulation of rations to meet nutritional and economic goals. These computer algorithms provide a framework upon which the analytical, physical and nutritional enhancements of ingredients can be effectively balanced to reduce nutrient pollution while meeting economic goals. Stochastic programming, goal programming and genetic algorithms are being compared to linear programming (with a margin of safety). Stochastic programming involves the formulation of rations based on nutrient variability at a specified level of probability. Goal programming is an approach that allows more than one objective (e.g.. minimizing cost and nutrient variance) to be met in the formulation process. Genetic algorithm formulation of rations is based on the principles of genetic selection. The variables of the ration are evolved into an optimal solution. In summary, research is being conducted on analytical, physical, and nutritional enhancement of ingredients. Stochastic programming, goal programming and genetic algorithms, as alternatives to linear programming, are being investigated for feed formulation. These nutrient management developments promise to more accurately meet animal nutritional requirements and reduce the consequences of nutrient pollution in the environment. ------- PANEL 1 "Optimizing Nutrient Levels in Feed Through Balanced Mixes While Minimizing Nutrient Outputs" Dairy Dr. Charles Staliings, Professor and Extension Dairy Scientist Nutrition, Virginia Tech Dairy cattle nutritionists and milk producers have been pushing for higher milk production in order to remain competitive in a challenging economic environment. In the process, cattle are many times over-supplemented with nutrients, especially protein (nitrogen, N) and phosphorus (P). This excess will be excreted in the feces (N and P) and urine (primarily N). In addition, many times forms with herd sizes of less than 130 cows do not have facilities to group and feed cows by production, a practice commonly encountered in larger herds. The majority of Virginia herds are less than 130 lactating cows. Feeding only one group contributes to over supplementation because the ration is balanced to challenge higher producers but will supply excessive amounts to lower producers. A fairly typical one group ration balanced to supply 17% protein (2.72% nitrogen) and ,77 Meals net energy/lb. of dry matter would contain 20 Ibs. aifatfa silage. 50 Ibs. corn silage, 4.5 Ibs. whole cottonseeds, 1 1b. fish meat, 5.5 Ibs. soybean meal, and 12 Ibs. shelled com. At milk yields ranging from 30 to 100 lbs./cow/day the following demonstrates the degree of overfeeding. Lbs./cow/dav actf 4m 50# _ §QJ _ Z0J Dry matter intake 33 37 39 43 46 49 52 55 Protein consumed 5.5 6.2 6.6 7.3 7.8 8.3 8.8 9.3 Protein required 3.4 4.2 5.1 5.9 6.8 7.6 8.4 9.3 Excess 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 .07 .04 0 (% excess) (38) (32) (23) (19) (13) (8) (5) (0) Phosphorus consumed .14 .16 .17 .19 .20 .21 .22 .24 Phosphorus required .09 .11 .13 .15 .17 .18 .20 .22 Excess -05 .05 .04 .04 .03 .03 .02 .02 (% excess) (36) (31) (24) (21) (15) (14) (9) (8) The ration above had no supplemental P but still contained .43% P on a dry basis. Approximately two-thirds of the P came from whole cottonseeds, fish meal, soybean meal, and corn. These are feeds usually imported onto the farm. The alfalfa and com silage usually grown on the farm supplied only about one-third of the P. Only about 30% of consumed P is captured in milk and exported off the farm, so typically, there is a net importation of P onto a dairy farm. To further confound the problem P is normally supplemented in inorganic form. For instance adding a pound of 4-1 mineral (calciumtphosphorus ratio) supplement to the ration increases the P content to 55%. Research has documented that this high level is not needed and lower levels are recommended. In conclusion, N and P excretion can be reduced by grouping and feeding by production and reducing or eliminating supplemental P when amount in feeds are adequate. 10 ------- Swine - Dr. Ken Kephart, Associate Professor of Animal Science, Penn State University Overview of Swine Production Systems Nearly two-thirds of all nutrients consumed by the pig are excreted rn the manure, but it has only been in the last decade that animal agriculture has recognized the importance of nutrient excretion. Recently, more precise feed formulation and the use of feed additives have helped to reduce nutrient excretion. But important challenges remain in animal production systems and the land application of manure. Today, the vast majority of swine producers operate an all-in-all-out system - grouping pigs closely by age and weight. This has important implications for nutrient excretion. Since body weights are fairly precise within a group, we can formulate diets to exacting specifications- saving both dollars, and nutrients. But in the last 20 years, swine farms have increased in size to help offset diminishing profit margins. In addition, many units are now operated under contract. Both trends mean that all feed nutrients are now imported to the farm. For contract grower-finisher units, most or all of the manure produced is applied on the home farm. Large sow units, however, usually produce an excess of manure causing the application of manure to sometimes become a disposal issue. As a result, manure is surface-applied to increase nitrogen volatilization, and crop yields are projected at the upper limit, in order to maximize manure application rates. Since the P:N ratio in manure is already, higher than is required by most crops, these high manure application rates increase the deposition of P in the soil. Partial Solutions to Nutrient Imbalance and Nutrient Excretion The use of lysine and other amino acids in swine diets enable the feed manufacturer to decrease the amount of protein, and therefore the nitrogen, in the diet. This practice can reduce nitrogen excretion by more than 20%; unfortunately this practice increases the P:N ratio In the manure even further. The use of dietary phytase, an enzyme that enhances the digestion of plant-borne phosphorus, can reduce phosphorus excretion by at least 20%. Furthermore, with the recent edition of the Nutrient Requirement of Swine (1998), and an awareness of nutrient excretion, nutritionists follow recommended guidelines fairly closely. Future Needs for Swine Production Systems The use of phytase is a sound tool for reducing phosphorus excretion, but methods are needed for further reductions, or for extracting P from the manure. Equipment is needed to provide fast and economical injection or incorporation of manure without destroying conservation practices. Water waste has been reduced in swine production, but further improvements are needed to decrease the cost of hauling swine manure long distances. 11 ------- Economics of Enzyme Technology and Cost/Benefits - Dr. Darrell J. Bosch, Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech Runoff from soils which are very high in phosphorus (P) can be detrimental to surface water quality. High soil P may result from repeated applications of manure with higher P content than can be used by crops. Genetically engineered microbial phytase can improve swine and poultry utilization of natural P in feedstuffs, reduce the need for supplemental feed P, and lower P content in animal manure. Producers must weigh phytase costs against its potential economic benefits. Costs include purchasing the enzyme formulation, adapting the feed system to accommodate the enzyme formulation, management time to learn to manage the new feed ration, and risk. Benefits include lower feed P supplement costs, lower manure disposal costs, and lower costs of commercial fertilizer. Case studies of a Virginia turkey operation and a North Carolina swine operation were conducted to evaluate the farm-level costs and benefits of microbial phytase under a P-standard where manure applications cannot exceed crop P recommendations. Potential net returns from microbial phytase for turkeys were estimated as savings in supplemental feed P costs plus savings in commercial fertilizer costs, plus increased prices of litter sold off the farm, minus costs of microbiai phytase. Estimated costs of phytase formulation to reduce P content in litter by 35 percent were $2,500. Phytase reduced supplemental P feed costs by an estimated $1,431, When the P content of litter was reduced, more litter could be applied on farm and the cost of supplemental commercial fertilizer was reduced by $390. Reduced P content of litter would reduce the amounts of excess litter exported by poultry producers, increase the amounts that non-poultry farms could import, and enhance prices of litter sold off the farm. When the litter price enhancement effect is included, it is likely that economic benefits of phytase would exceed its cost. Potential net returns from microbial phytase for swine were estimated as savings in swine lagoon liquid application costs plus savings in supplemental feed P costs minus costs of microbial phytase Estimated costs of phytase formulation to reduce litter P content by 28% were $4,735. Savings in supplemental feed P formulation were estimated as $2,713. Savings in lagoon liquid application were $9,356 when lagoon liquid was applied to bermudagrass hay, resulting in a $7,334 net return to phytase. When lagoon liquid was applied to com, savings in lagoon liquid application to com were $1,686 resulting in a negative net return of $-336 to phytase. Phytase can lower but not eliminate the cost to poultry and swine farmers of limiting manure applications to crop P requirements. The more widely the P standard is applied, the greater the potential cost savings from phytase use. Effective phytase use requires cooperation between integrators and contracting producers and development of ways to manage production risks. 12 ------- PANEL 2 "The Status and Progress of Implemented Feeding Strategies" Poultry - Winston Turner, Broiler Production Manager, Tyson Foods The concept of using phytase in feed has been used in Europe for some period of time In the USA it was tested by E.T. Kornegay for six years at Virginia Tech. m^n^ħ2^ that is P°°^ dj9ested ^ these nd is Phytase is organic and sensitive to heat and must be applied after the pelleting process BASF came "P with a fluid form of phytase that uses 1 .5 gallons of water with 12 pounds of natuphos per one ton of feed. A computer controlled Doppler Radar Unit measures the flow into the spray naiuphos " Starting i in mid February 1998, Tyson Foods ran extensive tests to be sure phytase would work in the poultry world Th,stest concluded there was no difference in bird performance between phytase and control. The big advantage was the DeFlour phosphate was reduced from 1 7 pounds per ton to 6 pounds per ton of finished feed. Manure test results during the performance testing penod indicated that phytase in 85% of our feed would reduce P205 bv 28 30% when used in 100% of the feed the reduction should be 33.30%. Dr. Paul Ruszler of Virginia Tech recently summarized Virginia's annual poultry manure production at 469.312 tons at 30% moisture or 438,008 tons at 25% moisture Using the Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR) default of 62 pounds per ton; 13,578 pounds of phosphorus is produced. Using Tyson Foods of Harrisonburg projection at 100% implementation of 46 pounds per ton; 10,074 tons of phosphate is produced, the reduction will be 3 503 tons. Tyson continues to run tests with Virginia Tech to continue improving the reduction of phosphorus. 13 ------- Dairy - Dr. Rick Kohn, Associate Professor of Animal Science, University of Maryland Milk urea nitrogen (MUM) is a means to evaluate nutritional status in lactating dairy cows because it is an indirect measure of protein utilization. With adequate energy in the diet, MUN is indicative of protein status. Variation in MUN has also been suggested to be related to the protein to energy ratio of the diet consumed. Nitrogen (in the form of protein and non-protein nitrogen, NPN) consumed by the dairy cow has three ultimate fates. Part of the N is undigested and excreted in the feces. The remaining N is absorbed into the blood stream from diffusion of ammonia across the rumen wall and transport of amino acids and peptides from the small intestine. Ammonia is toxic to the animal and is therefore rapidly converted to urea in the liver. Some of the absorbed amino acids and peptides are utilized for milk synthesis. Excess absorbed amino acids and peptides are deaminated in the liver for energy and N is converted to urea. The urea is filtered from the blood by the kidney and is excreted from the body in urine. Blood flow through the kidney is constant within an animal, which ensures a constant urea filtration rate (milliliters of blood filtered per minute) regardless of urine volume. Because urea is a small neutral molecule, it readily diffuses across cellular membranes. As milk Is secreted in the mammary gland, urea diffuses into and out of the mammary gland, equilibrates with urea in the blood. Because of this process, MUN equilibrates with and is proportional to blood urea N. A mathematical model based on these principles was developed to predict urinary N excretion from MUN. When excess N is consumed by a dairy cow, urea in the blood increases. Subsequently an Increase in MUN and urinary excretion of N occur. Conversely when little excess N is consumed. urea in the blood is low and lower MUN and urinary excretion of N result. Therefore high MUN concentrations indicate excess protein in the diet while low MUN levels show protein may be deficient. Furthermore, high MUN indicates high levels of urinary N excretion. However, a definitive method for determining target MUN concentrations has been lacking. The objectives of our study are: 1) to establish target MUN concentrations for cows fed according to National Research Council recommendations throughout a 305-d lactations, 2} to compare target values with correct MUN concentrations from Lancaster Dairy Herd Improvement Association, and 3) to examine the environmental and economic impact of overfeeding protein in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. 14 ------- Swine and Poultry-Joe Garber, Nutritional and Analytical Services Coordinator, Wenger Feed, Inc. New feeding strategies for swine and poultry have been successfully implemented at Wenger Feed Mill, Inc. For phosphorus, the strategies include reduced dietary levels, supplemental phytase and source of inorganic phosphorus. During 1993. the reduction of phosphorus levels in swine feed was initiated going from 0.63% to 0.51 %. Currently, efforts are underway to include phytase and approach the 0.40% levels recommended by the National Research Council. The phytase enzyme liberates phytate bound phosphorus and is heat unstable, so it must be post- pellet applied. In addition, it provides amino acid and energy benefits. However, phytase application may impact manufacturing efficiency. Inorganic phosphorus availability values were analyzed. Trace mineral "tie-up" of phosphorus and using extra clean sources were found to be important factors. Feed nitrogen reduction was also achieved using synthetic amrno acids and digestible amino acid formulations. These methods reduce total nitrogen levels needed to satisfy amino acid requirements and currently focus on lysine and methionine. Activities include using ingredients at its true digestible value, increasing efficiency of nitrogen utilization and altering the previous "value" for ingredients. Similar reductions and efficiencies have occurred in poultry feeding operations. Use of phytase in poultry feed started in 1996. These efforts have lowered feed costs and increased nutrient efficiency, while meeting animal nutrition requirements. 15 ------- SUMMARY FROM THE BREAKOUT SESSIONS Introduction This portion of the meeting was devoted to breakout groups that were charged with discussing the three specific topics identified below. Each of the three groups discussed all three of the topics, but were tasked to concentrate on a specific one. Participants were assigned to each of the three breakout groups randomly in order to ensure a mixture of backgrounds and viewpoints. The structure of the breakout groups was a "brainstorming session" facilitated by a moderator, and recorded by a note taker. This section summarizes the ideas put forth by the breakout groups. Rarriers to the Adoption of New Animai Nutrition Technology in Environmental. Agricultural and Governmental Sectors, and Ways to Increase Adoption Barriers Lack of a clear understanding, on the part of the farmers, millers and processors, of the costs and effects of feed additives and high phytase com to more efficiently utilize nutrients in feed Uncertainty across the animal industry about the nature and amount of risk associated with new methods for managing nutrients in feed Lack of cost-share programs to off-set capital investment costs ğ Current inability to produce feed with more precise and consistent nutrient content Ğ Lack of a common understanding among the animal agriculture industry, environmental community and governmental agencies on the role and implications of managing nutrients in animal feeds as a tool for reducing nutrients in manure Lack of clear, consistent management recommendations to farmers by animal nutritionists, animal health care professionals, millers and proprietary industry interests Opportunities to Increase Adoption Strengthen education/technology transfer programs for the animal agriculture industry (farmers, millers, animal health professionals, processors) on appropriate technology, costs and benefits of adoption, animal health implications, and environmental consequences Develop new and strengthen current mechanisms for communication between the animal agriculture industry, the environmental community and governmental agencies Initiate consistent, and where appropriate, collaborative responses in tie implementation and use of the technology across jurisdictions, e.g. Cost-share/incentive programs that are consistent, science based education and technology transfer programs, technology development and consistent regulations Practices that can Work Now Utilize Milk Urea Nitrogen (MUN) screening as a nutrition guide for formulating rations in lactating dairy cows ğ Use of high phytase com in formulating rations for the appropriate segments of the animal production industry Improving on-farm nutrient efficiency by increasing the adoption of animal grouping practices I ncorporating phytase as a feed additive to increase phosphorus utilization * Utilize amino acid supplements in feed formulations to increase the efficiency of nutrient utilization 16 ------- Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs Current National Research Council (NRC) nutritional standards for many animals are not current, and in some instances are based upon data from animal genotypes that are no longer used in production. More precise nutrition standards that are designed for current genotypes and production practices should be established Improve the technology in the production of feed to ensure a more consistent and uniform nutrient content Develop science based assessments of the economic, animal health, and environmental benefits and risks of utilizing formulated feeds that more precisely meet animal nutrition needs Improve the technology for the cost-effective incorporation of additives into feeds to enhance nutrient utilization Develop science based assessments of the influence of feed additives on changes in the potential fate and transport of excreted nutrients Develop a science based definition of the role of cost-effective, environmentally sound animal nutrition management as an element of a watershed wide sustainable animal agriculture ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ITEMS There were a number of items that participants discussed that they recognized were indirectly related to animal nutrition. However, there was genera! agreement that these issues were of sufficient importance and should be identified and enumerated in these proceedings. Most of the topics arose during discussions of knowledge gaps and research needs. They include: A very real need to develop science based estimates of the spatial and temporal distribution of ammonia emissions from animal agriculture A need for cost-effective management practices to reduce odors from animal agriculture for farms across the entire watershed Farmers need manure management alternatives to composting and land application that include the economics of implementation and sound market development practices, especially for those farms with existing high soil phosphorus levels A need for wastewater treatment technology/practices for animal agriculture. A high priority should be given to systems that recycle wastewater on-farm A continuing need exists to develop practices that allow for incorporation of all types of manure without disturbing conservation practices 17 ------- SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS The technology exchange provided a forum for broadening the understanding of current and potential animal nutrition practices and their effects on animal agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The participants represented a diverse array of stakeholders from across the watershed. Examples of current progress in the science of animal nutrition and the adoption of new nutrition management practices were examined and discussed. Barriers to accelerated adoption were identified and explored. Participants concurred that significant opportunities do exist to incorporate into the major animal production systems, practices and technologies that can improve the efficiency with which animals utilize nutrients in feed, and feeds that can be produced to more precisely meet the nutritional needs of animals. There was general agreement that substantial reductions in the nutrient content of manure at the point of excrement are possible through the adoption of these practices and technologies. However, participants agreed that before wide-scale adoption of these practices and technologies could take place, substantive improvements must be made in the quality and extensiveness of the science available to support them. There are concerns about the currency of data on nutrient requirements that support animal nutrition data bases used for formulating feeds. It was recognized that a more definitive understanding of animal nutrition requirements coupled with the ability to more precisely formulate feeds to meet those needs could substantially reduce the excess nutrients currently in feeds. Participants also noted that the widespread adoption, in this watershed, of animal nutrition practices that would minimize nutrients in manure at the point of excrement, could only be achieved with a sustained education and technical assistance program to teach farmers, millers, processors, and animal health professionals how to adapt and use the practices. 18 ------- LIST OF REGISTRANTS Dr. Rosafina Angel Assistant Professor of Poultry Univ. of MD Dept. of Animal and Avian Sciences College Park, MD 207422311 Telephone: 3014058494 Facsimile: (301) 314-9059 ra95@umail.umd.edu Norman Astle MD Dept. of Agriculture 50 Harry Truman Pkwy. Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415863 Facsimile: (410) 841-5736 astlene@mda.state.md. us Janine Baratta MD Cooperative Extension 2005 Largo Rd Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Telephone: 3016278440 Facsimile: (301) 627-3273 JB107@UMAIL.UMD.EDU Daniel Bard MD Dept. of Agriculture The Wayne A. Cawley Bldg. 50 Harry S Truman Pkwy Annapolis, MD 214017080 Telephone: 3016949290 Facsimile: (301) 694-2618 Timothy Barrick State Conservation Commission 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 171109408 Telephone: 7177051688 Facsimile: {717) 705-3778 TBarrick@state.pa.us Eric S. Bendfeldt VA Cooperative Extension 965 Pleasant Valley Rd. Harrisonburg, VA 228019630 Telephone: 5405643080 Facsimile: (540) 564-3093 ebendfel@vt.edu Johan Berger PDA Bureau of Plant Industry Nutrient Mgmt. Section 2301 N. Cameron St. Rm G13 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: 7177724189 Facsimile: (717) 783-3275 joberger@state.pa.us Tom Blair MD Dept. of Agriculture Nutrient Management Program 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415959 Facsimile: (420) 841-5950 blairtg@mda.state.md.us Karl Blankenship Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Bay Journal 619OakwoodDr Seven Valleys, PA 17360 Telephone: 7174282819 Facsimile: (717)428-0273 70363.13@compuserve.com Dr. DarreH Bosch Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech Dept. of Agricuture & Applied Economics 308 Hutcheson Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 Telephone: 5402315265 Facsimile: (545) 023-1741 bosch@vt.edu 19 ------- Kenneth Bounds Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. RD 6 Box 47 Georgetown, DE 19947 Telephone: 4104792323 Facsimile: (410)479-3345 kbounds@yahoo.com Eldridge Collins Biological Systems Engineering, Va Tech 211 Seitz Hail Blacksburg, VA 240610303 Telephone: 5402317600 Facsimile: (540) 231-3199 ecollins@vt.edu Jeff Corbin Chesapeake Bay Foundation 1001 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 8047801392 Facsimile: (804) 648-4011 jcorbin@CBF.org Renato Cuizon MD Dept. Of Agriculture 50 Harry S. Truman PKWY Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415959 Facsimile: cuizonrm@mda.state.md.us David P. Doss State Conservationist USDA NRCS 339 Busch's Frontage Road, Suite 301 Annapolis. MD 21401 Telephone: 4107570861 Facsimile: (410) 757-0687 ddoss@md.nrcs.usda.gov Zhengxia Dou Univ. of PA Center for Animal Health and Productivity 382 W. Street Rd. Kennett Square, PA 19348 Telephone: 6104445800 Facsimile: (610) 925-8123 dou@cahp2.nbc.upenn.edu Karen Engel Southern States Coop, Inc. 6203 Keysville Rd Keymar, MD 21757 Telephone: 4107566423 Facsimile: (410)756-6423 karen.engel@sscoop.com Henry Engster Purdue Frams P.O. Box 1537 Salisbury, MD 21801 Telephone: 4105433411 Facsimile: hank.engster@purdue.com Lief Eriksen MD Cooperative Extension Service 18330 Keedysville Rd., WMREC Keedysviile, MD 21756 Telephone: 3014322767 Facsimile: (301) 432-4089 geriksen@wam.umd.edu Michael Erskine, D.V.M. Veterinarian Damascus Equine Associates 17716 Quail Covey Court Woodbine, MD 21797 Telephone: 3018545689 Facsimile: (301) 854-5687 Stanley Fultz MD Cooperative Extension 330 Montview Lane Frederick, MD 21702 Telephone: 3016941594 Facsimile: (301) 694-1588 sf28@umail.umd.edu Joe Garber Nutrition and Research Coordinator Wenger Feed Mills 101 W. Harrisburg Ave. Rheems, PA 17570 Telephone: 8006926008 Facsimile: (717) 367-5913 jmgarber@redrose.net 20 ------- Christoph M. Gross USDA-NRCS 339 Busch's Frontage Road, Suite 301 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4107570861 Facsimile: (410) 757-0687 cgross@MD.nrcs.usda.gov James E. Hannawald USDA-NRCS 339 Busch's Frontage Road, Suite 301 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4107570861 Facsimile: (410) 757-0687 jhannawaid@md.usda.gov Mark Hedrick Wampler Foods 208 S. Main Street Moorefield, WV 26836 Telephone: 3045387737 " Facsimile: (304) 538-6808 hedrickma@wlrfoods.com Heather Heider Nicely Southern States Feed Division 13490 Wilt Store Road Leesburg,VA20176 Telephone: 8004851708 Facsimile: (703) 777-9708 Heather.Heider@sscoop.com Janet Hutzel Univ. of MD Department of Natural Resource Sciences 2102 Plant Sciences Bldg College Park, MD" 20742 Telephone: 3014050139 Facsimile: (301)314-9041 jh331 @umail.umd.edu David Inman Perdue Farms Incorporated PO Box 1537 Salisbury, MD 21802 Telephone: 4105433749 Facsimile: (410) 341-2517 david.inman@perdue.com Tom Juengst PADEP Bureau of Water Quality 11 th floor RCSOB, PO Box 8465 Harrisburg,PA17105 Telephone: 7177725646 Facsimile: (717) 772-5156 Juengst. thomas@dep.state.pa. us David Kann MD Dept of Agriculture 604 SolarexCt Suite 105 Frederick, MD 21703 Telephone: 3016949290 Facsimile: (301)694-5744 Dr. Ken Kephart Professor of Animal Science Penn State University 324 Henning Bldg. University Park University Park, PA 16802 Telephone: 8148633671 Facsimile: (814) 865-7442 kbk2@psu.edu Dr. Richard Kohn Univ. of MD Department of Animal & Avian Sciences College Park, MD 207422311 Telephone: 3014054583 Facsimile: (301)314-9059 rkohn@wam.umd.edu Dr. Les Lanyon Professor, Soil Fertility Penn State University Department of Agronomy 116ASIBIdg. University Park, PA 16802 Telephone: 8148631614 Facsimile: (814) 863-7043 lel@psu.edu Louise Lawrence MD Dept. of Agriculture 50 Harry Truman Pkwy Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415863 Facsimile: (410) 841-5736 lawrenl@mda.state.md.us 21 ------- James Lewis Caroline County Extension Office 207 South Third Street Denton, MD 21629 Telephone: 4104794030 Facsimile: (410) 479-4042 jI139@umail.umd.edu Daniel Ludwig MD Cooperative Extension - Montgomery County 18410MuncasterRd Derwood, MD 20855 Telephone: 3015902813 Facsimile: (301) 590-2828 d!159@umail.umd.edu Carl G. Luebben Sheandoah Valley Soil and Water Conservation Dist. 1934 Deyerle Ave., suite B Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Telephone: 5404332853 Facsimile: (540) 422-9998 Jay Marshal] VADCR 98 Alexandria Pike, Suite 33 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: 5403476420 Facsimile: (540) 347-6423 jmm@dcr.state.va.us Jerry Martin Penn State Extension 2301 North Cameron St., Room #100 Harrisburg, PA17110 Telephone: 7177839704 Facsimile: (717) 783-3275 JMARTlN@PSU.EDU Tim Maupin Rocco, Inc. 1 Kratzer Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802 Telephone: 5405681482 Facsimile: (540) 568-1401 tmauDin@rocco.coia Russ Perkinson VADCR 203 Governor St. Ste 206 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 8043710061 Facsimile: (804) 786-1798 nperkinson@dcr.state.va.us Robert Peters Univ. of MD Dept. of Animal & Avian Sciences College Park, MD 20742 Telephone: 3014051401 Facsimile: (301) 405-8831 rp17@umail.umd.edu Royden Powell Assistant Secretary, MDA Resource Conservation MD Dept. of Agriculture 50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415959 Facsimile: (410)841-5950 powellm@mda.state.md.us , Peggy Preusch Univ. of MD Cooperative Extgenston Nutrient Management Program 2102 Plant Sciences Bldg., NRSL College Park, MD 20742 Telephone: 3014051312 Facsimile: (301) 314-9041 pp78@umail.umd.edu Dr. Charles Ramberg Univ. of PA School of Veterinary Medicine 382 West Street Road Kennett Square, PA 193481692 Telephone: 6104445800 Facsimile: (610)444-0126 Francis J, Reilly, Jr. The Reilly Group 67 Meyer Lane Stafford, VA 225543430 Telephone: 5402860072 Facsimile: (540) 286-0073 ReillyGroup@msn.com 22 ------- Patricia M. Reilly The Reilly Group 67 Meyer Lane Stafford, VA 225543430 Telephone: 5402860072 Facsimile: (540) 286-0073 ReillyGroup@msn.com Leon Ressier Extension Agent Penn State Cooperative Extension Lancaster County 1383 Arcadia Road, Room 1 Lancaster, PA 176013184 Telephone: 7173946851 Facsimile: (717) 394-3962 LRESSLER@PSU.EDU John C. Rhoderick Administrator, Resource Conservation Operations MD Dept. of Agriculture Office of Resource Conservation 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415876 Facsimile: (410) 841-5736 rhoderjc@mda.state.md.us Maggie Rhodes Assistant State Conservationist USDA/NRCS 339 Busch's Frontage Road, Suite 301 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4107570861 Facsimile: (410) 757-0687 mrhodes@md.nrcs.usda.gov Cart Rohr PADEP Bureau of Watershed Conservation PO Box 8555, 400 Market Street, 10th Floor Harrisburg, PA 171058555 Telephone: 7177875259 Facsimile: (717) 787-9549 Dr. William B. Roush Associate Professor of Poultry Science Penn State University 213 Henning BIdg. University Park University Park, PA 16802 Telephone: 8148630655 Facsimile: (814) 863-7043 wbr@psu.edu Fred Samadani MD Dept. of Agriculture Nutrient Management Program 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415959 Facsimile: (410)841-5950 samadaf@mda.state.md.us Bill Satterfield Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. RD 6 Box 47 Georgetown, DE 19949575 Telephone: 3028569037 Facsimile: (302) 856-1845 satterfield.dpi@ce.net Brian Scoralick MD Dept. of Agriculture Resource Conservation 604 Solarex Ct. Suite 105 Frederick, MD 21703 Telephone: 3016949290 Facsimile: (301)694-2618 Kevin Seibert Lancaster County Conservation District 1383 Arcadia Rd Lancaster, PA 17601 Telephone: 7172995361 Facsimile: (717) 299-9459 iccd@redrose.net Randall Shank VADCR Nutrient Management Program 203 Governor St., Suite 206 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 8043718884 Facsimile: (804) 786-1798 rshank@vt.edu 23 ------- Paul Shipley Univ. of MD Dept. NRSL, Room 1103 HJ. Patterson Mall College Park, MD 20742 Telephone:3014052563 Facsimile: (301) 314-9041 PSSO@umail.umd.edu Dr. Thomas W. Simpson Chair, CBP Nutrient Subcommittee Univ. of MD/ MD Dept. of Agriculture 50 Harry S.Truman Pkwy., Room 307 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4108415865 Facsimile: (410)841-5736 ts82@umail.umd.edu Dr. Charles Stallings Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist Virginia Tech 2090 Litton Reaves Hall Blacksburg.VA 24061 Telephone:5402314758 cstallin@vt.edu Julie Trask CRC/Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 4102675753 Facsimile: (410) 267-5777 trask.julie@epamail.epa.gov Winston Turner Broiler Production Manager Tyson Foods 501N. Liberty Street Harrisonburg. VA 22802 Telephone: 5404330721 Mark Waggoner USDA-NRCS 339 Busch's Frontage Road, Suite 301 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 4107570861 Facsimile: (410)757-0687 mwaaaoner@md.usda .aov Andrew J. Weber Liaison, Chesapeake Bay Program CSREES/USDA 410 Severn Ave., Suite 109 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 4102679875 Facsimile: (410)267-5777 WEBER.ANDREW@epamail.epa.gov Anne-Meredith Webster MD Cooperative Extension 27664 Nanticoke Rd Salisbury, MD 218018437 Telephone: 4107428788 Facsimile: (410) 742-1922 ah99@umail.umd.edu Melanie Wertz Ag. Policy Specialist Chesapeake Bay Foundation Old Water Works BWg. Harrisburg, PA17101 Telephone: 7172345550 Facsimile: (717) 234-9632 mwertz@savethebay.cbf.org 24 ------- |