Public concern regarding livestock production has intensified in recent years. Hog production appears to draw most of the criticism, due in part to highly publicized manure spills as well as the emission of offensive odors. Other livestock enterprises are not free from public scrutiny. Inappropriate handling of manure from any livestock enterprise can lead to contamination of ground or surface water. Fly problems have also been cited near some poultry operations. And in certain circumstances, additional challenges to the community can occur, such as a loss of property values, change in neighborhood aesthetics, or increased problems with traffic and safety.

Despite these on-going concerns, there are communities in proximity to major livestock producing areas in Pennsylvania that continue to thrive with minimal conflict. The absence of conflict may be partly attributable to a historical presence of livestock production. In addition, livestock producers have been increasingly proactive in adopting best management practices in regard to manure handling and odor and fly control.

But there remains much work to be done from both a public and agricultural perspective. The public often relies on sensational and exaggerated reports in the media to form their opinions about animal agriculture. This warrants increased educational efforts. Furthermore, much of the farming community has not yet developed strategies for minimizing odor emissions and for optimizing manure utilization. We need to assist producers in adopting best management practices, not only to improve public opinion, but also to protect the environment.

Note: Livestock refers to beef, sheep, swine, poultry, dairy, and horse.

SUB POW: 1.E.1. Public Policy and Impact of Animal Agriculture

Objective 1.E.1.1. Individuals attending informational meetings will be able to list at least three factual statements about the impacts (benefits or burdens) that large livestock operations create for neighbors and/or surrounding communities.

Objective: 1.E.1.2. Clientele will increase their understanding of responsibilities of different governmental jurisdictions and current and emerging policies for animal waste/nutrient management.

Objective: 1.E.1.3. Public officials will incorporate sound principles, use research-based information about impacts of animal facilities, and apply land use and/or environmental management strategies appropriate to given situations, in making decisions about animal waste/nutrient management.

Objective: 1.E.1.4. - No longer available for program planning after September 30th, 2002.

SUB-POW: 1.E.2. Nutrient Management

Objective: 1.E.2.1. Facilitate the adoption of mandatory and voluntary nutrient management plans.

Objective: 1.E.2.2. Individuals who have participated in certification training or calibration workshops will be able to demonstrate correct calibration techniques for manure application.

SUB-POW: 1.E.3. Manure and Dietary Management Strategies to Reduce Nutrient Excretions

Objective: 1.E.3.1. Livestock producers who have implemented a nutrient management plan will use one or more of the following management strategies aimed at minimizing the loss of manure nutrients. The strategies include: 1) Use of cover crops; 2) Incorporation of manure within 48 hours after application; 3) Subsurface injection of manure; 4) Manure application timed to match anticipated nutrient uptake by the crop.

Objective: 1.E.3.2. Livestock producers will use feeds formulated to minimize nutrient excretion.

SUB-POW: 1.E.4. Oder Control - No longer available for program planning after September 30th, 2002.

SUB-POW:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Kenneth Kephart

Steven Dietrich

Robert Graves

Norman Conrad

Charles Abdalla

Paul Patterson

Robert Mikesell

Leon Ressler

Doug Beegle

Nelson Smith

CONCURRENCE

Terry D. Etherton, Head

Department of Dairy and Animal Science

Committee Liaison

Co-chair e-mail addresses:

Ken Kephart - kbk2@psu.edu

Steven Dietrich - sed4@psu.edu