North Country New York Dairy Farmer Views on Alternative Energy Production

North Country New York Dairy Farmer Views on Alternative Energy Production Megan Gremelspacher, Cornell University Gil Gillespie, Cornell University Rick Welsh, Clarkson University ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the dairy farmers who took the time to talk with us in person or to complete and return the questionnaire on which this report is based. Gretchen Gilbert and Dana Shapiro were key collaborators on many technical details of the survey. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets for funding this project through Clarkson University and a subcontract with Cornell University

INTRODUCTION Among the major changes in the New York dairy industry has been an increasing number of large farms (e.g., those with 500 or more). Although the vast majority of dairy farms are smaller, on these larger farms the concentration of the animals and their manure in relatively small geographic areas has been a source of concerns about air and water pollution and odor. One strategy for addressing these concerns has been adopting anaerobic digestion (AD) of the dairy manure. Although AD technology is more widely used in Europe than in the U.S., researchers have recently begun to explore it as an option for U.S. dairy farms. Rising energy costs have fueled interest in AD as an on-farm energy source. Anaerobic digester technology processes the manure to produce and capture methane gas (the main component of natural gas and also a greenhouse gas). The methane can then be used for heating or for fueling generators to produce electricity, which can be used on farm or sold to utilities through net-metering arrangements. The AD process also removes much of the odor producing elements from the manure. The de-odorized solids produced through the AD process can not only be used not only to fertilize fields near houses and communities, but can also be sold off the farm as a valuable organic fertilizer. Thus, AD technology gives farm operators the potential for reducing energy costs as well as for addressing potential odor and nutrient surplus issues. Changing political climates have also contributed to a surge in interest in AD, including national partnerships and laws facilitating the production and use of biofuels as well as carbon trading. Although much progress has been made on the technical and engineering aspects of AD technology, less is known about the social and economic aspects of its adoption. How aware are farmers of this technology? How do they feel about AD? Are some farmers more interested than others and if so, why? To answer some of these questions we explored New York State dairy farmers knowledge of and attitudes toward anaerobic digesters and their opinions on other related agricultural issues important to New York. We also gathered information on broader farm structure and socio-demographic factors that will help to understand farmer differences in attitudes and opinions. Social scientists have long used survey methods to measure farmer interest in new technologies and the results have allowed social scientists, policy-makers and other interested parties to understand why farmers make the decisions that they do. Our main objectives for this study were to gather knowledge that would be useful for the engineers who are working to improve digester systems in the Northeast, and for policy-makers who will determine the level of government investment in the technology. We used a multi-methods approach consisting of interviews with those who have already adopted the technology, and a survey of dairy farmers in the North Country region of New York. 1

DATA AND METHODS The data for this study were collected in two stages. The first stage was on-farm interviews with 6 dairy farmers who had already added AD to their manure management programs. We identified these 6 farmers through Cornell University s Manure Management website; all of the interview subjects had received technical assistance from engineers at Cornell University. Their herds ranged in size from 150 to 1200. These sessions gave us information about the attitudes, farm structure characteristics, and socio-demographic characteristics of the farms and operators who had adopted the AD technology. We used the findings from these late summer and early fall of 2006 interviews to create a 6 page questionnaire that we mailed to the population of dairy farmers in the 6-county North Country region. This by-mail survey was conducted in January through May of 2007. We contacted addressees up to 5 times. First we sent a pre-survey postcard describing the study. Second, we sent a letter asking the addressee to complete the questionnaire that was enclosed. Third, shortly after the first letter we sent a thank-you postcard. Fourth, we sent another letter and questionnaire to those who had not yet responded. Finally, for those who had not responded to our previous contacts, we telephoned all those for whom we could obtain a phone number. Out of the total of 1400 names on the list we mailed letters and questionnaires to 1312 addresses. The lower number is because in the time between the first two mailings, eighty-eight of the initial postcards were returned because of invalid addresses. Since we needed information from currently active dairy farm operators, in question #1 on our questionnaire we asked if the addressee was currently in dairy farming. We asked those who were not to return the blank questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided. We considered those who had died or whose addresses were no longer valid to be ineligible. We deemed current farmers who were on the farms of a former operator on the list, e.g., a son, to remain eligible. Names that were on our initial list, but were unreachable by mail or phone were also deemed eligible for determining the response rate. At the conclusion of the mailings and phone calls, 418 farmers had responded out of the total of 1011 names that we had not otherwise determined were ineligible. This yielded a raw response rate of 41.3%. Since we knew from the telephone calls that some people on the list who had gotten out of farming did not bother to respond to our mailings, applying the phonegenerated ratio of ineligible to eligible farms among non-respondents would raise the overall response rate to 45.5%. The highest rate of response was among farmers with herds of 500+ ; the second-highest among farmers with 200-499. The lowest rate of response was among farms of 1 to 9 ; the second-lowest among farms of 10-19. Thus this suggests that those with smaller farms were less likely to participate in the study, and therefore, the results represent their views less well than the views of those with larger herds. 2

RESULTS As explained above, our primary goal was to better understand the relationships between dairy farmers attitudes toward anaerobic digestion technology and their farm sizes, types, and other characteristics. Our preliminary interviews had indicated that three main considerations were central to our interviewees adoption of AD: the size of their herds, their proximity to nearby communities, and a favorable attitude toward technologies. These farmers told us that farms with herds below 250 would not produce enough manure to make the investment worthwhile. Nor did they think that smaller herds would provoke odor complaints from neighbors. Although all these interviewees were in Ag Districts, five out of the six had received complaints from non-farm neighbors and they hoped to minimize such complaints with the AD process. The interviewees also noted that an interest in technology, that is, an interest in the whole system of anaerobic digestion as a part of manure management, was an important factor in why they adopted AD. What Dairy Farmers Know About Anaerobic Digestion for Dairy Manure The survey questionnaire included items for measuring knowledge of AD and other factors among the general population of dairy farmers. The first set of questions asked farmers whether they had heard of AD and, if so, how; whether they were currently operating a digester and, if so, for how long; what benefits and risks they associated with anaerobic digesters; and how much they knew about digester technology. We asked, Had you previously heard of digestion for animal manure? Of the 417 who answered this question, 83% had heard of digestion. Of those who had heard of AD, we asked them to indicate the types of experiences from the list in Table 1. Table 1: The Experiences Indicated by Farmers Who Had Heard of Anaerobic Digestion* If you have heard of digestion, how much experience would you say that you had? (Check all that apply.) Not Checked Checked I have read articles about digesters in the press 9% 91% I have attended one or more meetings on digestion technology 87% 13% I have visited a farm or other site with a digester 74% 26% I have met with a consultant or contractor to discuss a digester for my farm 98% 2% I am in the process of building digester 100% 0% I have a digester on my farm 99% 1% *Answered by 343 farmers. Most farmers had heard of anaerobic digestion, most commonly by reading about it in the press. For most farmers, this was the extent of their experience with digestion, although about one-quarter had visited a digester site. Only 3 of the dairy farmers surveyed were currently operating digesters, and all their digesters had become operational in the 1980s. As for the benefits that farmers associated with AD, Table 2 shows that odor reduction and production of electricity for use on-farm were the most common. More than 50% of farmers associated heat for hot water and farm buildings and income from surplus power as AD benefits. 3

Few farmers were under the impression that tipping fees could be earned from operating a digester. Those who checked the other category offered as benefits (followed by the number of people who indicated each response in brackets): protection of water supplies [1], benefits for larger farms [1], benefits for contractors [1], not having to draw (haul) water to fields [1], saving money [1], and the sale of green power [2]. Table 2: Potential Benefits Associated with Anaerobic Digesters by Farmers Who had Heard of AD* Below is a list of potential benefits of digesters that we have heard about. Which of these do you associate with anaerobic digesters? (Check all that apply.) Not Checked Checked Reduce odor from manure 25% 75% Reduce pathogens in manure 61% 39% Provide heat for hot water for farms 36% 64% Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farms 61% 39% Produce heat for farm buildings 45% 55% Provide electricity for use on farms 12% 88% Yield income from sale of surplus power 36% 64% Provide income from sale of compost made from separated solids 57% 43% Provide separated solids for bedding 54% 46% Yield income from tipping fees for food and certain other waste materials 81% 19% Other benefits 985 2% *Answered by 343 farmers. As for the concerns associated with digesters, the high cost of installation was by far the most common concern (Table 3). Those who checked the other category offered as potential concerns (followed by number of people in brackets who indicated each response): size of farm [7], the effect of cold weather on operation [5], and low payout from utilities [4]. Additionally mentioned were poor return on investment [1], encouragement for farms to get bigger [2], expensive service/repairs [1], cost of trucking (for community digesters) [1], decreased manure for spreading [2], increased liability/ insurance [1], questionable Table 3: Potential Concerns Associated with Anaerobic Digesters by Farmers Who Had Heard of AD* Below is a list of dairy farmer concerns about digesters that we have heard about. Which of these do you associate with digesters? (Check all that apply.) Not Checked Checked Generator engine failures 73% 27% Fires 91% 9% Repair parts not available 83% 17% Pump failures 79% 21% Technical expertise not available 69% 31% Clogged pipes 82% 17% Require a lot of labor time to operate 70% 30% Very expensive to install 13% 87% Other concerns 91% 9% *Answered by 344 farmers. efficiency [1], getting the money [1], lack of expertise among most farmers [3], problems emptying the manure storage area [1], and noise [2]. With the quiz section we aimed to determine how informed farmers were about some basic facts about digesters. Table 4 shows that most knew that nutrients are not reduced through digestion, but it appears that either other technical facts have not been communicated 4

to farmers or that the information provided did not seem relevant to them. If journal and press articles are the main source of information about AD, they should ideally be more informative on some key facts. Table 4: Digester Quiz* A goal for this project is to assess what farmers know about digester technology. To help with this, please take our digester quiz. True False Don't Know Digesters greatly reduce nutrients in manure. 5% 49% 46% Digester types include plug-flow and completely mixed. 14% 2% 83% Digesters are used widely in Europe. 16% 3% 65% Digesters can be operated at higher and lower temperatures. 12% 11% 78% Different types of organic waste should not be mixed in digesters. 6% 25% 52% Correct answers are bolded. *Answered by 343 farmers. Farmers Potential Interest in Anaerobic Digestion Technology The second set of questions assessed farmers interest in various outcomes of the technology, and also inquired about farm location. We asked all of the farmers who responded to the questionnaire to answer these questions. Since not everyone answered each question, we note the number of those responding under the column labeled N in each of the following tables. The data presented in Table 5 suggest that, regardless of size or other characteristics, farmers are generally quite interested in generating power for on-farm use or sale. Although our interviews indicated that odor was a main reason for installing digester technology, it did not seem to be compelling across all farms; rather it may be a factor confined to certain types of farms, especially those that are larger and closer to non-farm development. Although power is the most obvious source of income potentially produced by digestion, we also learned in our preliminary interviews that sale of solids (for compost) and income from tipping fees (primarily for non-farm food wastes) can be considerable, and perhaps more reliable sources of income (largely due to issues over utility rights and obligations under current legislation). The fact that some farmers seemed not to be interested in these may be due to a lack of information about them. Table 5: Potential Interest in Anaerobic Digestion Technology Based on your own digester knowledge and experiences and the descriptions we have provided, how interested would you be in each of the following potential outcomes from digester technology for your farm? None A Little Some Great N Reducing or controlling odors from dairy manure 29% 25% 23% 22% 405 Getting heat and power for on-farm use 16% 8% 23% 53% 409 Having excess electrical or fuel energy for sale to utilities or other customers 20% 10% 24% 46% 406 Reducing pathogens in dairy manure 29% 23% 27% 20% 396 Having separated solids for use on or off the farm 30% 22% 27% 22% 402 Earning tipping fees 33% 21% 23% 22% 392 5

Because some researchers have suggested that community digesters would be better than individual digesters for enabling operators of small farms to take advantage of digester benefits and that this might increase the range of applicability of AD technology, we also asked farmers about their knowledge of and interest in community digesters. Since we anticipated that many farmers might not be familiar with the concept, we prefaced the questions about community digesters with the following brief paragraph explaining what they are and how they work: Installing digestion technology might not be practical for every farm. One option that has been used is called "community digesters. For a community digester, raw manure from cooperating farms is transported to a centrally located digester where it is digested, and then these farmers receive their share of the separated solids for use on their farms. Forty-seven percent of respondents had previously heard of community digesters. After reading the description, 46% indicated that they had no interest, 44% had some interest, and 9% had great interest. Because of the potential for AD to reduce the risk of issues with non-farming neighbors over dairy manure odor, in the last part of this section of the questionnaire we asked farmers about some characteristics of their farm locations. Eighty-nine percent of respondents reported that they had rural, non-farm residences within a half-mile of their dairy operations or fields on which they spread manure. About half (51%) were between 1 and 4 miles away from the nearest city, village, or residential housing development. Twenty-one percent of respondents had received an odor complaint in the past five years. Views on Dairy Farming Topics In the next section of the questionnaire we asked farmers a series of attitudinal questions about issues pertinent to their operations and to agriculture in New York State (see Table 6 below). Most responding farmers agreed that water pollution from dairy cow manure is an important issue for the NYS dairy industry as well as for their own operations, and that NYS dairy producers should be required to adopt best management practices to reduce the risks of water pollution. Most farmers agreed that odor from dairy cow manure is an important issue for the industry as a whole, but not necessarily for their operations. Most of the farmers seemed to agree that dairy producers near human settlements should feel responsible for controlling odor, but should not be required to do so. Most of the farmers did not consider themselves early adopters of new technologies, and exhibited mixed feelings about the importance/reliance of NY agriculture on biotechnology. However, most disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that organic agriculture is the way to go. Most farmers agreed or strongly agreed that people who see dairy farms as major polluters don t understand what dairy farming today is like. Finally, the responding farmers tended to be not sure about the viability of digesters for NYS dairy farms as a whole. Also, they tended to feel that digesters are too capital intensive for their own operations and may be too mechanically complex as well. 6

Table 6: Views on Dairy Farming Topics How much do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree N Water pollution from dairy cow manure is an important issue for the NYS dairy industry. 2% 5% 9% 60% 25% 416 Water pollution from dairy cow manure is an important issue for my operation. 12% 22% 13% 41% 12% 415 NYS dairy producers should be required to adopt best management practices for reducing the risks of water 6% 14% 20% 45% 15% 412 pollution. Odor from dairy and their manure is an important issue for the NYS dairy industry. 4% 17% 19% 47% 13% 407 Odor from dairy and their manure is an important issue for my operation. 14% 38% 11% 31% 7% 414 Dairy producers near urban and suburban areas should feel responsible for controlling odors to 5% 12% 14% 56% 13% 414 reasonable levels. NYS dairy producers should be required to adopt production practices for reducing odors coming from 11% 30% 30% 24% 5% 411 their operations. I am generally one of the first farmers to adopt a new commercial technology for boosting field crop or 11% 40% 22% 23% 4% 408 milk production. I consider management intensive rotational grazing to be a viable option for my operation. 15% 33% 15% 21% 16% 413 Converting all dairy farms to organic production would greatly improve the environmental 40% 31% 14% 9% 6% 415 performance of the NYS dairy industry. New agricultural biotechnologies (such as Bt corn, herbicide tolerant crops, and rbst) are essential to 26% 25% 20% 19% 11% 415 the long-term viability of NY agriculture. People who see dairy farms as significant sources of pollution do not understand today s dairy farming. 3% 8% 13% 45% 30% 414 Digesters would be viable options for most dairy farms in NYS. 9% 31% 44% 12% 3% 409 Digestion technology seems too capital intensive to make sense for my operation. 2% 2% 21% 45% 29% 413 Digestion technology seems too mechanically complex for everyday operation on my farm. 4% 10% 35% 37% 14% 415 Manure Storage and Management In the next section of the questionnaire we addressed respondents manure management practices. Fifty-two percent indicated that they stored manure on their farms at some time of the year, and the majority of these (55% or 116) stored it between 4 and 8 months. Earthen lagoon storage was the most common, with 97 farmers using this method. The next most common practice was storage in a pile on the ground (51 farmers); others mentioned were a Slurrystore or silo (15 farmers), covered concrete pit (14 farmers), uncovered concrete pit or concrete lagoon (14 farmers), compost pile (3 farmers), covered wooden building (1 farmer), pile on pad/slab/rock (3 farmers), and windrow (1 farmer). 7

Because the characteristics of dairy manure affects its suitability for processing in a digester, we also asked farmers what their manure was like. The results in Table 7 show considerable variation. This type of information may be useful for engineers who are seeking to improve digester technology based on the consistency and content of the manure that is produced on dairy farms. Table 7: Manure Storage and Management About what percentage of the dairy manure on your farm would you estimate would be in each of the following categories? * 25% or less 26-50% 51-75% 75% or more Pure (mostly) manure as scrapings from gutters or free stall barn alleys 53% 10% 10% 27% Manure mixed with organic bedding (e.g., straw, stalks, sawdust) 43% 10% 6% 41% Manure mixed with sand bedding 80% 3% 3% 14% Organic bedding mixed with manure (as in bedding pack) 97% 2% <1% 1% *Answered by 410 farmers. Percentage responses are collapsed into the 4 categories. About one percent of responding dairy farmers indicated that their manure was dispersed by pasturing cattle and could not be described by any of these categories. We also asked the farmers about their manure removal practice for where they housed their lactating ; most (85% or 349 people) scraped at least once per day. Finally, we asked for a percentage estimate of how much feed for milking was coming from pasture during the grazing season; most (53% or 208 people) said 25% or less, and 21% (81 people) said greater than 75%. Farm Structure and Management In the final section of the questionnaire we inquired about farm structure and management. Where possible, we recoded responses so that they matched the relevant USDA Census of Agriculture categories for milked, acreage, etc. Table 8 shows the breakdown of the size of the herds of responding farmers and their plans for their herd size in the next five years. About one out of seven plan to be out of milking in five years. In general, those who expected to be in dairy in five years tended to expect to have larger herds. We are not sure how to interpret the 15% who expected to be milking 1 to 9 in five years. Table 8: Cows Milked How many are you currently milking? How many do you plan to be milking in five years? 0 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500 to 999 1000+ 2% 2% 26% 40% 15% 10% 4% 1% 416 14% 15% 1% 13% 37% 16% 8% 7% 3% 374 N Of 392 farmers who answered a question about their herds milking averages, about 20% said they produced less than 50 pounds per cow per day on average; about 27% said they were producing between 50 and 59 pounds; about 26% were producing 60 to 69 pounds; and about 27% were getting more than 69 pounds per cow per day. 8

We were also interested in how much land that dairy farmers used, both the acres they farmed and the acres on which they spread manure. (Table 9) With growing herd sizes some farm operators must spread manure on more acres than they actually farm themselves. This was relevant to our survey because our interviewees indicated that the need to spread manure on larger land areas contributed to odor complaints and motivated them to install the anaerobic digesters on their farms. Table 9: Farm Size Characteristics in 2006* 99 or fewer 100 to 199 200 to 499 500 to 999 1000+ Acres farmed 3% 21% 50% 16% 10% Acres spread manure on 26% 35% 27% 7% 5% *Answered by 412 farmers. Sixty-seven percent of the responding dairy farmers got more than 75% of their household income from their farms. When broken down by net income categories and herd size as in Table 10, we can see that the farms with the greatest proportion of their household income from farming are likely to be those with larger farms. There may be some hobby farmer among those with the smallest farms (fewer than 50 ) who have income from other sources and that skew the results for that category, but in general, most farms of all sizes were heavily dependent on their farm incomes to support their households. Table 10: Percent Net Household Income from Farm by Herd Size Category Net Income 49 or fewer 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500+ Total 75% or more 71 (61.7%) 120 (73.2%) 51 (83.6%) 28 (68.3 %) 17 (85.0%) 287 (71.6%) 51% thru 75% 12 (10.4%) 14 (8.5%) 3 (4.9%) 4 (9.8%) 2 (10.0%) 35 (8.7%) 26% thru 50% 22 (19.1%) 19 (11.6%) 5 (8.2%) 6 (14.6%) 1 (5.0%) 53 (13.2%) 25% or less 10 (8.7%) 11 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%) 3 (7.3 %) 0 (0.0%) 26 (6.5%) Column Total 115 (100.0%) 164 (100.0%) 61 (100.0%) 41 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 401 (100%) On average farms employed relatively few employees as indicated by the average number of employees: about 2 full time equivalents (an average of 1.88) and one part-time equivalent (an average of 1.0). However, not surprisingly the number of employees increased as the size of dairy herds increased (Tables 11 and 12). This was more true of full-time employees (which had a maximum of 30) than it was for part-time ones (which had a maximum of six). Table 11: Farms with Full-Time Employees by Herd Size Category 49 or fewer 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500+ Total No FT employees 82 92 9 1 0 184 1-5 FT employees 39 76 52 30 2 199 6 or more FT employees 0 0 1 9 20 30 9

Table 12: Farms with Part-Time Employees by Herd Size Category 49 or fewer 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500+ Total No PT employees 87 81 17 5 2 192.5 to 5 PT employees 34 87 45 33 19 218 6 or more PT employees 0 0 0 2 1 3 The most common bedding material used by the 406 farmers who answered this question was hay, followed by sawdust, sand, and then straw (see Table 13). Many other materials are used, but no more than one or two farmers indicated each one (such as waste paper, soybean stalks, etc.) To see if there was any connection between cost of electricity and dairy farmer interest in AD, we also asked how much the farmers paid per kilowatt hour for electricity. Only 244 farmers answered this question perhaps not all who had multiple rates based on time of use answered the question. Based on the single rates provided and estimating an average of any multiple rates provided, we found that about 20% paid 7 cents or less; about 20% paid between 7 and 9 cents; about 20% paid between 9 and 11.5 cents; about 20% paid between 11.5 and 14 cents, and the remaining 20% paid more than 14 cents per kilowatt hour. Table 13: Common Bedding Materials Used Hay 48% Sawdust 17% Sand 16% Straw 13% Shavings 3% None 1% Fiber/Waste Paper 1% Lime 1% Canary Grass 1% Bedding 1% Outside/Pasture 1% Grass 1% Soybean Stalks 1% Table 14 displays the percent of responding farmers in each of the business organization types. The one farm represented in the other category is organized as a private institute, not for profit. As for the number of partners, a question that was only applicable for the 21% of the farmers responding (those who had partnerships, cooperatives, or LLCs family or a non-family corporations), the most common number was 2 or 3 partners (9% and 7% of all farms, respectively). 10

A final question regarded education: we asked farmers to indicate the highest amount of formal education they had received. The majority of the 415 people who answered this question had high school diplomas (43%), and the next highest were 2- year degrees (13%) and 4-year degrees (13%). Some also indicated other forms of training, such as adult education classes, Amish school, Cooperative Extension, parents/family, some college, and graduate education. Table 14: Business Organization Type How is your dairy farm organized as a business? Check the box for the one that you consider to be the main type. Sole Propietorship 75% Partnership 13% Cooperative <1% Family Corporation 9% Non-family Corporation 3% Other <1% Many farmers offered additional thoughts and comments on such topics as the state of dairy farming in New York State today, their personal manure management practices, and their additional comments on digesters. Although we have not included this information in this summary report, these comments were highly valuable and helped us to think in new ways about anaerobic digestion and its place in NYS dairy farming. These comments will be reflected in our policy and engineering recommendations as well as our future research on the topic. We were also fortunate in that 75% of the people who responded to the survey generously said we could contact them again if the study raised additional questions. While we have not yet had to take most farmers up on that offer, we greatly appreciate the gesture after they had already contributed their valuable time. 11