Sustainable water utilization on Ontario dairy farms by Alexandra Devon Robinson A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Sciences Guelph, Ontario, Canada Alexandra Robinson, May 2015
ABSTRACT SUSTAINABLE WATER UTILIZATION ON ONTARIO DAIRY FARMS Alexandra Robinson University of Guelph, 2015 Advisor: Dr. Robert Gordon Water-use as well as sustainable water practices and technologies on 17 Ontario dairy operations were studied over 20 months using continuous flow DLJ Water Meters to measure water-use in the dairy facilities including cow consumption, milkhouse and parlour usage with the goal of quantifying and assessing the amount of water utilized on an Ontario dairy farm. The producers were interviewed regarding their stance on water-use on their own operations as well as throughout the industry with the goal of gauging producers opinions and motivations behind water utilization as well as future environmental and industry sustainability. Average water-use for an Ontario free stall automated milking operation was found to be significantly greater than the average water usage for an Ontario free stall parlour operation or tie stall operation. However, producers of free stall operations were found to be more willing and more likely to implement sustainable water-use strategies without government incentive.
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis was made possible with the help and support of a stupendous group of people. Firstly, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Robert Gordon for all of his effort, support, and encouragement. I would also like to thank my advisory committee, Dr. Vern Osborne, Dr. Tim Rennie, Dr. Andy VanderZaag, and Mr. Tim Nelson. They imparted such great knowledge with their diverse backgrounds and were an excellent support system. I would also like to thank the 17 amazing dairy farmers who were a part of this study, since it definitely could not have been possible without them! Finally, I wish to thank my insanely supportive family and friends, which I couldn t have gotten through these past two years without. To everyone who contributed even a small helping hand to the success of this study, I thank you. Cheers!
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract... ii Acknowledgements... iii List of Tables... vi List of Figures... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Research Objectives... 3 1.2 Hypotheses... 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW... 5 2.1 Ontario Water Usage... 5 2.1.1 Policies, Initiatives, and Protection Acts... 5 2.1.2 Issues with Water Access... 7 2.2 Dairy Farm Water Utilization... 7 2.2.1Processes of Water Utilization... 8 2.3 Dairy Water Conservation... 12 2.3.1 Conservation Technologies and Practices... 13 2.3.2 Dairy Water Conservation Worldwide... 15 2.4 Producers Views on Water... 16 2.5 Summary and Research Needs... 18 CHAPTER 3: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER UTILIZATION... 20 3.1 Introduction... 20 3.2 Methodology... 21 3.2.1 Study Population... 21 3.2.2 Water Meters... 22 3.2.3 Data Analysis... 25 3.3 Results and Discussion... 26
v 3.4 Conclusion... 39 CHAPTER 4: DAIRY FARM WATER UTILIZATION SURVEY... 40 4.1 Introduction... 40 4.2 Methodology... 42 4.2.1 Study Population... 42 4.2.2 Farm Survey Questionnaire... 43 4.2.3 Data Analysis... 45 4.3 Results and Discussion... 46 4.4 Conclusion... 59 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 61 5.1 Summary... 61 5.2 Recommendations... 62 CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES... 67 CHAPTER 7: APPENDICES... 72 Appendix A: DLJ Water Meter... 72 Appendix B: Farm Survey Questionnaire... 73 Appendix C: Cross-tabulation Short Forms... 76 Appendix D: Map of Dairy Farm and Weather Station Locations... 77 Appendix E: Regional Temperatures and Weather Station Locations... 78!
vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Past literature of on-farm dairy water-use values... 13 Table 3.1 Operational information for 17 Ontario dairy farms utilized for this study...24 Table 3.2 CanWest DHI 2014 data averages for 17 Ontario dairy farms...24 Table 3.3 Average daily water-use on 17 Ontario dairy operations from August 2013 through December 2014 with a comparison to average milk production...28 Table 3.4 Average daily water-use on 17 Ontario dairy operations grouped by milking system from August 2013 through December 2014...28 Table 3.5 Variance analysis of the average water-use of 10 free stall robotic facilities, free stall parlour facilities, and tie stall facilities in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014...29 Table 3.6 Tukey Test results of average water-use of 10 free stall robotic facilities, free stall parlour facilities, and tie stall facilities in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014...30 Table 3.7 Average monthly water-use on 10 Ontario dairy operations from August 2013 through December 2014...32 Table 3.8 Variance analysis of the average monthly water-use of 10 dairy operations and seasonal temperature in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014...32 Table 3.9 Tukey Test results of average water-use of 10 dairy operations and seasonal temperature in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014...32 Table 3.10 Past literature of on-farm dairy water-use values with comparison to this study...39 Table 4.1 Likert scale values utilized in the Farm Survey Questionnaire coding...45 Table 4.2 Qualitative open-ended question trends according to the Research Project Matrix Tool...52 Table 4.3 Farm Survey Questionnaire Results...53 Table 4.4 Likert scale survey question response percentages...55 Table 4.5 SPSS cross-tabulation of Farm Survey Questionnaire, operation information, and CanWest DHI data for 17 Ontario dairy producers...58
vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Daily water-use on 7 Ontario free stall parlour operations from August 2013 through December 2014...36 Figure 3.2 Daily water-use on 2 Ontario free stall robotic operations from August 2013 through December 2014...36 Figure 3.3 Daily water-use on 2 Ontario tie stall operations from August 2013 through December 2014...37 Figure 3.4 Daily water-use in the milkhouse on 2 Ontario free stall operations from August 2013 through December 2014...37 Figure 3.5 Daily water-use in the milkhouse on 5 Ontario tie stall operations from August 2013 through December 2014...38 Figure 3.6 Average monthly water-use on 10 Ontario dairy farms from August 2013 through December 2014 with standard error...38 Figure 4.1 Qualitative open-ended question trends of 17 Ontario dairy producers...52 Figure 4.2 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question about water conservation strategies practiced currently on their farm...55 Figure 4.3 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question about their main driver behind water conservation strategies practiced on their farm...56 Figure 4.4 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question about if water conservation is a priority on their farm...56 Figure 4.5 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question Does the impact of possible future water restrictions concern you?...57 Figure 4.5 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question Should we have provincial programs specifically to support on-farm water conservation?...57
1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The production demand on the agricultural industry is constantly increasing with the growth of the human population. This is creating pressure on water resources, which then leads to water resource management issues all around the world (Wall and Marzall, 2007). Water is a vital agricultural resource; therefore its effective use provides a means to improve the environmental sustainability of the agricultural industry. Water is one of the most important factors of dairy farms. The water that is consumed by cows is essential for milk production and the water that is used to wash, clean, and cool features of the dairy facility are essential for a dairy operation to function properly. The total water footprint of the dairy industry makes up 19% of the global footprint of all animal production, second only to the beef industry at 33% (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012). It has been estimated that the water footprint of milk production is 1000 m 3 tonne of milk -1 (Mekonnon and Hoekstra, 2012). There are considerations that go into the water footprint calculation that are not wholly controllable by the farmer including processes such as the feed production process for the cattle. However, this overall water footprint represents a substantial amount of water and the water that can be conserved throughout the production system on-farm can have a significant effect (House et al., 2014). Water is utilized in many aspects of dairy production within the dairy barn including; cow consumption, washing of the milking equipment and milking parlour, cleaning of the pipelines, washing down of the holding area, and cooling of the milk (Brugger, 2007).
2 With the agricultural industry as one of the leading freshwater consumers in Canada, and dairy operations as significant users, it is important to improve dairy farmers awareness of their direct and indirect water usage (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007). Water is abundant throughout Canada, making it seem like an inexhaustible resource, yet there have been issues with supply in the past and it will certainly become a bigger issue in the future (de Loë et al., 2001). This trend may lead to more active regulation and monitoring of water-use in all agricultural sectors, which could put a great amount of pressure, especially financially, on producers. Agricultural water conservation is an extremely important issue due to greater scrutiny being placed on more effective use of water resources in agricultural production systems (Robinson, 2006). With more awareness of water conservation comes knowledge and in turn, positive action. By gauging how much water is utilized on Ontario dairy operations as well as producers opinions on sustainable water-use considerations, educated decisions and adjustments can be made to improve producer awareness of water efficiency and conservation, leading to sustainable water management. The second chapter of this thesis draws on the available literature to identify the current state of knowledge with regards to water utilization, quantification, and sustainability in the dairy sector. Components of Ontario agricultural water-use, specifically in the dairy sector, are discussed. These include the elements of a dairy operation that utilize water, policies and incentives available to Ontario farmers, Ontario freshwater access, as well as dairy operation comparisons and contrasts from other areas of the world. These components are then used to delve deeper into
3 current water-use efficient practices and technologies that are being utilized on dairy operations and farmers opinions and observations on sustainable water-use and on-farm water conservation. The third chapter of this thesis describes monitoring that was conducted on 17 Ontario dairy operations, which included assessing their water-use over a 20-month period. The fourth chapter describes a survey of the farm managers from these same 17 operations in which they were interviewed about their farm, their water-use, and their opinions on water conservation in the dairy industry, province, and country. Finally, results from both experiments are compared and contrasted in the fifth chapter and recommendations are described. 1.1 Research Objectives The primary goal of this research is to quantify the amount of water utilized on a range of Ontario dairy operations. The secondary goal is to gauge Ontario-based dairy producers current attitudes and priorities around water conservation. Specific objectives were to: (i) Determine water-use for a number of different Ontario-based dairy operations for the purpose
4 of quantifying the amount of water utilized on an Ontario dairy farm, and determining if seasonal fluctuations are present. (ii) Collect information from Ontario dairy producers on current attitudes and priorities around dairy farm water conservation for the purpose of determining their opinions on water conservation. (iii) Identify strategic water conservation measures for Ontario dairy operations. 1.2 Hypotheses To develop the quantification of Ontario dairy farm water-use as well as recommendations for the dairy industry and dairy producers, the following hypotheses were formulated: (i) Ontario tie stall operations on average utilize less water than Ontario free stall parlour operations and Ontario free stall automated milking system operations. (ii) Ontario dairy farmers who perceive sustainable water-use as a priority on their operations are more receptive about adopting water conservation practices.
5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Ontario Water Usage Ontario has had localized water shortages and water stress situations in the past, which is a concern that will most likely increase in the coming years based on forecasts of climate change (Crabbe and Robin, 2006). Droughts and water stress conditions have occurred in North America in more recent years, which can cause many issues such as water restrictions, increased municipal water costs, losses of agricultural production, forest fires, and many other negative effects on the natural environment (Ivey et al., 2004). Canadians are aware of water conservation practices, however most of the water reuse in Canadian agriculture is focused on irrigation rather than any reuse throughout the barn facility (Exall, 2004). Although sustainable use in irrigation is quite important, there are many other aspects of an agricultural operation that can be run at a more efficient and sustainable level to reduce the amount of water consumed on a daily basis. 2.1.1 Policies, Initiatives, and Protection Acts The Government of Ontario has implemented the Source Water Protection Plan, the Nutrient Management Act, and the Clean Water Act to ensure water quality is adequate for drinking water standards, wildlife protection, and so on. However, there are no other policies or incentives in
6 Ontario specifically for the protection of water quantity (Crabbe and Robin, 2006). The Ontario Low Water Response was established in 2000 as a Code of Practice in times of drought, however to produce and implement it, local conservation authorities must voluntarily take their own action, which is not always possible (Ivey et al., 2004). There are resources to assist in general environmental sustainability such as the Environmental Farm Plan (EFP), which was developed by a group of Ontario agricultural federations (OMAFRA, 2013a). The EFP provides producers with tools to assess and implement environmental practices on their operations and to provide individualized risk assessments and environmental action plans with financial help provided for implementing these actions and reaching the producers environmental goals (OMAFRA, 2013a). Many of these policies and acts that have been put in place by the government are not being utilized properly or are not available, recognized, financially supported, or usable in certain regions. A large portion of Canadian producers who were surveyed in 2009, were actually not aware of the Environmental Farm Plan (Atari et al., 2009). Farmers also tend to view government policies and regulations as initiatives that actually increase labour and stress, and even decrease their farm s profitability (Willock et al., 1999). Farmers want government programs that they can feel secure in, that meet their needs, and in which involvement is risk-free (Smithers and Furman, 2003). Policies and strategies with more awareness, support, flexibility, and usable incentives could be established to help conserve the province s water quantity and hopefully change farmers perceptions of government involvement as well as to forestall significant and costly water shortage issues in the future.
7 2.1.2 Issues with Water Access Globally, due to climate change, the earth s surface temperature has been slowly rising (Walther et al., 2002). With this increase, many predictions have been made indicating that future harmful water events, such as drought and excessive rainfall, will become progressively more frequent (von Keyserlingk et al., 2013). These fluctuations will cause extremes in soil water status, both shortages and surplus, which will cause significant challenges for the sustainable production of food and feedstocks (von Keyserlingk et al., 2013). Over 50% of Canada s overall water withdrawals come from Ontario, and the southwestern area of Ontario uptakes more water than any other section of the province, with over half of that uptake occurring during the peak summer months when the province is also in drier conditions (Dolan et al., 2000). Shortages have been known to occur frequently throughout these summer months. Water access in Ontario can change drastically depending on the area and the season. There are areas in Ontario where water access does not appear to be of great concern, while other areas have been known to have some water access difficulties. Being able to support the more susceptible areas as well as being able to predict when regions may experience problems would be a great step towards sustainable freshwater usage in Ontario. 2.2 Dairy Farm Water Utilization Water is an extremely large and essential portion of any successful dairy operation. It is
8 important not only to the cattle for consumption, but also to the producer for milking equipment cleanliness, facility safety, milk treatment, milk quality, and manure handling. Without water, a dairy operation would be non-functional. There are many significantly different types of dairy operations in Ontario and within these different types there are many significant variations, which means there cannot be a single, one-size-fits-all series of water-use guidelines for dairy farms. The amount of water utilized in a dairy facility can vary tremendously from operation to operation (House et al., 2014). These differences are the result of various milking systems (for example, an automated milking system versus a herringbone parlour system), barn styles (for example, tie stall versus free stall), herd sizes, age of cattle, breed of cattle, the specific milk cooling system, parlour washdown procedures, and holding area washdown procedures (House et al., 2014). 2.2.1 Processes of Water Utilization There are two main types of housing systems on dairy operations, tie stall and free stall. However, there are three main types of milking systems on dairy operations as well. These include tie stalls, free stall parlours, and free stall automated or robotic milking systems. Unfortunately, there is a lack of literature on the differences between water-use in tie stall versus free stall operations. It has been found that free stall automated milking systems have different water procedures than free stall parlour systems (House et al., 2014). Robotic milkers run a wash and rinse cycle if they are left inactive for a certain period of time (House et al., 2014). Therefore, automated milking systems will be using water unnecessarily if not kept near full
9 milking capacity, which is typically 60 cows per robotic milker. The average water-use per day of a robotic milking system was found to range between approximately 295 and 964 litres, depending on the model (Jensen, 2009). The more common models (Lely Astronaut, DeLaval A/S) are in the range of 549 litres per day on clean-up of all of the equipment, prep of the milking cow, rinsing of the cow after milking, and washdown of the milking area, which equates to approximately 6 litres per milking (Jensen, 2009). However, the sanitizing and cleaning procedures of an automated milking system cannot be easily altered, due to the automation, to reduce the amount of water they use compared to a parlour-style milking system (Jensen, 2009). Average water consumption on an Ontario dairy farm by a lactating Holstein cow was observed to be 115 L d -1 when producing an average of 33 kg of milk d -1 (NRC, 2001). However, all other processes on a dairy farm that utilize water have not been fully quantified in Ontario. Therefore, mainly American studies were utilized, however it is important to keep in mind that dairy operations in the United States are not entirely similar to Canadian dairy operations, particularly in herd size and in climatic conditions (Knutson et al., 1997). American dairies tend to have a great deal more cattle per farm than Canadian dairies, which will affect their water usage and facility arrangement (Knutson et al., 1997). With an increase in herd size comes an increase in pipeline length, bulk tank volume, holding area size, and parlour size, which all increase the amount of wastewater required (House et al., 2014). A dairy farm in Ohio, producing an average of 36.3 kg of milk d -1, was found to use an average of 89 L of water d -1 cow -1 for consumption and 24 L d -1 cow -1 in waste water, which included
10 parlour and milking equipment cleaning, and other such uses (Brugger, 2007). This equates to an average total water-use of approximately 113 L of water d -1 cow -1 (Brugger, 2007). Milking parlour water-use is typically the second largest component after cow consumption, since it involves milking equipment cleaning, at times cow udder cleaning and prepping, and the washing down of the parlour floors at the end of each milking session (Willers et al., 1999). The parlour should be one of the cleanest locations in a dairy facility to prevent transfer of contagious diseases between cows, such as mastitis, as well as to prevent contamination of the milk (Faye et al., 1994). On most facilities, milking equipment cleaning is a four-phase routine including (i) sanitization before milking, (ii) first rinse after milking, (iii) detergent wash, and (iv) acid rinse (House et al., 2014). In a Michigan free stall dairy facility with 850 milking cows, it was found that water-use was 0.45 L cow -1 for each milking equipment clean-up, 4.45 L cow -1 per milking for milking parlour clean-up, and 0.24 L cow -1 for the milk bulk tank clean-up (Thomas, 2001). Prepping of each cow for milking tends to use 1-2 L cow -1 per milking, however not all facilities conduct a prep routine that involves water (Rasmussen et al., 1992). Cooling of the milk typically occurs in a plate cooler, which ideally should use 2 L of water for every 1 L of milk cooled to be as efficient as possible (Greene et al., 1999). Unfortunately, older plate coolers may be using water up to five times the amount of milk cycling through the system (Greene et al., 1999). Sprinklers for cooling of cows, more commonly used in the southern United States but are becoming slightly more common in Ontario, can vary between 70 and 212 L d -1 cow -1 depending on the number of cycles and ambient temperature conditions (West, 2003). Please see Table 2.1 for all past literature on-farm water-use data for closer comparison.
11 In general, all of these water-use values are farm-specific and may not be broadly applicable due to differences in climate conditions, geographical location, and operation design. Therefore, values in the literature generally vary across regions. For this reason, more research with increasing numbers of diverse and varying facilities would be valuable for extrapolating the amount of water utilized on dairy farms with smaller herd size, different degrees of water access, and so on. The processes that utilize the greatest amount of water in a dairy operation are: cow consumption, milk pre-cooling, and parlour usage/milking equipment cleanup (Brugger, 2007). Cow consumption is not a factor that can easily be conserved since it is essential that the cows drink water to be able to produce milk. Milk is 87% water and therefore, not only is water important for their health but water is also the largest component of the milk they are producing, leading to a strong correlation between milk yield and water consumption (Lopez, 2005). On dairy operations, cow water consumption can make up 50-75% of the total water-use (MDC, 2007). The water utilized to pre-cool the milk is generally double (2:1 ratio) the amount of milk produced on the farm (Greene et al. 1999). This equates to approximately 25% of a dairy operation s total water-use (MDC, 2007). The water utilized to cool the milk is not contaminated in any way and therefore can be reused without any treatment after cooling, which is implemented on some farms but definitely not on all. Parlour water-use is highly inconsistent, varying from 5 to 50 L d -1 cow -1, making up anywhere from 5-17% of the total on-farm water usage (MDC, 2007). Parlour water-use cannot be reused as easily because it tends to become contaminated with milk and feces. Depending on the intended purpose afterwards, extensive
12 filtration and treatment of the water would be required, which can be costly. However, parlour water usage can be made more efficient manually. There tends to be a wide range in the amount of water used in parlour clean-up and washdown by the producer (House et al., 2014). With exact and efficient methods implemented, such as scraping down of the parlour before washing or utilizing water conserving hose nozzles, water usage in the milking parlour has the potential to be greatly reduced (MDC, 2007). 2.3 Dairy Water Conservation It is important to look at technologies as well as practices that improve water-use efficiency. Beneficial technologies include more efficient equipment such as pressure washers or proficient milk cooling systems (MDC, 2007). Beneficial practices include procedures such as scraping the holding area down before rinsing or limiting water volume where possible (MDC, 2007). The multi-factorial nature of water conservation tends to make it difficult at times to isolate an exact procedure, best practice, or technology that will maximize the reduction of water-use on a dairy operation (House et al., 2014). There are large water-saving technologies and practices but also small ones that can add up over time as well (MDC, 2007). Successful implementation can depend on many factors, such as the size of the farm, what the producer is willing to implement, the cost of the technology, the time it may take to install or put into practice, and the labour required on an ongoing basis afterwards. On an Ontario dairy operation, which was milking 100 cows in a free stall parlour system, it was
13 found that an average 13,550 L of water d -1 was taken from the well and 9550 L d -1 was going into the manure storage after other uses, which equates to approximately 75% (House et al., 2014). During the study, efficient adjustments were made to the system, which included refiguration of the barn s water system, installation of a high volume pump, and an addition of a holding tank for reuse of plate cooler water, reducing the water-use to 7420 L d -1 and the amount added to the manure storage to 3420 L d -1 (House et al., 2014). This is a reduction of 45% for water-use and 74% for storage requirements (House et al., 2014). This is a huge indication that efficient water-use is achievable and can save a farmer a great deal on not only the amount of water they use, but also in energy costs with a reduction in pumping requirements and manure hauling and storage requirements. Table 2.1 Past literature of on-farm dairy water-use values. Reference Milking System Milk Production (kg d -1 cow -1 ) Total (L d -1 cow -1 ) Consumption (L d -1 ) Robotic Milker (L d -1 ) Parlour Cleanup (L cow -1 milking -1 ) Milkhouse (L d -1 cow -1 ) Jensen, 2009 Robot 549.0 NRC, 2001 33.0 115.0 Brugger, 2007 Parlour 36.3 113.0 89.0 24 West, 2003 Parlour Thomas, 2001 Parlour 4.5 House et al., 2014 Parlour 135.5 2.3.1 Conservation Technologies and Practices Water conservation strategies are techniques utilized to reduce the amount of water-use (Ward and King, 1997). There are several water conservation strategies that are available to farmers, however not all of them are widely recognized and practiced (Brugger, 2007).
14 Conservation technologies are actual physical products that can be installed on-farm in various ways to improve the efficiency of an operation. Recycling wastewater is an efficient way to improve water conservation on dairy operations and there are many ways of performing this (Williams and Anderson, 2006). This can easily be introduced on the majority of operations with the installation of a water holding tank. A roof water collection system is also a great asset to have on any farm. The collected rainwater can be used in many different areas on the farm, such as the plate cooler system or for parlour washdown, to save on the amount of water being pumped up from the well or other water source (MDC, 2007). When drinking water is being dumped on a regular basis in order to keep fresh water in front of the cows, shallow tip troughs save a large amount of water in comparison to deeper tip troughs (SUEVIA, 2014). Also, regularly checking for and fixing leaks in pipes and fittings is actually a huge water saving technique since many leaks can go undetected (MDC, 2007). An easy way to reduce the amount of water used without changing daily practices is to install pressure washers in place of volume hoses (MDC, 2007). Conservation practices are also simple ways to reduce the amount of wasted water and are more about the day-to-day operation of the farm, not an installed technology. These include practices such as not letting water troughs overflow, washing down floors efficiently and effectively while using the least amount of water, and minimizing the amount of time cows spend loitering in the holding area to reduce the amount of manure clean-up afterwards (MDC, 2007). Also, scraping floors before washdown can greatly reduce the amount of water required for cleaning the holding
15 area (MDC, 2007). Although it is helpful to have water efficient equipment on farms, that is not always possible or practical for all operations. By developing awareness and creating waterconscious producers, where other larger water savings cannot be put in place, small every day practices can add up and greatly reduce the amount of wasted water over time. 2.3.2 Dairy Water Conservation Worldwide Canada has an abundance of freshwater. Canadian dairy producers currently are not charged for the water they utilize. Producers in many other countries are not as fortunate and some countries require their producers to pay or be accountable for their entire water-use, making these international producers a great deal more conscious of their water management considerations (Allinson et al., 2007). Finding ways to reuse water decreases the cost of taking water and the cost of disposal, which is great incentive for these farmers in other countries to be more efficient with their water-use. The average Canadian tends to use approximately double the amount of freshwater than the average European, possibly due to this lacking necessity to be exceedingly water-conscious (EC, 2004). Other countries also tend to have more significant policies and legislation specifically created for water quantity protection. Canada and especially Ontario, after the Walkerton incident, have guidelines in place around water quality standards. Legislation, such as Ontario s Nutrient Management Act, is aimed at protecting water quality not necessarily water quantity. However, there is much less focus on water quantity standards. A study conducted by Statistics Canada
16 found that southern Canada, the more populated region of Canada, has seen an 8.5% decline in its renewable water sources since 1971 (SC, 2014). This will be a cause for concern in the coming years. Although Ontario does not have as much general knowledge or specific regulations, fortunately there are resources to pull from other countries as a reference, which will be a great asset to Canada and Ontario in formulating any future policies and plans. 2.4 Producers Views on Water Studies have analyzed the effectiveness and implementation of government incentive programs, such as the Environmental Farm Plan, but there are not many studies that have asked the farmers standpoints and recommendations on these types of programs (Atari et al., 2009). Planning and implementation of environmental programs and policies can be greatly improved and advanced by surveying producers and their opinions on these programs and their effectiveness. In 2009, DeLaval conducted a worldwide survey of their customers and found that dairy farmers selected manure handling, electricity usage, and water management as the top three areas of concern to their operation s business in terms of environmental impact (DeLaval, 2012). They used these customer concerns to make improvements to the environmental impact of their automated milking system technology (DeLaval, 2012). Between 2009 and 2011, their milking systems have seen a 17% reduction in energy use, a 31% reduction in the amount of hazardous waste produced, but only a marginal 1% improvement in water-use (DeLaval, 2012). Although
17 water management is seen as a concern to dairy producers globally, it is easier for companies to improve other processes such as energy usage than water usage. It has been shown that the price a consumer pays for a product far outweighs any other motivation to purchase that certain product, such as ones produced utilizing improved animal welfare standards or environmentally sustainable practices (von Keyserlingk et al., 2013). Therefore, not only is it important to gain insight into the producers opinions but also into consumers opinions if we are to assess the potential for change. Consumers drive the agricultural industry and if environmentally sustainable products cost more, the industry has to know that consumers will pay that extra cost for sustainability. Education of the public is key and the shift towards environmentally friendly products as something that consumers will pay extra for has already been seen emerging in the past (Min and Galle, 1997). It has been found that producers are more likely to participate in programs, such as the Environmental Farm Plan, if they believe it will be made known to the general public, resulting in improvements to the overall environmental image of agriculture (Atari et al., 2009). There is a push to more sustainable agriculture on-farm, which will continue to be encouraged (Smithers and Furman, 2003). As farmers want less government involvement, this may increase the use of more farmer-friendly programs, such as the Environmental Farm Plan, which is focused towards the farmer creating their own sustainable projects for farm-level environmental conservation (Smithers and Furman, 2003). The attitude of producers about water conservation does not necessarily resonate in their on-farm practices (Smithers and Furman, 2003). However,
18 for those developing incentive programs, it has the potential to be a great asset for gaining insight into the opinions producers have around sustainability and on-farm water usage. A study on water-use on California dairy farms found that many farmers, when asked how much water their farm used, estimated a lower amount than what was actually measured on their farms later on (Meyer et al., 2006). The main issue is implementing ways for producers to become more aware of their water-use and the best practices that are available for them to improve their use. With the possibility of new water-use regulations being put in place in Canada, dairy farmers may be looking for more water efficient options in the future (Gottschall et al., 2007). Education, as well as reliable and effective technology, is key for producers, the public, as well as the industry for improvements in sustainable water utilization on Ontario dairy operations. 2.5 Summary and Research Needs Considerable progress has been made in many parts of the world in regards to quantification of water utilization on dairy operations. However, there is little to no literature on this quantification on Ontario dairy operations and little to no literature on the opinions of dairy producers from any area of the world. Dairy farmers have great insights and judgments that could lend themselves to the decisions being made about the water-use on their farms. Not only is it important to gauge how much water is being utilized on an Ontario dairy farm but also to associate it with and link it with the producers opinions on sustainable water utilization and how words can translate into action. This research was done to improve our knowledge on the amount
19 of water being utilized in different areas of Ontario dairy operations and how different styles of housing and milking systems compare in their water-use, as well as on the producers knowledge in the area of on-farm sustainable water utilization.
20 CHAPTER 3: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER UTILIZATION 3.1 Introduction Water is essential for agricultural production, however monitoring its use in the Ontario agricultural sector has been minimally examined (de Loë et al., 2001). Increasing our level of understanding of agricultural water-use in Ontario would be a great asset for the industry, individual producers, and even for general provincial water management (de Loë et al., 2001). It has been estimated that total Ontario agricultural water-use, excluding aquaculture, is 168 million m 3 of water annually (de Loë et al., 2001). In Ontario, livestock water-use tends to be the largest in the agricultural sector, even greater than water-use for irrigation, which is mainly due to the fact that irrigation is only seasonal, while livestock utilize water all year round (Howell, 2001). Furthermore, Ontario does not have as much irrigation in comparison to some other areas in North America. With such a large amount of water being consumed for an industry that is always dealing with an increase in demand of production, and in turn the resources required for production, identifying specific water usage amounts of each sector would be important information to acquire. The dairy industry in Ontario has not had a great deal of research conducted on water quantity considerations. Without this knowledge base to work off of, it is difficult to calculate the water usage amount for dairy production in Ontario and hence, difficult to identify more efficient methods of on-farm water utilization for each of the different dairy management systems.
21 Water-use on 17 dairy operations across Ontario were monitored using continuous flow DLJ Water Meters for a period of 20 months. The averages were calculated and then compared and contrasted depending on season, milking system, housing system, and the specific area of the dairy facility. The objective of this study was to determine water-use for a number of different Ontario-based dairy operations for the purpose of quantifying the amount of water utilized on an Ontario dairy farm and determining possible seasonal fluctuations. 3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Study Population This study was carried out over two years, from May 2013 through December 2014 (20 months). Initially, 25 Ontario dairy operations were pre-selected for this study from a previous Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) New Directions project (OMAFRA, 2013c). Of these, a total of 8 were excluded due to the farmer s choice not to participate or because the facility s plumbing and/or water systems were not able to support the water meters for various reasons. The final 17 farms (n=17) included in the study were geographically distributed as: 7 from the Ottawa area; 5 from the New Liskeard area; 2 from the Napanee area; and 3 from the Embro area (see Appendix D for a map of the farm locations). These 17 consisted of 11 free stall facilities, which included 1 swingover parlour, 5 parallel parlours, 2 rotary parlours, and 3 automated milking systems, as well as 6 tie stall facilities. Each operation was coded from A to Q, to ensure anonymity. The size of the
22 milking herds on these 17 farms varied from 36 to 187 cows, with average total herd sizes (including dry cows and in some cases, replacement heifers) ranging from 44 to 226 cows. The herd sizes were calculated by taking an average of the 2014 CanWest DHI data herd sizes for each operation. All farms milked Holsteins except for Farm E, which milked Jersey cows. All non-automated milking operations (tie stall and free stall parlour) were milking twice daily except Farm N, which had three milkings per day. All farms relied on groundwater as their primary water source, with one operation utilizing a pond for cow consumption during the more demanding months of the year (July and August). Table 3.1 includes further details for each farm. 3.2.2 Water Meters An initial farm review was conducted in the summer of 2013, in which continuous flow DLJ Water Meters, models DLJ75, DLJ75H, DLJ100, DLJ150, and DLJ200 (Jerman Co., New Jersey, USA), were installed. Please see Appendix A for an example of a DLJ Water Meter (Model DLJ75). These water meters are made of epoxy-coated frost-resistant bronze with a tempered glass lens, measure flow in US gallons, and have accuracy within 1-0.5% with a magnetic drive, low flow indicator, and their flow rates are in accordance with US Industry Standards and AWWA C708 (Jerman Co., New Jersey, USA). During this initial farm review, the farmers were also asked about their farm s specifications. These specifications included; farm location, housing system, milking system, total herd size
23 (dry and milking), and if any water conservation practices or technologies were utilized on the farm (Table 3.1). The farmers were also asked for their signature on a CanWest DHI Data Release Form for data on milk production, milk protein content, milk fat content, milking herd size, and somatic cell count (SCC) (Table 3.1, Table 3.2). These first reviews occurred on-farm between July 23, 2013 and September 13, 2013. Monthly thereafter until December 31, 2014, the producers were contacted to provide the most recent continuous flow water meter readings. The water usage readings were converted into L from US gallons by multiplying by 3.78541 (the standard conversion rate for US gallons to L). The values were then converted to a daily basis by dividing the usage amount by the number of days since the preceding reading. Finally, the values were converted to a per cow basis by dividing the usage by the amount of milking cows in the respective herd (if it was a milkhouse or parlour measurement) or by dividing the usage by the amount of the entire population in the respective herd (if it was a total barn measurement). This allowed for the closest comparisons possible between operations but is also limiting, since not all farms have their replacement heifers on farm, which can slightly skew the herd size. The farms where the replacement heifers are on-farm would increase the total herd size, include cattle that consume less water, and include cattle that do not use any water in the milkhouse or parlour locations of the farm. However, the cows that are milking heavily will be consuming more water than the average so utilizing the full herd size amount in total barn measurement is the greatest accuracy that can be achieved with this possible skewness in data.
24 Table 3.1 Operational information for 17 Ontario dairy farms utilized for this study. Farm Location Installed Flow Meters Herd Size Milking Herd Size Housing Style Milking System Conservation Practices Employed a A Ottawa 2 (1") 141 126 Free Rotary Yes B Embro 1 (1.5") 160 80 Free Robot Yes C New Liskeard 1 (3/4") 52 40 Tie Tie No D Ottawa 2 (3/4") 72 65 Free Parallel Yes E New Liskeard 2 (3/4") 44 36 Tie Tie Yes F New Liskeard 1 (2") 177 146 Tie Tie Yes G Ottawa 1 (1") 181 155 Free Robot Yes H Napanee 2 (1") 116 98 Free Parallel Yes I Napanee 3 (3/4") 145 125 Free Parallel Yes J Ottawa 1 (3/4") 85 78 Tie Tie No K New Liskeard 1 (3/4") 47 43 Tie Tie No L Embro 2 (1.5"), 7 (3/4") 125 108 Free Robot Yes M Ottawa 3 (1.5") 135 118 Free Swingover Yes N New Liskeard 2 (3/4") 151 122 Free Parallel Yes O Ottawa 1 (1") 71 65 Tie Tie Yes P Embro 1 (1.5") 116 104 Free Parallel Yes Q Ottawa 1 (2") 226 187 Free Rotary Yes a Each producer s response to whether they practiced any water conservation on their farm of their own accord before this study began. Table 3.2 CanWest DHI data averages for 17 Ontario dairy farms. Farm Milk Production (kg d -1 cow -1 ) Fat (%) Protein (%) SCC (cells ml -1 ) A 29.45 4.1 3.3 174 920 B 34.50 4.0 3.2 160 000 C 27.89 4.1 3.3 189 420 D 31.24 4.1 3.2 239 380 E 21.11 5.1 3.8 235 420 F 31.50 4.0 3.2 232 910 G 34.05 4.0 3.4 333 570 H 35.41 3.7 3.2 105 770 I 33.00 3.7 3.2 287 500 J 38.28 3.7 3.2 243 670 K 15.86 3.9 3.0 211 860 L 32.49 4.0 3.3 151 640 M 29.06 3.9 3.4 151 400 N 29.82 4.0 3.2 226 250 O 31.63 4.1 3.3 153 640 P 30.00 a N/A a N/A a 107 000 a Q 36.27 4.1 3.3 147 420 a Not a member of CanWest DHI
25 3.2.3 Data Analysis 10 farms and their water-use were selected for the data analysis because these farms were measuring water-use either for total farm usage or for cow consumption, both of which are not on any automated cycles, such as milkhouse usage, and have the possibility to fluctuate with the season and milking or housing style. The only farm that measured total water-use that was excluded in the season portion of the data analysis was Farm L, due to missing readings. With only 4 readings provided throughout the year, it was determined that Farm L did not have enough readings to be utilized for an accurate seasonality comparison. The Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) program, Version 21.0, was used to analyze the water-use data against the type of barn (SPSS Statistics, 2013). An analysis of variance was run on average monthly water-use (L d -1 cow -1 ), as the dependent variable, and barn type (tie stall, free stall parlour, or free stall robotic), as the independent variable. Out of the 10 farms, there were a total of 121 readings utilized for this analysis; 30 tie stall monthly averages, 77 free stall parlour monthly averages, and 14 free stall robotic monthly averages. All assumptions for the analysis of variance were met. There were no significant outliers, as determined by a visual boxplot assessment. The data was normally distributed for each group, as determined with a Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality (p<0.05). Homogeneity of variances was also not violated, as determined by a Levene s Test of Homogeneity of Variance (p=0.000). All tests were run with a Type 1 Error of α=0.05. Post hoc analyses were conducted on pairwise contrasts between each of the barn types to determine if any of the pairs were significantly different.
26 The SPSS program, Version 21.0, was also used to analyze the water-use data against each seasons mean temperatures for each region of farm locations (SPSS Statistics, 2013). An analysis of variance was run on average monthly water-use (L d -1 cow -1 ), as the dependent variable, as well as season (spring, summer, fall, winter) and average monthly temperature ( C), as the independent variables. Out of the 10 farms, there were a total of 120 readings utilized for this analysis; 30 spring months water-use averages, 30 summer months water-use averages, 30 fall months water-use averages, and 30 winter months water-use averages. All assumptions for the analysis of variance were met. There were no significant outliers, as determined by a visual boxplot assessment. The data was normally distributed for each group, as determined with a Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality (p<0.05). Homogeneity of variances was also not violated, as determined by a Levene s Test of Homogeneity of Variance (p=0.000). All tests were run with a Type 1 Error of α=0.05. Post hoc analyses were conducted on pairwise contrasts between each of the seasons temperature means to determine if any of the pairs of groups were significantly different. Temperatures for each season in 2014 were obtained from Environment Canada from the closest weather station in each region of farm locations (Woodstock, Cobourg, Ottawa, and Earlton) (EC, 2015). Please see Appendix E for temperatures and specific weather station locations utilized, as well as Appendix D for weather station locations on the farm location map. 3.3 Results and Discussion The average daily water-use for each of the dairy operations are provided in Table 3.3. Each of
27 the farms that specifically measured total facility water-use were grouped into three categories of milking system: (i) free stall parlour facilities, (ii) free stall robotic facilities, and (iii) tie stall facilities (Table 3.4). These three groups are each graphed on a monthly basis in Figure 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Missing values are due to missed readings for that particular month owing to various circumstances. The overall average of each category of milking system were calculated and are represented as a trendline on each of the graphs (Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3).
28 Table 3.3 Average daily water-use on 17 Ontario dairy operations from August 2013 through December 2014 with a comparison to average milk production. Farm Housing Style Milking System Measurement Milk Production (kg d -1 cow -1 ) Average Usage (L d -1 ) Average Usage (L d -1 cow -1 ) A Free Rotary Total 29.5 25147.5 178.4 B Free Robot Total (excluding robot) a 34.5 13083.2 81.8 C Tie Tie Milkhouse 27.9 2703.4 67.6 D Free Parallel Total 31.2 8374.0 116.3 Milkhouse 1190.5 18.3 E Tie Tie Total 21.1 4485.1 101.9 Milkhouse 932.2 25.9 F Tie Tie Milkhouse 31.5 2674.0 18.3 G Free Robot Total 34.1 31815.4 175.8 H Free Parallel Total 35.4 22735.2 196.0 I Free Parallel Total 33.0 11419.6 78.8 Parlour Wash 2673.0 21.4 Plate Cooler 7467.5 59.7 J Tie Tie Milkhouse 38.3 1639.2 21.0 K Tie Tie Total 15.9 4733.9 100.7 L Free Robot Total 32.5 20218.4 161.8 Total (excluding robot) a 13308.9 106.5 M Free Swingover Total 29.1 18366.9 136.1 Consumption 14625.9 108.3 N Free Parallel Milkhouse 29.8 2768.6 22.7 O Tie Tie Milkhouse 31.6 1162.0 17.9 P Free Parallel Total 30.0 14250.9 122.9 Q Free Rotary Total 36.3 25674.4 113.6 a Total (excluding robot) includes all other aspects of the farm (cow consumption, milkhouse, toilet use) Table 3.4 Average daily water-use on 17 Ontario dairy operations grouped by milking system from August 2013 through December 2014. Milking System Measurement Average Usage (L d -1 ) Average Usage (L d -1 cow -1 ) Free Stall Parlour Total 17995.5 134.6 Free Stall Robot Total 26016.9 168.8 Tie Stall Total 4609.5 101.3 Free Stall Parlour Milkhouse 1979.5 20.5 Tie Stall Milkhouse 1822.2 30.2 Free Stall Robot Total (excluding robot) a 13196.0 94.1 Free Stall Robot Robot 12820.9 74.7 a Total (excluding robot) includes all other aspects of the farm (cow consumption, milkhouse, toilet use)
29 The analysis of variance indicates that there is a significant (p<0.05) difference between the types of milking systems (Table 3.5). A post-hoc Tukey Test demonstrated that the free stall robotic milking systems utilized significantly (p<0.05) more water than either the tie stall milking systems or the free stall parlour milking systems (Table 3.6). Free stall robotic facilities were found to have the highest average total daily water-use with 26,016.9 L d -1 or 168.8 L d -1 cow -1 (Table 3.4). Free stall parlour facilities were the second highest average daily water-use with 17,995.5 L d -1 or 134.6 L d -1 cow -1 (Table 3.4). Finally, tie stall facilities were the lowest with 4609.5 L d -1 or 101.3 L d -1 cow -1 (Table 3.4). This is particularly comparable to an Ohio study with 113 L of water d -1 cow -1 in a free stall parlour operation or an Ontario study with 13,550 L of water d -1 when milking 100 cows in a free stall parlour operation, which equates to 135.5 L of water d -1 cow -1 (Brugger, 2007; House et al., 2014). For more comparisons between past literature and this study, please see Table 3.10. From this table, it can be determined that the results from this study were all in the range of past research with comparable facilities. Table 3.10 also shows, as has been previously mentioned, the gaps in the literature in this area of research. Not all of the data gained from this study can be compared to other research, since there is no equivalent data for some facility options. More research is still required for tie stall versus free stall facility comparisons, since the amount of water utilized in a tie stall facility was not found in the review of past literature. Table 3.5 Variance analysis of the average water-use of 10 free stall robotic facilities, free stall parlour facilities, and tie stall facilities in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Value Pr > F Between Groups 61935.891 2 30967.945 36.899 < 0.000 Within Groups 99033.878 118 839.270 Total 160969.769 120
30 Table 3.6 Tukey Test results of average water-use of 10 free stall robotic facilities, free stall parlour facilities, and tie stall facilities in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014. Barn Type (i) Barn Type (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Internal Lower Bound Upper Bound Robot Tie Stall 73.4049 9.3768 <0.000 51.148 95.662 Parlour 30.6818 8.4171 0.001 10.702 50.661 There were a range of water usages monitored in this study, such as the milkhouse, parlour wash, plate cooler, and cow consumption, however not all farms were monitored identically, due to the accessibility of the facility s plumbing or due to the producers preferences. This resulted in a lack of possible comparisons for some of the monitored water-use. After total water usage, the milkhouse usage was the second most monitored area of these dairy farms. The average milkhouse water utilization across operations was calculated and graphed for both the free stall parlour systems and the tie stall systems (Table 3.4, Figure 3.4, Figure 3.5). Free stall parlour milkhouses had an average daily water-use of 1979.5 L d -1 or 20.50 L d -1 cow -1 and tie stall milkhouses had an average daily water-use of 1822.17 L d -1 or 30.15 L d -1 cow -1 (Table 3.4). This is similar in average usage to an Ohio study with 24 L d -1 cow -1 utilized in a free stall milkhouse (Brugger, 2007) (Table 3.10). Tie stall milkhouses utilize more water than the free stall milkhouses, most likely due to the longer pipeline to reach all of the stalls in the barn unlike free stall milkhouses, which are rinsing the pipelines in closer proximity to the milkhouse with just the parlour length to rinse which tends to have less required pipeline. Furthermore, with the general trend of farms slowly moving from tie stall to free stall, the free stall operations may be more modernized and therefore, more likely to have an increase in efficient equipment.
31 There is a definite trend of water-use mirroring seasonal temperature differences. An analysis of variance was conducted on the monthly water-use averages in comparison to temperature of each season, which yielded significant (p<0.05) variation among the seasons (Table 3.7). A post-hoc Tukey Test demonstrated that the summer months (June, July and August) significantly (p<0.05) utilize more water across all types of farms than the winter months (December, January and February) (Table 3.8). The peak water-use coincides with the warm season months of June, July, and August, which can also be visually seen in Figure 3.6. Not only would the cow consumption be increased, but also possibly so would the amount of water required for cooling the milk as well as water used for washing down of the holding area, with manure being more liquid and widespread due to the higher temperatures. For an even simpler comparison, this also falls in peak growing season, a common season reference utilized by farmers, of May to October (OMAFRA, 2013b). The average water-use in the growing season for the 10 farms was 137.3 L d -1 cow -1 and the average water-use in the non-growing season for the 10 farms was 123.3 L d -1 cow -1. Please see Table 3.7 for seasonal comparisons of these 10 farms. Meteorological dates were used for the season timelines to coincide with the monthly flow meter readings. More research into seasonality trends would be useful for further conclusions and recommendations to mitigate the possibility of summer drought issues, for drinking water as well as general operation usage, and loss of available water during peak growing season.
32 Table 3.7 Average monthly water-use on 10 Ontario dairy operations from August 2013 through December 2014. Farm Measurement Spring Average Usage a (L d -1 cow -1 ) Summer Average Usage b (L d -1 cow -1 ) Fall Average Usage c (L d -1 cow -1 ) Winter Average Usage d (L d -1 cow -1 ) A Total Free Stall 206.0 200.0 147.0 156.0 B Total (excluding robot) e 75.0 109.3 87.7 72.7 D Total Free Stall 112.7 125.0 125.3 111.3 E Total Tie Stall 100.7 91.0 107.3 119.7 G Total Free Stall 168.3 185.0 182.0 167.3 H Total Free Stall 201.0 227.3 204.0 165.0 K Total Tie Stall 99.7 119.7 106.3 94.7 M Total Free Stall 129.7 148.7 136.0 124.7 M Cow Consumption 132.7 106.7 79.0 97.3 P Total Free Stall 114.0 127.0 117.3 114.3 Q Total Free Stall 95.3 114.3 128.0 117.3 Total 130.5 141.3 129.1 120.4 a Spring months according to the meterological season calendar (March 1 - May 31) b Summer months according to the meterological season calendar (June 1 - August 31) c Fall months according to the meterological season calendar (September 1 - November 30) d Winter months according to the meterological season calendar (December 1 - February 28/29) e Total (excluding robot) includes all other aspects of the farm (cow consumption, milkhouse, toilet use) Table 3.8 Variance analysis of the average monthly water-use of 10 dairy operations and seasonal temperature in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Value Pr > F Between Groups 121589.100 47 2587.002 2.798 <0.000 Within Groups 66580.600 72 924.731 Total 188169.700 119 Table 3.9 Tukey Test results of average water-use of 10 dairy operations and seasonal temperature in Ontario from August 2013 through December 2014. Season (i) Season (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Internal Lower Bound Upper Bound Summer Spring 14.500 7.8517 0.260-6.150 35.150 Fall 10.633 7.8517 0.532-10.017 31.284 Winter 22.000 7.8517 0.032 1.350 42.650
33 A general visual trend observed is that free stall parlour operation total water-use has more variability within farm than free stall robotic systems or tie stall operations (Figure 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3). However, the most common facility included in this research was free stall parlour operations, which may lead to more fluctuations since there are more operations and therefore, an increase in the chance of variability between facilities. Overall, milkhouse usage tends to be steadier and more consistent over all farm types than total farm usage due to it largely being preset automated cycles such as the plate cooler, pipeline wash, and bulk tank wash (Figure 3.4, Figure 3.5). Another visual trend is outlier farms, such as Farm A, Farm H, and Farm I in free stall facilities and Farm C in tie stall facilities. Farm A had considerable fluctuations and a high amount of water-use. This farm was noted to have odd and sporadic fluctuations with the actual flow meter readings at times throughout the study, which may indicate that their meter was not consistently reading accurately, the flow was not strong enough for it to correctly measure the amount of water passing through, or the air used to flush the line twice a year disrupted the meter. However, these are just speculations, no defect was found with the meters and there were obvious deviations from standards practices that could lead to these fluctuations, even with multiple farm inspections by the farmer, the researcher, the previous OMAFRA/DFO researcher, and members of the graduate committee. Farm H had a lot of fluctuations and a high amount of usage as well, however this may be due to the fact that this is one of the only farms in this study that keeps the replacement heifers, calves, and milking herd all on one single property. Farm I had a low amount of usage in comparison to the other operations. This may be due to the fact that at some
34 peak flow times, their cow consumption is actually pulled from the farm s pond instead of the well, which is then not factored into the flow meter measurements on total usage coming from the well. However, this amount coming from the pond could not be monitored with a flow meter due to the plumbing configuration. Finally, Farm C had a high amount of usage in the milkhouse in comparison to other tie stalls. It has still not been determined as to why this has occurred since it is mainly automated processes and their herd size is not unusually large. The farmer was contacted for any possible differences in cleaning procedures and they are not sure of the reasoning behind this large amount of water-use in comparison to the other tie stall operations. Again, as in Farm A, the large fluctuations are unexplainable at this time. More investigation into these particular farms, as well as installation of additional flow meters as well as dataloggers, which record hourly and/or daily values electronically and with more accuracy than flow meters, on each farm for an increase in precision would be ideal in future research. Free stall robotic operations use more water on a daily basis per cow than free stall parlour operations and tie stall operations. Tie stall milkhouses use more water on a daily basis per cow than free stall milkhouses. Overall, there is variability in water-use, especially in free stall facilities. There is also a significant seasonal trend in water-use on all operations, with the summer months of June, July and August utilizing more water on a daily and per cow basis than the winter months of December, January and February. Larger studies with an increase in the number of operations included will allow for a greater sample size and more depth into free stall compared to tie stall differences, an increase in specific water-use measurements in more areas of the facility, as well as seasonality differences. A greater sample size as well as more flow
35 meters and dataloggers on each farm will also allow for an increase in accurate guidelines in the amount of water utilized on a daily and per cow basis for different types of dairy operations. Additionally, background information on the feedstuff for the cattle may also be helpful for dry matter intake comparisons for water-use as well, a component that was not obtained for this study.
36 300 P Q A M H I D 250 Water Usage (L/d/cow) 200 150 100 134.6 50 0 Figure 3.1 Daily water-use on 7 Ontario free stall parlour operations from August 2013 through December 2014. 300 250 L G Water Usage (L/d/cow) 200 150 100 168.76 50 0 Figure 3.2 Daily water-use on 2 Ontario free stall robotic operations from August 2013 through December 2014..
37 300 250 E K Water Usage (L/d/cow) 200 150 100 101.33 50 0 Figure 3.3 Daily water-use on 2 Ontario tie stall operations from August 2013 through December 2014. 100 90 80 N D 70 Water Usage (L/d/cow) 60 50 40 30 20 20.5 10 0 Figure 3.4 Daily water-use in the milkhouse on 2 Ontario free stall operations from August 2013 through December 2014.
38 100 90 J O F E C 80 Water Usage (L/d/cow) 70 60 50 40 30 30.15 20 10 0 Figure 3.5 Daily water-use in the milkhouse on 5 Ontario tie stall operations from August 2013 through December 2014. 180.00 170.00 160.00 Water Usage (L/d/cow) 150.00 140.00 130.00 120.00 110.00 100.00 January February March April May June July August September October November December Figure 3.6 Average monthly water-use on 10 Ontario dairy farms from August 2013 though December 2014 with standard error.
39 Table 3.10 Past literature of on-farm dairy water-use values with comparison to this study. Reference Milking System Milk Production (kg d -1 cow -1 ) Total (L d -1 cow -1 ) Consumption (L d -1 ) Robotic Milker (L d -1 ) Parlour Cleanup (L cow -1 milking -1 ) Milkhouse (L d -1 cow -1 ) Jensen, 2009 Robot 549.0 NRC, 2001 33.0 115.0 Brugger, 2007 Parlour 36.3 113.0 89.0 24 West, 2003 Parlour Thomas, 2001 Parlour 4.5 House et al., 2014 Parlour 135.5 Current study Robot 33.7 168.8 473.5 Current study Parlour 32.0 134.6 108.3 7.1 20.5 3.4 Conclusion The data indicates that Ontario free stall automated milking system dairy operations utilize more water on a daily basis than tie stall operations and free stall parlour operations (p<0.05). The majority of farms have limited fluctuations in water-use. Where fluctuations occur tends to be during the summer months of June, July and August (p<0.05). This leads to reason, and as expected, that seasonality is a key factor in water-use. In conclusion, Ontario free stall automated milking operations utilize a greater amount of water on a daily and per cow basis than Ontario free stall parlour operations and Ontario tie stall operations and the greatest amount of water-use occurs during the summer. This is important to note for further research as well as future industry standards that may be put in place. With the knowledge that robotic facilities utilize a greater amount of water and are also gradually becoming one of the more common milking systems, producers and industry can begin to target efficient water utilization strategies for this high volume, increasingly popular milking system. Yet, further investigations into these comparisons with additional farms would be useful in expanding upon this research.
40 CHAPTER 4: DAIRY FARM WATER UTILIZATION SURVEY 4.1 Introduction Human water-use has almost doubled in the past century due to the growth of the human population as well as the increase in living standards (Ridoutt et al., 2010). Unfortunately, in many regions of the world, water is often taken for granted. Limited water supply and lack of water access have detrimental effects both on the environment as well as agricultural production (Wall and Marzall, 2007). However, access to water is not widely seen as an issue in most parts of Canada, and specifically in Ontario (Schindler, 2001). There are many other functions of agricultural production that are not as currently abundant as water, that tend to take precedence over water quantity considerations. By interviewing dairy producers and accurately assessing their level of awareness of water issues, the industry can determine where improvements can occur and possibly establish water management strategies. This may lead to sustainable water utilization programs being established and adopted by many Ontario dairy operations. With possible increasing water quantity issues in the near future, programs around water efficiency will be an excellent next step into a more sustainable industry. Dairy farmers are frequently identified as being innovative in their practices and the technologies they utilize to improve profitability and environmental sustainability of their operations (Willock et al., 1999). It was shown in a previous farmer survey study that even when an environmental problem is recognized, a producer s main driver will still be their finances over the environment
41 (Willock et al., 1999). However, there can still be improvement and action if environmental strategies are compatible with current practices (Jacobson et al., 2003). For example, water conservation can decrease energy costs as a result of reducing pumping requirements and decreasing manure volumes required for hauling and storage. With improved knowledge around these savings and ways that they can be implemented, dairy producers will likely begin to further adopt sustainable water management strategies. Farmers require more understanding and information in specific environmental areas to be able to formulate knowledgeable farm management decisions (Jacobson et al., 2003). In a previous farmer survey, about increasing bird conservation on farmland, it was identified that farmers who were already knowledgeable in bird-friendly practices were a great deal more willing to put the practices into action on their farm (Jacobson et al., 2003). With more communication and knowledge, hopefully an increase in on-farm environmental practices will be observed. It has also been found that people with positive attitudes towards conservation are more likely to adopt government environmental programs (Putten et al., 2011). However, farmers will join programs for various reasons and potential outcomes, which tends to vary depending on the farmer and their operation (Putten et al., 2011). The issue is that there is a lack of literature on evaluations of farmers opinions about environmental programs (Ahnström et al., 2008). This should not be the case, since farmers are the ones utilizing the programs and therefore, should be given consultation considerations. To identify farmers opinions as well as their general attitudes surrounding water conservation, a survey was conducted with the farm managers of 17 dairy operations across Ontario, in which they were interviewed about their farm, their water-use, and their opinions on water
42 conservations in the dairy industry, province, and country. The objective of this study was to collect information from Ontario dairy producers on current attitudes and priorities about dairy farm water conservation for the purpose of determining their opinions on water conservation. 4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 Study Population The overall research, including the water meter portion of the study, was carried out over two years, from May 2013 through December 2014 (20 months). Initially, 25 Ontario dairy operations were pre-selected for this study from a previous Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) New Directions project (OMAFRA, 2013c). Of these, a total of 8 were excluded due to the farmer s choice not to participate or because the facility s plumbing and/or water systems were not able to support the water meters for various reasons. The final 17 farms (n=17) included in the study were geographically distributed as: 7 from the Ottawa area; 5 from the New Liskeard area; 2 from the Napanee area; and 3 from the Embro area (see Appendix D for a map of the farm locations). These 17 consisted of 11 free stall facilities, which included 1 swingover parlour, 5 parallel parlours, 2 rotary parlours, and 3 automated milking systems, as well as 6 tie stall facilities. Each operation was coded from A to Q, to ensure anonymity. The size of the milking herds on these 17 farms varied from 36 to 187 cows, with average herd sizes (including dry cows and in some cases, replacement heifers), ranging from 44 to 226 cows. The herd sizes were calculated by
43 taking an average of the 2014 CanWest DHI data herd sizes for each operation. All farms milked Holsteins except for Farm E, which milked Jersey cows. All non-automated milking operations (tie stall and free stall parlour) were milking twice daily except Farm N, which had three milkings per day. All farms relied on ground water as their primary water source, with one operation utilizing a pond for cow consumption during the more demanding months of the year (July and August). Table 3.1 includes further details for each farm. An initial farm review was conducted in the summer of 2013, in which continuous flow DLJ Water Meters were installed and the 17 producers were asked about the general specifics of their operation (Table 3.1). The farms CanWest DHI data was also obtained for milk production, milk protein content, milk fat content, milking herd size, and somatic cell count (SCC) (Table 3.1, Table 3.2). Finally, the farms water-use from August 2013 through December 2014 was monitored (Table 3.3, Figure 3.1 to 3.5). 4.2.2 Farm Survey Questionnaire A farm survey questionnaire was approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board (REB) and conducted in the summer of 2014. Participating farmers were initially contacted by telephone for approval and to set up an on-farm interview appointment. All 17 farmers agreed to be interviewed, were provided with a survey cover letter, and signed an REB-approved consent form. The farmers were tape-recorded during their interview and the recordings were transcribed. The recordings were then permanently deleted thereafter.
44 Each farmer was questioned about their operation, their opinion of the importance of water conservation for their operation as well as the industry, and other water-use considerations. Approximately halfway through the interview (as indicated by SHOW COMPARISON GRAPH in the questionnaire), each farmer received a detailed report about their operation s water-use since the start of their metering in the summer of 2013 in comparison to the rest of the farms in this particular study. The questions were developed through consultation with University of Guelph social science researchers as well as dairy industry experts. These farm survey questionnaires occurred between September 11, 2014 and September 28, 2014. The REBapproved Farm Survey Questionnaire that was utilized is provided in Appendix B. All survey questions with close-ended answers, or quantitative questions, were given coding on a Likert scale (Table 4.1) (Andres, 2012). Survey questions with open-ended answers, or qualitative questions, were given coding and categorized according to the Research Project Matrix Tool using three criteria: Conservation (positive, neutral, negative), Government (positive neutral, negative), and Industry (positive, neutral, negative) (Table 4.2) (Odame, 2001). For example, if a statement given by a farmer involved a positive attitude towards water conservation, that farmer was coded with a C+. All responses to the Farm Survey Questionnaire are provided in Table 4.3 with their corresponding question number and Likert scale components.
45 Table 4.1 Likert scale values utilized in the Farm Survey Questionnaire coding. Answer Likert Value Yes 1 No 2 Strongly Agree 1 Agree 2 Neutral 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5 Significantly Less 1 Somewhat Less 2 Equivalent 3 Somewhat More 4 Significantly More 5 4.2.3 Data Analysis The Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) program, Version 21.0, was used to analyze the survey responses to gain insight into the comparisons between farmers responses and their operation (SPSS Statistics, 2013). Each of the quantitative question results, operation information previously obtained, and the CanWest DHI data also previously obtained were entered into the SPSS database. The quantitative question data was coded either by the Likert scale (Table 4.1) or by a specific scale per question, for answers that did not have a Yes/No answer, an agree/disagree answer, or a significance answer. Cross-tabulations with a Pearson Chi-Square test were run only on the data that could have possible important correlations (Table 4.5). For example, the responses to Water conservation is a priority on your farm cross-
46 tabulated with the responses to Is the impact of possible future water restrictions, such as drought, a concern to you?, whereas the responses to the amount of acreage was not crosstabulated with the somatic cell count data. The Pearson Chi-Square test was used to test for a relationship between the two variables. All tests were run with a Type 1 Error of α=0.05. Appendix C includes cross-tabulation short forms utilized in Table 4.5. 4.3 Results and Discussion All responses to the Farm Survey Questionnaire are in Table 4.3 with their corresponding question number and Likert scale components. Table 4.1 includes the Likert scale values for reference. Quantitative questions with imperative trends (conservation strategies, main conservation driver, if water conservation is a priority on their farm, if they are concerned about future water quantity issues, if the provincial government should create water conservation programs) were graphed in pie chart format to better represent the themes associated with each question (Figure 4.2 to 4.6). Water reuse was the most common water conservation strategy utilized (45%) (Figure 4.2). The main reason behind any water conservation strategies was wastewater reduction at 58% of the responses and cost reduction as the second greatest at 37% (Figure 4.3). The majority of farmers disagreed when asked if water conservation was a priority on their operation (47%), although the majority also agreed that possible future water restrictions were a concern to them (18% Strongly Agree, 35% Agree) (Figure 4.4, Figure 4.5). Therefore, although most farmers weren t concentrating specifically on water conservation on their operations, they were still concerned about water becoming scarce and may begin focusing on
47 water efficiency in the near future. Since it is only a future concern to these farmers, it was difficult for them to classify water conservation as a priority when there are other current and more pressing on-farm concerns. However, many producers were still interested in water conservation, it was just not their main concern. Finally, most farmers agreed that government programs should specifically target on-farm water conservation (11% Strongly Agree, 59% Agree) (Figure 4.6). An important non-correlation to note from this survey, just as has been identified in a previous study, that education does not influence a farmer s environmental stewardship initiative (Yiridoe et al., 2010). Please see Table 4.4 for all Likert scale question responses and Appendix C for the question short forms utilized in Table 4.4. SPSS cross-tabulations and Pearson Chi-Square tests were run on the relationship between significant variables (α=0.05) as provided in Table 4.5. There were 3 pairs of questions with statistically significant relationships between the variables. These were Industry*Province (ie. The dairy industry, as a whole places a high enough priority on water conservation, and The province of Ontario is doing a sufficient job in assisting dairy producers to better manage onfarm water-use ) (Chi-Square n=6 df =16.037, p=0.014), Taxes*Future (ie. In water-stressed countries, there are water restrictions and taxes on well water, not just city water. Would you approve of this if it were to be suggested for Ontario?, and Is the impact of possible future water restrictions, such as drought, a concern to you? ) (Chi-Square n=8 df =15.867, p=0.044), and Priority*Efficiency (ie. Water conservation is a priority on your farm, and How efficiently do you believe you use water in your barn operation compared to the average of all farm types ) (Chi-Square n=6 df=14.044, p=0.029). The main relationship between Industry and
48 Province were that farmers who disagreed that the dairy industry is not placing a high enough priority on water conservation also disagreed that the province of Ontario is not doing a sufficient job in assisting farmers with on-farm water management. Also, those that agreed the industry placed a high enough priority on water conservation also agreed that the province was doing a sufficient job in assisting farmers. Therefore, many farmers do not view these two groups as being independent of one another. The main relationship between Taxes and Future were that farmers who disagreed that water should be taxed in Ontario also agreed that they were concerned about possible future water restrictions. Therefore, dairy farmers are concerned about future water access but do not want to be taxed on their farm as an inducement for themselves or others to use less water. The main relationship between Priority and Efficiency were that the producers who disagreed that water is a priority on their farm predicted that they used an equivalent amount of water in comparison to other farms. Also, the producers who agreed that water is a priority on their farm predicted that they use somewhat less water in comparison to other farms. Therefore, farmers who see water conservation as a priority are already consciously taking action to reduce the amount of water they utilize on a daily basis but are not fully aware of their actual water usage amount. The average water-use amount of each farm from the water meter portion of the research was compared to the rest of the farms average water-use and was cross-tabulated with the farmers own opinion on this comparison, before the comparison graph was shown to them during the questionnaire. The cross-tabulated correlation was found to be not statistically significant (Chi- Square n=8 df=4.556, p=0.804). Therefore, actual water conservation does not correlate with
49 perceived water conservation, most likely indicating that an increase in on-farm water-use knowledge is required. Due to the small sample size (n=17), there may have been other relationships that are significant, however they are not showing up in the Pearson Chi-Square test with these low survey numbers. One relationship with a p-value near <0.05 worth noting was Future*Priority (ie. Is the impact of possible future water restrictions, such as drought, a concern to you?, and Water conservation is a priority on your farm ) (Chi-Square n=12 df=20.476, p=0.059). The main relationship between Future and Priority was that producers who strongly agreed that future water restrictions were a concern to them also strongly agreed that water conservation was a priority on their farm. Therefore, the awareness of issues around future water access tends to create an increase in the priority of on-farm water conservation and most likely, the implementation of sustainable practices. Qualitative questions were also assessed and categorized into three classes of responses; Conservation (C+, C, C-), Government (G+, G, G-), and Industry (I+, I, I-), and are provided in Table 4.2. Some farmers have multiple categorized responses while others have minimal or no categorized responses. This indicates that some farmers did not have any comments in these particular categorized areas while others had multiple comments. The overall trends can be seen in Figure 4.1 where the producers expressed positive conservation statements the most frequently (36%), general conservation statements second most frequently (21%), and negative government statements expressed the third most frequently (16%). Notably, the producers did not express
50 negative industry statements at all. Some examples of positive conservation statements include: Water should always be a priority, [Water conservation] was a definite consideration when changes were made to the facility, and It s in the farmer s best interest to have [water conservation] as a priority, it decreases the number of times you have to haul manure or empty your manure pit. Some examples of neutral conservation statements include: Important but not the biggest priority, should be kept out there as an issue though and Unless I can wash my pipeline with less water, there s not much else I can do [that I haven t already implemented]. Some examples of negative government statements include: [The government] shouldn t try to help or get too involved, I want to help collect [water-use] data and decrease accusations of overuse in agriculture [by the government], and If [the government] was to assist, there would be too many rules and regulations put on it, we should have peer programs instead. There were a wide range of opinions, but overall most farmers were quite open to water conservation as a current or potentially future priority on their operation with the majority of responses in the C+ category (36%) (Figure 4.1). The government is seen as being too restrictive with many of their programs and legislation. With this information, the government could improve their programs and possibly improve the sustainability of the dairy industry. It is important to note that the producers participating in this study may be biased in their opinions towards water conservation. The farmers volunteered to be a part of this research knowing beforehand that it would be a study about water conservation. This could lead to the fact that these farmers are already interested in and have positive attitudes towards water conservation. However, one of the interview questions included in this study was Why did you
51 volunteer to participate in this water meter study?, to which most of the farmers answered that they were just curious as to the amount of water utilized on their operation, not to calculate the amount of water they were saving or because they were specifically interested in conserving water. Although the majority of the answers to this question were just curiosity, it is still of importance to note that there may be a slight bias in these results.
52 Table 4.2 Qualitative open-ended question trends according to the Research Project Matrix Tool. Farm Qualitative Themes A C, C+, C B C+, C+, I+ C C-, C-, C-, G-, G-, C- D C, C, G+ E C, C+, G-, G- F C, C+, C+ G C- H C+, C+, C+, C+, I+, G-, G- I C+, G, C+, C+, C+, C+, C J G-, C-, C+, C+, C, I, G+ K G-, G-, G-, G- L C+, C+, C, C+, C+ M C+, C-, C- N C-, C, C-, C-, C O C, C, C+, G- P C, C, C+ Q C, C+, C+, C+, I+, C+, G+, G+, G G- 16% I+ 3% I 1% G 3% G+ 5% C+ 36% C- 15% C 21% Figure 4.1 Qualitative open-ended question trends of 17 Ontario dairy producers.
Table 4.3 Farm Survey Questionnaire Results. Farm 1 2 3 4 b 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 2 3 3 1 2 Unchanged 1 No Relation 2 2 3 5 2 4 Cost Reduction Water Reuse, Roof Water Collection 400-559 A F 35-54 Diploma 5 1 2 No Relation 2 5 3 5 2 4 More Efficient 2 2 3 3 1 1 Cost, Wastewater Reduction Water Reuse, Water Table Management, Water Conserving Devices 240-399 2 2 High School B M 35-54 None -- a 4 1 3 3 1 2 Unchanged 1 Synergy 4 2 4 5 5 5 180-239 C M 35-54 University 3 2 2 No Relation 2 3 4 4 2 4 More Efficient 4 1 4 3 2 1 Wastewater Reduction Water Reuse D M 35-54 College 3 2 1 -- a 3 4 4 4 4 5 More Efficient 3 2 3 4 2 1 Cost, Wastewater Water Reuse, Water Conserving Devices, Other 240-399 130-179 E F 55+ College 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 Unchanged 1 Synergy 4 3 2 3 1 3 Reduction Wastewater Reduction Wastewater Reduction Wastewater Reduction Water Reuse 1600-2239 F M 35-54 College 3 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 Unchanged 2 -- a 2 2 2 5 3 4 Nutrient Management Plan G M 55+ Diploma 5 2 3 2 -- a -- a 2 1 Unchanged 2 Synergy 1 2 3 2 4 5 Water Reuse 2880-3519 560-759 H M 55+ College 3 1 1 Synergy 2 4 4 4 2 5 More Efficient 2 1 3 2 1 1 Wastewater Reduction Nutrient Management Plan, Water Reuse 760-1119 I M 35-54 University 3 1 None -- a 4 1 3 2 2 1 Unchanged 1 No Relation 2 3 3 4 2 4 400-559 J M < 35 College 1 1 4 2 3 3 2 1 Unchanged 1 No Relation 1 1 3 5 2 5 Standards Compliance Water Reuse K M 55+ Diploma 2 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 Unchanged 2 No Relation 1 2 4 4 1 5 Cost, Wastewater Reduction All 180-239 240-399 L M 35-54 University 4 1 2 No Relation 4 4 4 4 2 3 More Efficient 4 2 3 3 2 2 Wastewater Reduction Water Reuse 400-559 M M < 35 College 4 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 Unchanged 2 No Relation 5 5 2 3 2 3 Cost, Wastewater Water Reuse 560-759 N M 35-54 College 2 2 53
54 O F 35-54 University 2 1 240-399 3 2 3 4 1 2 Unchanged 2 No Relation 3 2 2 2 2 4 P M 55+ College 2 2 Water Conserving Devices Reduction Wastewater Reduction 2 No Relation 4 5 2 3 2 5 Q M 35-54 Diploma 3 2 240-399 Water Reuse, Water Conserving Devices Cost Reduction More Efficient 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 Synergy 4 2 2 2 3 4 560-759 Water Reuse, Water Conserving Devices Cost Reduction a Producer did not provide an answer b Number of organizations the producer was involved in instead of specific organization names More Efficient 2 2 4 4 2 1
55 Table 4.4 Likert scale survey question response percentages. Question Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Priority 0.06 0.29 0.18 0.47 0.00 Future 0.18 0.35 0.12 0.29 0.06 Quality 0.06 0.41 0.17 0.18 0.18 Industry 0.00 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.00 Province 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.35 0.29 Programs 0.11 0.59 0.12 0.12 0.06 Taxes 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.41 0.41 Run-off Diversion 3% None 7% Nutrient Management Plan 10% Water Conserving Devices 21% Roof Water Collection 7% Water Reuse 45% Water Table Management 7% Figure 4.2 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question about water conservation strategies practiced currently on their farm.
56 Standards Compliance 5% Cost Reduction 37% Wastewater Reduction 58% Figure 4.3 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question about their main driver behind water conservation strategies practiced on their farm. Strongly Agree 6% Disagree 47% Agree 29% " Neutral 18% Figure 4.4 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question about if water conservation is a priority on their farm.
57 Strongly Disagree 6% Strongly Agree 18% Disagree 29% " Neutral 12% Agree 35% Figure 4.5 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question Does the impact of possible future water restrictions concern you? Strongly Disagree 6% Disagree 12% Strongly Agree 11% " Neutral 12% Agree 59% Figure 4.6 Producers answers to the Farm Survey Questionnaire question Should we have provincial programs specifically to support on-farm water conservation?
58 Table 4.5 SPSS cross-tabulation of Farm Survey Questionnaire, operation information, and CanWest DHI data for 17 Ontario dairy producers. Crosstabulation Pearson Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Comparison*Efficiency 4.556 8 0.804 Driver*Efficiency 2.222 4 0.695 Driver*Holding 5.832 6 0.442 Driver*Housing 3.798 2 0.150 Future*Comparison 13.694 16 0.621 Future*Holding 10.285 12 0.591 Future*Housing 5.177 4 0.270 Future*Issues 4.739 4 0.315 Future*Location 9.803 12 0.633 Future*Milking 23.328 24 0.501 Future*Priority 20.476 12 0.059 Housing*Location 7.242 3 0.065 Industry*Acreage 13.052 14 0.522 Industry*Future 8.972 8 0.345 Industry*Housing 0.069 2 0.966 Industry*Milking 13.458 12 0.337 Industry*Province 16.037 6 0.014 Issues*Comparison 1.674 4 0.795 Issues*Location 0.882 3 0.830 Issues*SCC 5.323 4 0.256 Opinion*Use 1.311 1 0.252 Parlour*SCC 13.222 8 0.104 Priority*Acreage 19.626 21 0.545 Priority*Comparison 10.129 12 0.605 Priority*Efficiency 14.044 6 0.029 Priority*Holding 7.204 9 0.616 Priority*Housing 2.368 3 0.500 Priority*Issues 4.739 3 0.192 Priority*Milking 14.863 18 0.671 Programs*Province 9.86 12 0.628 Province*Future 13.147 12 0.358 Taxes*Future 15.867 8 0.044 Taxes*Programs 9.714 8 0.286 Taxes*Province 7.933 6 0.243 Use*Future 3.789 4 0.435
59 4.4 Conclusion With a small sample size (n=17) only so much can be interpreted from the responses obtained. However, as previously mentioned, with a smaller sample size and more one-on-one interactions with the researchers, in general, these study subjects felt more at ease and open to discussion throughout the interview process more so than if they were being interviewed by someone they were not previously acquainted with. Furthermore, in qualitative literature, large sample sizes with interview-style research are uncommon and hard to obtain. Therefore, although this sample size is not large, it is still large enough to draw conclusions from. There appears to be a tendency towards conservation being of importance on dairy farms as well as a general preference for lack of government involvement. The majority of farmers agreed that possible future water restrictions were a concern to them (18% Strongly Agree, 35% Agree). Most of the farms practice even a small form of sustainable water utilization, with the main conservation strategy being water reuse (45%). The three operations included in this study that were not practicing any water conservation at all were tie stall facilities. Generally, if water conservation is seen as a priority, these producers also tend to be the ones who see themselves as efficient water users and are proactively looking to the future at possible water restrictions issues. Producers expressed positive conservation statements the most frequently in the openended questions (36%). Producers did not express any negative industry statements. This is important to note, that the dairy industry should continue to interact with farmers in this obviously positive manner and develop it to incorporate water conservation through this positive
60 approach. It is excellent to observe that farmers are taking it upon themselves without many incentives to become increasingly water-conscious, however detecting instances in which the industry can possibly assist farmers in these strategies is ideal. There is still a lack of knowledge in many water conservation strategies that could be utilized on the farm, but there is a positive trend towards this and there will most likely be improvement in the coming years. Peer programs may be a great resource for the industry to generate. In conclusion, there tends to be a correlation between producers who perceive on-farm water conservation as a priority on their operation and their willingness to implement water conservation strategies.
61 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary Sustainable agricultural water-use is beginning to become a priority for producers. With climate change causing an increase in atmospheric temperatures, especially during the growing season, more frequent and severe water shortages are expected to occur. The first step towards improvement in the Ontario dairy industry is evaluating how much water is utilized on farms as well as how receptive individual dairy farmers are to water conservation practices. With both of these areas addressed in this research, it should create an excellent advance into further assessments of the sustainability of the Ontario dairy industry. This research is also a great resource to identify different approaches that can be taken to create best management practices for this industry to remain sustainable into the future. Ontario free stall automated milking operations utilize a greater (p<0.05) amount of water on a daily and per cow basis than free stall parlour operations and tie stall operations. There also appears to be a tendency towards sustainable water utilization being recognized as an area of importance to Ontario dairy farmers. Most of the farms participate in at least a small amount of on-farm water conservation, mainly water reuse. The only operations that were not practicing any water conservation on their farms were tie stall operations. Although free stall facility farmers are using a greater amount of water than tie stall facility farmers, they are typically the individuals with more motivation to be innovative and sustainable with their operations and in
62 turn, their water-use. There tends to be a correlation between producers who place water conservation as a higher priority on their farm and a positive reception towards adopting water conservation strategies. However, this study utilized a small sample size of only 17 dairy operations. There are positives and negatives about this small sample size. There were fewer farms to be included in the average water-use of each type of dairy operation as far as the water meter aspect of the research. Nevertheless, with this small sample size, it allowed for greater one-on-one interactions between the producers and the researcher, which assisted in the producers comfort level during the survey interview process, which potentially improved the accuracy, honesty, and length of their answers. 5.2 Recommendations Many on-farm technologies and practices to conserve water can be quite farm-specific. However, the strategies identified in Chapter 1 are typically the more common strategies currently available to the dairy industry. General farmer awareness of water conservation technologies and practices needs to occur to enhance the adoption of such strategies in the dairy industry. It would also be important to increase government program awareness of current programs and incentives geared towards water conservation and sustainable environmental practices. However, it seems that these programs overall could use better incentives (such as a broader, more comprehensive coverage), more flexibility in their usage (such as more generalized approaches), an increase in
63 user-friendliness (such as easy guidelines and short, simple application processes), and a decrease in government control (such as monitoring by third-parties or peers instead of government officials). Producers do not want to agree to participate in a program that then dictates how every small detail of their farm must operate to be able to receive an incentive or water-saving technology. There should be a balance between the two. For example, farmers are quite knowledgeable and can gain great insight from each other. Possibly having governmental or agricultural ministries install and be the third-party outlet for peer programs and workshops about on-farm water conservation would be a great tool for farmers to share information and ask questions from other producers about their personal experiences with on-farm water conservation. Although farmers do not want to be greatly monitored or controlled during their program involvement, programs that have external monitoring result in greater adherence to the program objectives (Darnall and Sides, 2008). Again, it is a hard to find the right balance between the two. Programs or councils that act as the third-party for the academic community and the general public have been found to make information more available, leading to an increase in public knowledge and involvement (Middleton, 2001). For example, if a program was set up to have farmers learn about or even assist in more research projects about sustainability on their operations, the farmers would gain more knowledge in this area and most likely adopt further sustainable practices. Many industrial companies actually utilize environmental programs, after environmental practices have already been implemented in their company, to officially and publicly label their industry as environmentally conscious to enhance their external image (Darnall and Sides, 2008). By having incentives, such as certificates, to improve the public s impression of the environmental sustainability of dairy farms, farmers would be more
64 likely to get involved, since it has been shown that farmers tend to be keen on improving the agricultural industry s environmental image (Atari et al., 2009). Overall, possibly peer programs are the best solution; however more research into the effectiveness of different types and structures of environmental programs is necessary. From the producers interviewed in this study, many were eager to begin learning new ways to sustainably utilize water on their operations but were just not sure of the best way to go about learning these approaches. Luckily, incorporating many of these identified ideal environmental program factors has begun in the Dairy Farmers of Canada proaction Initiative (DFC, 2013). This program began in 2013 and has begun working with dairy farmers on the development of dairy operation environmental standards (DFC, 2013). This program encompasses many of the farmers goals and requirements for an environmental program, such as peer assessments, incorporation of the Environmental Farm Plan, socio-economic analyses, sustainability strategies, public awareness, and so on (DFC, 2013). It is a farmer-to-farmer program that utilizes government funding and provides a feedback system so that on-farm environmental improvements are verified and reported on behalf of the industry (DFC, 2013). This is a key program to watch as it progresses in the future, with environmental pilot projects set to begin in 2017 (DFC, 2013). For the farmers, beyond water conservation, the best recommendation that can be given from this study is to focus on water reuse. This seems to be the management practice that is most easily implemented on the majority of farms. Particularly water from the plate cooler, since it has not been contaminated in any way and will not require filtration or treatment before it is recycled and
65 utilized in another area of the facility, such as cow consumption or parlour washdown. Specific water efficiency strategies observed on the farms from this study include; parlour washdown reuse, plate cooler reuse, efficient booster pump used in parlour washdown, pond water to cow consumption in peak summer months, washdowning the holding area only after one milking per day not both, scraping of the holding area and parlour before washdown, and roof water collection to lagoon in drier summer months. Multiple farms were utilizing plate cooler reuse and/or parlour washdown reuse in various capacities. To improve on this particular study, recommendations include: Increased sample size Increased location variation Increased monitoring With only 17 dairy operations and producers to work with, this led to a small amount of data to utilize for interpretation. An increase in the sample size would allow for more accurate average dairy farm water utilization as well as more survey results and comparisons to pull from. There were only four areas of Ontario that these farms were located in and although these four areas are fairly well known for their dairy production, having more widespread locations could allow for a more accurate representation of all areas of Ontario as well as a possible focus on a link between location and water access issues. There tended to be missing data points and fluctuations from the DLJ Water Meters. The farmers were relied upon for monthly readings and although the farmers were quite cooperative, many became busy and were not as frequent with their readings
66 even with regular reminders, creating missing data points for certain months. The fluctuations in data could be accounted for on some operations but most farmers did not know why, for example, there was an increased amount of water-use in a particular month. More accurate monitoring possibly by the producers themselves or by researchers who can be at the facility on a regular basis would be ideal. Another recommendation would be more research into specifics on the farms, as well as more flow meters and even dataloggers, which record hourly and/or daily values electronically, on each farm for increased accuracy in readings. Due to farm selection and flow meter model selection before the project was created, there was no pre-evaluation of the facility s plumbing. Therefore, once some farms were evaluated, it was discovered that they were not able to support a flow meter, and had to be excluded from the study, or they were not able to support a flow meter on more than one location on their farm and therefore could only monitor one aspect of the facility. Pre-evaluation of farms before selection would be ideal in future research. Overall, continuation of this research is necessary. This area of research requires more accurate daily water-use assessments, more details on the water-use that is being monitored on each farm, and a larger farm survey, which could include not only more farms but also more locations throughout the province for an increase in operation water-use averages but also an increase in producers opinions and attitudes surrounding on-farm water conservation.
67 CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES Ahnström, J., J. Höckert, H. L. Bergeå, C. A. Francis, P. Skelton, and L. Hallgren. 2008. Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 24:38-47. Allinson, G., D. J. Halliwell, and J. Stokes. 2007. Closing the loop on a large, multidisciplinary dairy waste project. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology. 62:135-153. Andres, L. 2012. Designing & Doing Survey Research. SAGE Publications. London, UK. Atari, D. O. A., E. K. Yiridoe, S. Smale, and P. N. Duinker. 2009. What motivates farmers to participate in the Nova Scotia environmental farm plan program? Evidence and environmental policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management. 90:1269-1279. Brugger, M. 2007. Water Use on Ohio Dairy Farms. The Ohio State University Extension: Fact Sheet. Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering, Ohio State University. Columbus, OH. Crabbe, P., and M. Robin. 2006. Institutional Adaptation of Water Resource Infrastructures to Climate Change in Eastern Ontario. Climate Change. 78:103-133. Dairy Farmers of Canada. 2013. proaction: Leading the way for sustainable dairy farming. Ottawa, ON. Darnall, N., and S. Sides. 2008. Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter? The Policy Studies Journal. 36:95-117. DeLaval. 2012. Environmental and Social Report 2012. Edita Sweden. Tumba, Sweden. de Loë, R., R. Kreutzwiser, and J. Ivey. 2001. Agricultural Water Use in Ontario. Canadian Water Resources Journal. 26:17-42. Dolan, A. H., R. Kreutzwiser, and R. de Loë. 2000. Rural Water Use and Conservation in Southwestern Ontario. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 55:161-171. Exall, K. 2004. A Review of Water Reuse and Recycling, with Reference to Canadian Practice and Potential: 2. Applications. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 39:13-28. Environment Canada. 2004. Threats To Water Availability In Canada. NWRI Scientific
68 Assessment Report Series No. 3 and ACSD Science Assessment Series No. 1. National Water Research Institute. Burlington, ON. Environment Canada. 2015. Monthly Climate Summaries. Accessed Mar. 18, 2015. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html Faye, B., N. Dorr, F. Lescourret, J. Barnouin, M. Chassagne. 1994. Farming practices associated with the udder infection complex. Veterinary Research, BioMed Central. 25:213-218. Gottschall, N., C. Boutin, A. Crolla, C. Kinsley, and P. Champagne. 2007. The role of plants in the removal of nutrients at a constructed wetland treating agricultural (dairy) wastewater, Ontario, Canada. Ecological Engineering. 29:154-163. Greene, A. K., G. W. Smith, and C. S. Knight. 1999. Ozone in dairy chilling water systems: effect on metal materials. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 52:126-128. Hoekstra, A. Y., and A. K. Chapagain. 2007. Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management. 21:35-48. House, H. K., B. C. Hawkins, and B. C. Barkes. 2014. Measuring and Characterizing On- Farm Milking Centre Washwater Volumes. ASABE Paper No. 1908138. St. Joseph, MI. ASABE. Howell, T. A. 2001. Enhancing Water Use Efficiency in Irrigated Agriculture. Agronomy Journal. 93:281-289. Ivey, J. L., J. Smithers, R. C. de Loë, and R. D. Kreutzwiser. 2004. Community Capacity for Adaptation to Climate-Induced Water Shortages: Linking Institutional Complexity and Local Actors. Environmental Management. 33:36-47. Jacobson, S. K., K. E. Sieving, G. A. Jones, and A. Van Doorn. 2003. Assessment of Farmer Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward Bird Conservation on Organic and Conventional Florida Farms. Conservation Biology. 17:595-606. Jensen, M. L. 2009. Power and water consumption with AMS. FarmTest Cattle #61. Dans Landbrugsrådgivning. Knutson, R. D., R. Romain, D. P. Anderson, and J. W. Richardson. 1997. Farm-Level Consequences of Canadian and U.S. Dairy Policies. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 45:421-432. Lopez, C. 2005. Focus on the supramolecular structure of milk fat in dairy products. Reproduction Nutrition Development. 45:497-511.
69 Middleton, J. V. 2001. The Stream Doctor Project: Community-Driven Stream Restoration. BioScience. 51:293-296. Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2012. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems. 15:401-415. Meyer, D., B. Reed, C. Batchelder, I. Zallo, P. L. Ristow, G. Higginbotham, M. Arana, T. Schultz, D. D. Mullinax, and J. Merriam. 2006. Water Use and Winter Liquid Storage Needs at Central Valley Dairy Farms in California. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 22:121-126. Milk Development Council. 2007. Effective Use Of Water On Dairy Farms. Cirencester, UK. Min, H., and W. P. Galle. 1997. Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. 4:10-17. National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7 th Revised Edition. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Odame, H. H. 2001. Engendering the Logical Framework. International Service for Agricultural Research. Den Haag, NL. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2013a. Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan. Accessed Jan. 10, 2015. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/efp/efp.htm. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2013b. Climate Zones and Planting Date for Vegetables in Ontario. Accessed Mar. 9, 2015. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/climzoneveg.htm Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2013c. Project Summaries of the New Directions Research Program 2012-13. Accessed Mar. 10, 2015. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/research/new_directions/projects/2011/sr9246.htm Putten, I. E., S. M. Jennings, J. J. Louviere, and L. B. Burgess. 2011. Tasmanian landowner preferences for conservation incentive programs: A latent class approach. Journal of Environmental Management. 92:2647-2656. Rasmussen, M. D., E. S. Frimer, D. M. Galton, and L. G. Petersson. 1992. The Influence of Premilking Teat Preparation and Attachment Delay on Milk Yield and Milking Performance. Journal of Dairy Science. 75:2131-2141. Ridoutt, B. G., S. R. O. Williams, S. Baud, S. Fraval, and N. Marks. 2010. Short
70 communication: The water footprint of dairy products: Case study involving skim milk powder. Journal of Dairy Science. 93:5114-5117. Robinson, G. M. 2006. Canada s environmental farm plans: transatlantic perspectives on agri-environmental schemes. The Geographical Journal. 172:206-218. Schindler, D. W. 2001. The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 58:18-29. Smithers, J., and M. Furman. 2003. Environmental farm planning in Ontario: exploring participation and the endurance of change. Land Use Policy. 20:343-356. SPSS Statistics. 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 22.0. Armonk, NY. IBM Corp. Statistics Canada. 2014. Human Activity and the Environment: Agriculture in Canada. Statistics Canada: Environment, Energy and Transportation Statistics Division. Ottawa, ON. SUEVIA. 2014. Troughs and Drinkers for Free Stalls. Catalogue 2014 Cattle, Horse, Sheep and Goats. SUEVIA HAIGES GmbH. Kirchheim/Neckar, Germany. Thomas, C. V. 2001. Estimating Water Usage on Michigan Dairy Farms (1000 head). Michigan State University Extension. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., N. P. Martin, E. Kebreab, K. F. Knowlton, R. J. Grant, M. Stephenson, C. J. Sniffen, J. P. Harner, A. D. Wright, and S. I. Smith. 2013. Invited review: Sustainability of the US dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science. 96:5405-5425. Wall, E., and K. Marzall. 2006. Adaptive capacity for climate change in Canadian rural communities. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. 11:373-397. Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature. 416:389-395. Ward, F. A., and J. P. King. 1997. Economic Incentives for Agriculture Can Promote Water Conservation. Agricultural Water Conservation Panel. New Mexico State University Water Conservation Conference. 173-177. West, J. W. 2003. Effects of Heat-Stress on Production in Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 86:2131-2144.
71 Willers, H. C., X. N. Karamanlis, and D. D. Schulte. 1999. Potential of closed water systems on dairy farms. Water Science and Technology. 39:113-119. Williams, P. J., and P. A. Anderson. 2006. Operational cost savings in dairy plant water usage. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 59:147-254. Willock, J., M. M. McGregor, A. Sutherland, G. Edward-Jones, O. Morgan, B. Dent, R. Grieve, G. Gibson, and E. Austin. 1999. Farmers Attitudes, Objectives, Behaviors, and Personality Traits: The Edinburgh Study of Decision Making on Farms. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 54:5-36. Yiridoe, E. K., D. O. A. Atari, R. Gordon, and S. Smale. 2010. Factors influencing participation in the Nova Scotia Environmental Farm Plan Program. Land Use Policy. 27:1097-1106.
72 CHAPTER 7: APPENDICES Appendix A: DLJ Water Meter
73!!Appendix B: Farm Survey Questionnaire Dairy Water Survey University of Guelph Alex Robinson Farm: Date: 1. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ] Other [ ] 2. Age: Under 35 [ ] 35-54 [ ] 55 and Older [ ] 3. Highest Level of Education: Elementary School [ ] High School [ ] College [ ] University [ ] Diploma Program [ ] 4. Involvement in the Agricultural Industry: PDO [ ] DHI [ ] OFA [ ] NFU [ ] OSCIA [ ] Other: 5. If applicable, have any of these organizations provided information about water conservation in the past 2 years? Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, which organization(s): 6. Area of Cropping Acreage Owned: Under 69 acres [ ] 70 to 129 acres [ ] 130 to 179 acres [ ] 180 to 239 acres [ ] 240 to 399 acres [ ] 400 to 559 acres [ ] 560 to 759 acres [ ] 760 to 1119 acres [ ] 1120 to 1599 acres [ ] 1600 to 2239 acres [ ] 2240 to 2879 acres [ ] 2880 to 3519 acres [ ] 3520 acres and over [ ] 7. Water conservation strategies practiced on your farm operation: [ ] Run-off Diversion [ ] Nutrient Management Plan [ ] Water Reuse [ ] Water Table Management/Controlled Drainage [ ] Roof Water Collection [ ] Water Conserving Devices (ie. automatic shut-off nozzles, shallow tip troughs, etc) [ ] Other: [ ] Water conservation strategies are not applicable on this farm 8. Main driver for water conservation strategies, if practiced: Cost Reduction [ ] Wastewater Reduction [ ] Standards Compliance [ ] Changes in Water Availability [ ] Other:
74 9. Water conservation is a priority on your farm: Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] 10. Why did you volunteer to participate in this water meter study? 11. Have you experienced any water management issues on your farm in the past: Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, what were they related to? Quality [ ] Quantity [ ] Please describe: 12. How efficiently do you believe you use water in your barn operation compared to the average of farms similar in type and size to yours: Significantly Less [ ] Somewhat Less [ ] Equivalent [ ] Somewhat More [ ] Significantly More [ ] 13. How efficiently do you believe you use water in your barn operation compared to the average of all farm types: Significantly Less [ ] Somewhat Less [ ] Equivalent [ ] Somewhat More [ ] Significantly More [ ] SHOW COMPARISON GRAPH 14. Now knowing your actual comparison to the average, does this encourage you to do anything differently with your water use? Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, please describe: 15. What is your opinion of on-farm water conservation as a whole? 16. Has this opinion changed in the past 10 years? Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, in what way: 17. Has your on-farm water use changed in the past 10 years? More Efficient [ ] Less Efficient [ ] Unchanged [ ] 18. Have you heard of any particular water saving technologies that you think might work on your farm but you do not utilize? Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, please describe the technology, why you are not utilizing it, and what would encourage you to do so: 19. Is there a relationship between on-farm water efficiency and overall farm productivity? Synergy [ ] Trade-Off [ ] No Relationship [ ]
75 20. Is the impact of possible future water restrictions, such as drought, a concern to you? Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] 21. Is the impact of possible future water quality issues a concern to you? Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] 22. The dairy industry, as a whole, places a high enough priority on water conservation. Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] 23. The province of Ontario is doing a sufficient job in assisting dairy producers to better manage on-farm water use. Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] 24. We should have provincial and/or federal programs specifically to support on-farm water conservation. Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] If agree, please give example. If not agree, why: 25. In water-stressed countries, there are water restrictions and taxes on well water, not just city water. Would you approve of this if it were to be suggested for Ontario? Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] 26. Any other comments?
76 Appendix C: Cross-tabulation Short Forms Shortform Comparison Holding Housing Location Milking Parlour SCC Acreage Driver Priority Issues Efficiency Opinion Use Future Quality Industry Province Programs Taxes Question/Data Water usage average in comparison to total average Frequency of holding area washdown Type of housing system Location of farm Milking herd size Frequency of parlour washdown Somatic cell count 6. Area of Cropping Acreage Owned 8. Main driver for water conservation strategies, if practiced 9. Water conservation is a priority on your farm 11. Have you experienced any water management issues on your farm in the past 14. How efficiently do you believe you use water in your barn operation compared to the average of all farm types 17. Has this opinion changed in the past 10 years? 18. Has your on-farm water use changed in the past 10 years? 21. Is the impact of possible future water restrictions, such as drought, a concern to you? 22. Is the impact of possible future water quality issues a concern to you? 23. The dairy industry, as a whole, places a high enough priority on water conservation 24. The province of Ontario is doing a sufficient job in assisting dairy producers to better manage on-farm water use 25. We should have provincial and/or federal programs specifically to support on-farm water conservation 26. In water-stressed countries, there are water restrictions and taxes on well water, not just city water. Would you approve of this if it were to be suggested for Ontario?
77 Appendix D: Map of Dairy Farm and Weather Station Locations a,b a Obtained from Google Maps, March 2015. b Pinpoints indicate farm locations and circles indicate weather station locations.