Manure

Continued from page 1

Operations (CAFOs), would just have to continue following state standards that already restrict manure spreading on frozen ground. Other farms on the larger end of the spectrum, such as livestock siting operations, would be prohibited from applying liquid and slurry manure on frozen and/or snow-covered ground, with exceptions for emergencies.

The biggest potential impact of the CPZ’s proposal would fall on smaller-sized farms that do not currently have enough manure storage space on site to make it through the winter. According to the CPZ’s estimates, about 60 dairy farms would fall into the category of needing to either build a new manure pit or rent an idle one from a neighboring landowner.

One audience member, however, said his experience with installing pits tells him that the CPZ’s estimates for building a concrete pit, between $40,000 and $50,000 for 25 cows, are way too low. He also questioned why the county was requiring that some of the older pits be torn out after tax dollars were used to install them 10 or 15 years ago.

Heidenreich said the decision to remove older pits is made on a case-by-case basis, and it’s often because the pits were built closer to the water table that originally believed, creating concerns with well contamination. Overall, though, she said CPZ would love to see unused manure pits being reused by those who need storage space.

“We agree with you. We should be using those pits that were paid for with taxpayer money,” she told the farmers. “That has been a huge part of our dialog for six months now.”

Another audience member questioned whether the owners of idle pits would really want manure haulers coming onto their properties every day during the winter to dump loads of waste, even if they could make $6,000 to $7,000 in rental fees. Heidenreich agreed that it’s not a “solution for everyone,” but it would be cheaper than building new facilities.

Trine Spindler, a farmer in the town of Day, said her biggest concern is that banning manure spreading in February and March would not have as much of an impact as CPZ believes it would, and that several farms would be driven out of business due to the cost of complying with the restrictions. Picking two months out of the year to ban spreading does not account for the fact that the ground could thaw out in March and be frozen in April, she noted.

“All of us want the manure in the ground,” she said. “We don’t want it in the waterway. That’s best management practices, not regulations.”

Heidenreich said the idea for a 60-day ban was proposed as a limited restriction – as opposed to not allowing winter spreading at all – and it’s meant to apply to all farms, regardless of size.

“I apologize if it appeared that we are targeting small farms,” she said. “It was our intention to come up with a compromise number in which farms in the county could come together in unity for a short period of time.”

Another of CPZ’s goals is to encourage more farmers to adopt nutrient management plans (NMPs), which specify where, when and how much fertilizer should be applied to fields to maximize soil fertility and minimize runoff. Under the current proposal, farms without NMPs would be required to obtain a winter spreading permit from the county, while those with plans would simply have to follow their NMP’s spreading guidelines.

Heidenreich said the county can provide both monetary and technical assistance in developing NMPs for those who don’t have them, and those plans can be used to help farmers save money.

“Manure is too valuable to be lost,” she said. “That’s a huge amount of money that you’re letting wash away if it’s not somehow captured and used as a fertilizer.”

Much of the discussion at last week’s hearing revolved around other possible sources of pollution, whether it’s lawn fertilizers or CAFOs that technically follow state guidelines but still spread a lot of manure on their land. Questions were also raised about the impact of cash cropping, which has become more popular in the county.

One woman in the audience questioned a pie chart from a 2021 study that showed dairy farms as the largest contributor of phosphorus by far in the county.

“It’s not a dairy farm issue,” she said. “It’s an agriculture issue.”

Schmidtke said he believes the CPZ’s “intentions are good,” but he and other dairy farmers feel like they’re being asked to shoulder the brunt of the phosphorus problem.

“The problem is, nothing else is being addressed,” he said.

A turning point in the conversation came when Pat Tischendorf, a dairy farmer in the town of Holton, said he planted a 200-foot buffer strip along several Big Eau Pleine tributaries running through his land. He noted that many crop farmers in his area often plant right up to the edge of creeks and streams.

Other farmers in the room expressed support for riparian buffers over a winter spreading ban, and Heidenreich said she would take that input back to the ERC, along with the idea of forming a working group of farmers and CPZ staff to discuss any ordinance changes.

“One thing we can all agree is that we all want and need clean water in our county to survive,” she said. “No matter what industry you’re in, we all need it.”

DIALOG - Marathon County conservationist Kirstie Heidenreich speaks to a room full of farmers at the town of Wien hall last Wednesday about a proposal to restrict manure spreading during the winter, especially in February and March. Farmers who attended said they were skeptical that such a prohibition would help clean up local waterways. STAFF PHOTO/KEVIN O’BRIEN