See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/47527214

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

Article  in  Forage and Grazinglands · January 2009

DOI: 10.1094/FG-2009-0916-01-RS · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
41 319

7 authors, including:

C.A. Rotz K.J. Soder

Agricultural Research Service United States Department of Agriculture
310 PUBLICATIONS   8,415 CITATIONS    70 PUBLICATIONS   1,533 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Howard Skinner Peter Kleinman

United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service
73 PUBLICATIONS   2,458 CITATIONS    276 PUBLICATIONS   11,871 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ditch Biogeochemistry View project

Background research for my Ph.D. dissertation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C.A. Rotz on 23 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

Search PMN   
  

PDF version © 2009 Plant Management Network.

for printing Accepted for publication 21 July 2009. Published 16 September 2009.

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact

of Dairy Production Systems
C. Alan Rotz, Agricultural Engineer, Kathy J. Soder, Animal
Scientist, R. Howard Skinner, Plant Physiologist, Curtis J. Dell,
Impact Soil Scientist, Peter J. Kleinman, Soil Scientist, John P. Schmidt,
Statement Soil Scientist, and Ray B. Bryant, Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS,
Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit,
University Park, PA 16802

Corresponding author: C. Alan Rotz. al.rotz@ars.usda.gov

Rotz, C. A., Soder, K. J., Skinner, R. H., Dell, C. J., Kleinman, P. J., Schmidt, J. P., and
Bryant, R. B. 2009. Grazing can reduce the environmental impact of dairy production
systems. Online. Forage and Grazinglands doi:10.1094/FG-2009-0916-01-RS.

Abstract
Incorporating managed rotational grazing into a dairy farm can result in an array
of environmental consequences. A comprehensive assessment of the
environmental impacts of four management scenarios was conducted by
simulating a 250-acre dairy farm typical of Pennsylvania with: (i) a confinement
fed herd producing 22,000 lbs of milk per cow per year; (ii) a confinement fed
herd producing 18,500 lbs; (iii) a confinement fed herd with summer grazing
producing 18,500 lbs; and (iv) a seasonal herd maintained outdoors producing
13,000 lbs. Converting 75 acres of cropland to perennial grassland reduced
erosion 24% and sediment-bound and soluble P runoff by 23 and 11%,
respectively. Conversion to all perennial grassland reduced erosion 87% with
sediment-bound and soluble P losses reduced 80 and 23%. Ammonia
volatilization was reduced about 30% through grazing, but nitrate leaching loss
increased up to 65%. Grazing systems reduced the net greenhouse gas emission
by 8 to 14% and the C footprint by 9 to 20%. Including C sequestration further
reduced the C footprint of an all grassland farm up to 80% during the transition
from cropland. The environmental benefits of grass-based dairy production
should be used to encourage greater adoption of managed rotational grazing in
regions where this technology is well adapted.

Introduction
Understanding the environmental consequences of managed rotational
grazing in dairy farming is important to the development of sustainable
production systems. Dairy farming, like all livestock production systems, is
linked to an array of impacts to water and air quality. Water quality concerns
begin with runoff and the erosion of sediment. Well-managed rotational
grazing systems provide perennial ground cover, reducing sediment loss
compared to continuous grazing or the row crop systems commonly used with
confinement feeding strategies (10). With less runoff and erosion, soil P loss to
surface waters can be reduced (3,4), although care must be taken to avoid
direct deposits of feces and urine into streams (2). Another water quality
concern is nitrate leaching to groundwater, which can be significant under
urine deposits on pasture (4,8). Use of well-managed rotational grazing helps
distribute urine spots, minimizing zones of overlap. Despite the heightened
nitrate leaching under these spots, nitrate concentrations in shallow ground
water below the root zone of well managed pastures are normally below the 10
ppm limit for drinking water (6,10).
Air quality issues are now becoming a challenge for livestock producers as
well. Ammonia is an important gaseous emission governed under the Clean Air
Act (5). Although agriculture has been exempt from regulation, this may

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

change. Since ammonia is primarily emitted during manure handling and

storage, the use of grazing can greatly reduce this emission (8). Greenhouse gas
emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) and the impact of these
gases on global climate is another increasingly relevant concern. There are
many sources and sinks of these gases on dairy farms, and little information
exists on net farm emissions. The limited information available indicates that
grazing systems can provide some reduction in the net farm emission of
greenhouse gases (7), but this depends upon the characteristics of the full
production system under consideration.
An experimental comparison of all environmental impacts of confinement
and grazing based production systems is physically and logistically difficult, if
not impossible. There are simply too many factors to consider and measure,
and these factors are highly interrelated and influenced by soil type, weather,
and management decisions. A practical means of comparison is through
computer simulation using process level modeling of the entire production
system (i.e., the farm). The Integrated Farm System Model (USDA-ARS,
University Park, PA) (11) provides a tool for conducting this type of
comparative analysis. By simulating various production systems using the same
weather and soil conditions, direct comparisons can be made for all predicted
environmental impacts.
Our objective was to use a comprehensive simulation analysis to compare
the predicted environmental impacts of four diverse dairy production systems
in Pennsylvania. These systems included: (i) a confinement system with high
milk production; (ii) a confinement system with moderate milk production; (iii)
a moderate-producing confinement system with rotational grazing during the
growing season; and (iv) a low-producing, seasonal-calving herd maintained
outdoors all year with rotational grazing during the summer months. Predicted
environmental impacts included sediment erosion, runoff of sediment-bound
and soluble P, nitrate leaching, ammonia volatilization, greenhouse gas
emissions, and the overall C footprint.

Farm Simulation
The Integrated Farm System Model simulates the major biological and
physical processes and interactions of a crop, beef, or dairy farm, providing a
tool for comprehensive environmental assessment (9). Crop production, feed
use, and the return of manure nutrients back to the land are simulated over
each of 25 years of weather. Growth and development of grass, alfalfa, corn,
soybean, and small grain crops are predicted based upon daily soil and weather
conditions. Tillage, planting, harvest, storage, feeding, and manure handling
operations are simulated to predict resource use, timeliness of operations, crop
losses, and nutritive changes in feeds. Feed allocation and animal response are
related to the nutritive value of available feeds and the nutrient requirements
of the animal groups making up the herd. The quantity and nutrient content of
the manure produced is a function of the feed consumed.
Nutrient flows through the farm are modeled to predict nutrient
accumulation in the soil and loss to the environment (9). Environmental
impacts include N volatilization (ammonia) from manure sources, soil
denitrification and nitrate leaching losses, erosion of sediment, and soluble and
sediment-bound P losses in runoff. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide
are tracked from crop, animal, and manure sinks and sources to predict the net
greenhouse gas emission (Fig. 1). Secondary emissions occurring during the
production of resources used on the farm, such as fuel, electricity, machinery,
fertilizer, pesticides, and purchased animals, are also included in the prediction
of a C footprint of the production system. Whole-farm mass balances of N, P,
K, and C are determined as the sum of all imports in feed, fertilizer, deposition,
and crop fixation minus the exports in milk, excess feed, animals, manure, and
losses leaving the farm.

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

   

Fig. 1. Important material flows, gaseous emissions, and nutrient losses

for a dairy production system simulated by the Integrated Farm System
Model.

Carbon sequestration can also be an important consideration in the

evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from pasture-based systems. Normally,
the conversion of cropland to permanent perennial grassland stimulates the
sequestering of C for up to 50 years until a new balance is established between
C inputs and losses from the soil (1). To represent this process, the Comet-VR
model (USDA-NRCS, Fort Collins, CO) (12) was used to estimate C
sequestration attained through changes in cropping practices. The predicted
sequestration was then used to adjust the net greenhouse gas emission and
carbon footprint following the conversion from tilled cropland to perennial
grassland.

Production Systems
The four simulated dairy production systems covered a wide range in
production practices found in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern regions of the
United States. All production systems were simulated on the same 250-acre
land base with a Hagerstown clay loam soil and gently sloping (3 to 8%)
terrain. Each system was simulated over 25 years using historical weather data
(1982 to 2006) for State College, PA. Reduced tillage practices were used to
establish all crops. Across varying milk production levels, animal numbers were
adjusted so that each production system produced a similar amount of energy
corrected milk (ECM) shipped from the farm. To determine ECM, milk
production was corrected to 3.5% milk fat and 3.1% milk protein
concentrations. To include carbon sequestration, Comet-VR was used to
estimate the annual sequestration for the given soil, crop, and tillage conditions
of each production system. Any grassland used on the farm was assumed to be
a permanent replacement of rotated cropland.
The high-producing confinement herd included 85 large-framed Holstein
cows plus 76 replacement heifers housed year-round in free stall barns.
Manure was scraped daily, stored as slurry in a bottom-loaded tank, and
applied to land in the spring and fall. A random calving strategy was used
where 40% of the cows were replaced each year. Animals were fed total-mixed
rations of alfalfa hay and silage, corn silage, and high-moisture grain harvested
from 150 acres of corn and 100 acres of alfalfa. Annual milk production was
22,000 lb per cow with an average milk fat concentration of 3.4%.
The moderate producing confinement herd included 100 average-framed
Holstein cows plus 80 replacement heifers housed in free stall barns. Manure
was handled as in the first farm. Random calving was used with 35% of the
cows replaced each year. Total mixed rations were fed with all of the forage and
much of the grain produced from 125 acres of corn, 75 acres of harvested
perennial grassland, and 50 acres of alfalfa. Annual milk production was 18,500
lb per cow with a milk fat concentration of 3.5%.
The third production system was similar to the second except that the 75
acres of perennial grassland were used for rotational grazing for up to 7 months
of the year. Manure produced during grazing was deposited on the grassland

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

allowing less manure handling and storage during the summer months.
Through improved herd health attained by maintaining animals on pasture
(13), the cow replacement rate was reduced to 30%.
The fourth was a relatively low input production system using 130 small-
framed Holstein/Jersey crossbred cows with 95 replacement heifers. Animals
were maintained outdoors year-round on 250 acres of perennial grassland with
managed rotational grazing during the growing season. A spring calving
strategy was used with 30% of the herd replaced each year, which included
animals that failed to breed within the appropriate period. Annual milk
production was 13,000 lb per cow with a fat concentration of 4.0%.

Confinement and Grazing Systems Compared

Simulated feed production, feed use, and milk production for the four
production systems are given in Table 1. The higher-producing confinement
system produced and used about 5% less feed dry matter to produce a similar
amount of milk. The lower-producing confinement herd was fed higher-forage
diets, so more forage and less grain were produced and used (Table 1, second
vs. first data columns). Total feed intake per unit of milk produced was a little
greater for the lower-producing herd because more of the nutrient intake was
used for animal maintenance.

Table 1. Annual feed and milk production for four dairy production systems on a
simulated 250-acre farm in central Pennsylvania.
Confined,
Confinement summer Outdoors
       all year grazing all year
 High v Moderate w Moderate x  Lowy
Milk Total (lb/cow) 22,000 18,500 18,500 13,000
production
Milk fat
3.4 3.5 3.5 4.0
concentration (%)
ECMz (lb) 1,847,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,830,000
Feed Harvested forage
576 711 503 350
production (ton DM)
and use
Grazed forage
0 0 203 334
(ton DM)
Grain produced
264 148 163 0
(ton DM)
Purchased feed
82 117 73 265
(ton DM)
Feed Total feed intake,
922 976 942 949
intake DMI (ton DM)
DMI / ECM 1.00 1.06 1.02 1.04
 v  High production strategy with 85 large-framed Holstein cows and 76 heifers
housed year round in free stall barns with feed from 150 acres of corn and
100 acres of alfalfa. Lactating cows are fed a high-concentrate diet.
 w  Moderate production strategy with 100 average-framed Holstein cows plus 80
replacement heifers housed in free stall barns with summer grazing where
feed is produced from 125 acres of corn, 75 acres of harvested perennial
grassland, and 50 acres of alfalfa. All animals are fed high-forage diets.
 x  Moderate production strategy with 100 average-framed Holstein cows plus 76
replacement heifers housed in free stall barns with summer grazing where
feed is produced from 125 acres of corn, 75 acres of rotationally grazed
perennial grassland, and 50 acres of alfalfa. All animals are fed high-forage
diets.
 y  Low-production strategy with 130 small-framed Holstein/Jersey cows plus 95
replacement heifers maintained outdoors year round on 250 acres of perennial
grassland with managed rotational grazing during the growing season. All
animals are fed high-forage diets.
 z ECM is energy corrected milk adjusted to 3.5% milk fat and 3.1% milk
protein.

Conversion of the lower-producing confinement system to summer grazing

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

reduced corn silage use and thus increased grain production 10%. The
increased production of grain along with the high-quality pasture allowed a
38% reduction in purchased feed (Table 1, third vs. second data columns).
Conversion of all cropland to perennial grassland reduced total feed production
by 20% because of lower grass yields relative to corn and alfalfa (Table 1, fourth
vs. second data columns). Since grain was not produced on this all-grass farm,
a greater amount of feed was purchased to meet the herd’s energy needs. Given
the relatively low milk production of this herd, 0 to 12% less grain was used
compared to the other herds fed a high-forage diet (Table 1, fourth vs. third
and second data columns). Compared to the high-producing herd, this low-
input system used 23% less grain and purchased feed per unit ECM produced
(Table 1, fourth vs. first data columns). Among the four production systems,
total feed use per unit ECM varied a small amount as influenced by the amount
of forage fed and the quality of that forage.

Water Quality Impacts

Incorporating grassland into dairy production systems, generally improved
water quality indicators. Converting 30% of the cropland to perennial
grassland reduced sediment erosion loss by 24%, and converting all land to
grassland reduced erosion by 87% (Table 2, third and fourth vs. first data
columns). Similarly, sediment-bound P loss was reduced 23% with 30%
conversion to grassland and 80% with all grassland. Soluble P loss was affected
less, but soluble P runoff was reduced 10 and 23% with 30 and 100% use of
perennial grassland.

Table 2. Annual environmental impacts of four dairy production systems on a

simulated 250-acre farm in central Pennsylvania.
Confined,
Confinement summer Outdoors
  all year grazing all year
 High s Moderate t Moderate u  Low v
Erosion sediment
2,500 1,900 1,900 330
loss (lb/acre)
Sediment-bound P
296 229 232 59
runoff (lb)
Soluble P runoff (lb) 57 51 44 44
Soil P accumulation
(3.2) (1.5) (2.9) 2.2
(depletion) (lb/acre)
Nitrate N leaching
19.5 16.1 21.5 32.3
(lb/acre)
Nitrate N in shallow
8.3 6.5 8.4 8.1
groundwater (ppm)
Ammonia N
55.2 53.3 40.4 39.1
volatilization (lb/acre)
Nitrous oxide emission
6.5 5.6 6.4 5.0
(lb/acre)
Methane emission
182 219 173 187
(lb/acre)
Engine CO 2 emission
413 444 330 183
(lb/acre)
Net farm GHG emissionw
6,900 7,588 6,562 6,348
(lb CO 2 e/acre)

Secondary
673 728 456 270
emissions x (lb/acre)
Carbon footprint
0.65 0.74 0.59 0.59
(lb CO 2 e/lb ECM)y
Potential sequestered
0 1,000 1,000 3,400
carbon z (lb CO 2 /acre/year)

Potential sequestered

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

0 0.14 0.14 0.46

carbon z (lb CO2/lb ECM)
Carbon footprint with
sequestration 0.65 0.60 0.45 0.13
(lb CO 2 e/lb ECM)
 s High-production strategy with 85 large-framed Holstein cows and 76 heifers
housed year round in free stall barns with feed from 150 acres of corn and
100 acres of alfalfa. Lactating cows are fed a high-concentrate diet.
 t  Moderate production strategy with 100 average-framed Holstein cows plus 80
replacement heifers housed in free stall barns with summer grazing where
feed is produced from 125 acres of corn, 75 acres of harvested perennial
grassland, and 50 acres of alfalfa. All animals are fed high-forage diets.
 u Moderate production strategy with 100 average-framed Holstein cows plus 76
replacement heifers housed in free stall barns with summer grazing where
feed is produced from 125 acres of corn, 75 acres of rotationally grazed
perennial grassland, and 50 acres of alfalfa. All animals are fed high-forage
diets.
 v  Low-production strategy with 130 small-framed Holstein/Jersey cows plus 95
replacement heifers maintained outdoors year round on 250 acres of perennial
grassland with managed rotational grazing during the growing season. All
animals are fed high-forage diets.
 w  Includes net CO2 emissions from the farm plus methane and nitrous oxide
emissions converted to CO 2 e by multiplying by 25 and 298, respectively.
 x  Greenhouse gas emissions during the production of fuel, electricity,
machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, and seed used in each production system.
 y  ECM is energy corrected milk adjusted to 3.5% milk fat and 3.1% milk
protein.
 z Determined using the COMET-VR model (12) for a clay loam soil in central
Pennsylvania.

The selected number of animals used on this 250-acre land base allowed
most of the production systems to maintain a long term P balance with minor
use of inorganic fertilizer (Table 2, data row 4). The exception was the low-
input, all grassland system where there was an average annual excess P of 2.2
lb/acre that was not effectively used by growing crops. This occurred because
of the lower yield, and thus less removal of P, from perennial grassland relative
to the corn and alfalfa crops used in the other production systems. This is a
relatively small imbalance, which would not necessarily represent an
environmental concern. If we assume that the current soil P level is near
optimum, this imbalance may eventually lead to excess soil P. If the soil is
deficient in P, the imbalance may help buildup the soil P level over time. In
general though, this production system will create a farm imbalance of P more
readily than the other production strategies, because less feed dry matter and P
is removed from the land and more P is brought onto the farm in purchased
feed.
A challenge in grazing systems is the control of nitrate leaching. The high N
application in urine deposits exceeds the uptake by plants in that area creating
greater opportunity for loss. For the confinement system with summer grazing,
the simulated nitrate leaching loss was 34% greater than that for the same farm
without grazing (Table 2, third vs. second data columns). When animals were
maintained outdoors year around, nitrate leaching was 65% greater than that
from the high-producing confinement system (Table 2, fourth vs. first data
columns). However, the simulation also suggests that greater drainage through
pasture soils compensates for the higher concentrations of nitrate N leached
under urine deposits. More moisture drains through the soil profile due to less
surface runoff and less plant uptake during the summer compared to corn and
alfalfa cropland. As a result, the predicted annual average nitrate N
concentration in the shallow groundwater below the root zone of the pasture
was less than the maximum drinking water standard of 10 ppm and similar to
that predicted for the other production systems (Table 2, data row 6).

Air Quality Impacts

Air quality indicators also improved with greater reliance upon grazing.
Volatilization of ammonia from the whole farm was reduced by 24 to 29% with

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

the use of grazing compared to the two full confinement systems (Table 2, third
and fourth vs. first and second data columns). This was primarily due to less
manure storage during the summer months. Ammonia emission from manure
deposited on pasture was also less than that occurring from free stall barn
floors (8).
Greenhouse gas emissions were also affected by the use of grazing (Table 2).
Methane emission was about 20% greater for the moderate producing
confinement system where animals were fed higher-forage diets. With grazing,
methane emissions were reduced because less manure was stored during the
warm summer months. With the low-production grazing system, the greater
animal numbers required to produce the same milk increased methane
emission compared to the higher-producing grazing system. Nitrous oxide
emission was a little less for the system where animals were maintained
outdoors all year due primarily to the elimination of manure storage and the
reduction in manure handling. Carbon dioxide emissions were similar across
systems except for engine emissions; reduced machinery use with grazing
provided less engine exhaust. Across all greenhouse gases, the use of grazing
reduced net farm emission by 14% compared to the same farm without grazing
(Table 2, third vs. second data columns). The net emission for the low-
production system where animals were maintained outdoors all year was 8%
less than that of the high-producing confinement herd (Table 2, fourth vs. first
data columns).
Carbon footprint values, which included secondary emissions and C
assimilated in animal products, showed a little greater difference across
production systems. Use of grazing reduced resource inputs such as machinery,
fuel, electricity, and pesticides. With less use of these resources, secondary
emissions associated with their production were reduced. The footprint of the
moderate-producing herd fed a high-forage diet in confinement was 14%
greater than that of the higher-producing confinement herd fed a high-
concentrate diet (Table 2, second vs. first data columns). The use of grazing
reduced the C footprint by 20% when the same milk production was
maintained (Table 2, third vs. second data columns). The low-input system had
a C footprint 9% less than that of the high-producing confinement system
when expressed per unit ECM.
The use of pasture systems may also affect C sequestration, and this can
provide a further reduction in net greenhouse gas emission and the C footprint
during the transition of cropland to permanent perennial grassland. For this
analysis, the cropping strategy used with the high-producing confinement
system was assumed to have been used for many years; thus the soil C level
was stable and no further long term sequestration or loss occurred with
continued use of this strategy. When this cropland was converted to perennial
grassland, the predicted annual sequestration rate was as high as 3,400 lb
CO 2 e per acre (Table 2). This high sequestration rate offset most of the net
greenhouse gas emission from the all grassland farm, reducing the C footprint
to 0.13 lb CO 2 e per pound of ECM. For the two moderate producing herds
with 75 acres of permanent grassland, C sequestration was less due to the lower
proportion of land area in grassland. This provided similar footprints for the
two full confinement herds. The use of summer grazing with sequestration
reduced the footprint by 25%.

Conclusions
A comparison of four simulated dairy production systems in Pennsylvania
illustrates that the use of grazing can greatly reduce the erosion of sediment
and sediment-bound P. Runoff of soluble P, the volatilization of ammonia, and
the net emission of greenhouse gases are also reduced with grazing, but nitrate
leaching is increased. The C footprint of milk production, expressed per unit
ECM, may also be reduced through the use of well managed grazing systems.
For approximately 25 years following the conversion of rotated cropland to
permanent perennial grassland, C sequestration can greatly reduce net
greenhouse gas emission and the C footprint of dairy production systems.

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010 12:48:34 PM]

Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems

Literature Cited
1. Franzluebbers, A., and Follett, R. 2005. Greenhouse gas contributions and
mitigation potential in agricultural regions of North America: Introduction. Soil
Till. Res. 83:1-8.
2. James, E., Kleinman, P., Veith, T., Stedman, R., and Sharpley, A. 2007.
Phosphorus contributions from pastured dairy cattle to streams of the
Cannonsville Watershed, New York. J. Soil Water Conserv. 62:40-47.
3. Kleinman, P. J. A., and Soder, K. J. 2008. The impact of hybrid dairy systems on
air, soil and water quality: Focus on nitrogen and phosphorus cycling. Pages
249-276 in: Environmental Impacts of Pasture-based Farming. R. W. McDowell,
ed. CAB Int'l., Oxfordshire, UK.
4. Monaghan, R. M. 2008. The environmental impacts of non-irrigated, pasture
based dairy farming. Pages 209-231 in: Environmental Impacts of Pasture-based
Farming. R. W. McDowell, ed. CAB Int'l., Oxfordshire, UK.
5. National Research Council. 2003. Air emissions from animal feeding operations:
current knowledge, future needs. The National Academies Press, Washington,
DC.
6. Owens, L. B., Edwards, W. M., and Van Keuren, R. W. 1992. Nitrate levels in
shallow groundwater under pastures receiving ammonium nitrate or slow release
nitrogen fertilizer. J. Environ. Qual. 21:607-613.
7. Phetteplace, H. W., Johnson, D. E., and Seidl, A. F. 2001. Greenhouse gas
emissions from simulated beef and dairy livestock systems in the United States.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 60:99-102.
8. Rotz, C. A. 2004. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production.
Online. (E. Suppl.) J. Anim. Sci. 82:E119-E137.
9. Rotz, C. A., Corson, M. S., Chianese, D. S., and Coiner, C. U. 2009. Integrated
Farm System Model: Reference Manual. Online. Pasture Systems and Watershed
Mgt. Res. Unit, USDA-ARS, University Park, PA.
10. Sharpley, A. N., and West, C. 2008. Pressures on beef grazing in mixed
production farming. Pages 187-208 in: Environmental Impacts of Pasture-based
Farming. R. W. McDowell, ed. CAB Int'l., Oxfordshire, UK.
11. USDA-ARS. 2009. The integrated farm system model (IFSM). Online. Pasture
Systems and Watershed Mgt. Res. Unit, University Park, PA.
12. USDA-NRCS. 2009. The voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases-carbon
management evaluation tool (COMET-VR ). Online. Natural Resource Ecology
Lab, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO.
13. White, S. L., Benson, G. A., Washburn, S. P., and Green, J. T. Jr. 2002. Milk
production and economic measures in confinement or pasture systems using
seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:95-104.

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2009/impact/[7/23/2010
View publication stats 12:48:34 PM]