Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we explore the cutting -edge innovations
and critical insights shaping the future of dairy
farming. I'm your host, and today we're diving
deep into a groundbreaking topic that could fundamentally
change how we think about dairy sustainability
and profitability. In this episode, we're examining
the hidden carbon costs of modern dairy forage
systems and their impact on the industry's ambitious
net -zero emissions goals. We'll uncover why
traditional corn silage heavy rotations might
be working against our climate objectives, explore
the surprising role soil carbon plays in your
farm's true environmental footprint, and most
importantly, discuss practical strategies to
transform your forage management for both environmental
and economic success. Whether you're managing
50 cows or 5 ,000, This conversation will challenge
conventional thinking and provide actionable
insights for building a more resilient and sustainable
dairy operation. Let's get started. Welcome back
to the Bullvine Podcast, the show that digs deep
into the topics that matter to dairy producers.
That's right. Today we're tackling a really interesting
feature article from the Bullvine that's got
everyone talking. We're going to break it all
down. All right, let's dive right in. Today our
deep dive is into something that's been quite
literally under our feet. all along yet its critical
role in dairy's net zero journey has been well
surprisingly overlooked soil management for a
long time when we talk about dairy and climate
the conversation naturally gravitates towards
methane emissions from the cows themselves or
you know maybe the electricity powering the milking
parlor sure the obvious stuff exactly but this
recent article from the bullvine really shines
a spotlight on soil carbon as a true hidden in
plain sight aspect of our sustainability efforts.
It's a powerful reminder that sometimes the biggest
challenges and perhaps therefore the greatest
opportunities are found right where we least
expect them. This deep dive promises to transform
what many might see as just another climate hurdle
into a genuine opportunity for both environmental
good and profound economic sustainability right
there on your farm. Right. We're going to explore
why soil carbon is so absolutely vital, what
specific challenges it presents in modern dairy
systems, and crucially, what practical, actionable
pathways exist for you, our listeners, the dairy
farmers, to tackle this head -on. And you know,
it's a conversation that couldn't be more timely.
The dairy industry, to its credit, has truly
made remarkable strides in sustainability over
the last five decades. We've seen a staggering
42 % reduction in greenhouse gas intensity per
unit of milk produced. That's huge. Really impressive
numbers. Yeah. And think about the incredible
gains in productivity. Average milk output per
cow has soared from around, what, 9 ,700 pounds
back in the 1970s to over 23 ,000 pounds today.
Those are genuinely impressive numbers, certainly
something to be proud of. And they highlight
a tremendous commitment to efficiency. But...
The article immediately hits us with a challenging,
almost provocative perspective. Are these efficiency
gains, as impressive and necessary as they are,
inadvertently coming at the expense of our soil's
precious carbon bank account? That's a tough
question. It's a sobering thought, isn't it?
Dr. Matthew Ruark, a professor of soil science
at the University of Wisconsin -Madison, really
drives this point home with a quote that's become
a cornerstone of this discussion. The carbon
balance on your farm is like your herd's reproductive
efficiency. You can't manage what you don't measure.
Makes sense. And he warns us that when we properly
include soil carbon losses in our overall calculations,
the carbon footprint of milk can nearly double.
Double. Really? Nearly double. Think about that
for a moment. It's a massive shift in perspective,
a fundamental reevaluation of what we thought
we knew. And it perfectly sets the stage for
why this deep dive isn't just academic theory.
It's about your farm's bottom line, the industry's
unwavering commitment to net zero emissions and
ensuring we're truly accounting for every piece
of the puzzle. That's a powerful and frankly,
a bit unsettling opening thought. If our hard
-won efficiency gains are unknowingly costing
us our soil's precious carbon, then we absolutely
need to know that, and quickly. Right. This brings
us right into our first major talking point from
the article, the hidden carbon cost of modern
forage systems. This section really delves into
what initially seems like, well, a core paradox.
Why are our modern corn silage systems, which
have been so incredibly efficient for milk production
and have driven so much of that productivity
we just celebrated, potentially acting as significant
carbon leakers right beneath our feet? Yeah,
it seems counterintuitive at first. Historically,
there's no arguing it. Corn silage has truly
been the undisputed king of forage for dairy
operations across North America and beyond. It
consistently delivers high yields, boasts excellent
energy content for high -producing cows, and
from a practical standpoint, it's relatively
easy to harvest and preserve. Absolutely. A staple.
For decades, these agronomic and nutritional
advantages made it the champion in dairy feed,
undeniably driving incredible dairy efficiency
and profitability. But here's the crucial point
the article makes. All of this happened in an
era before the full carbon cost to our soils
was widely understood, let alone properly accounted
for. We just didn't know. Exactly. It was a trade
-off, a depletion of a natural asset that we
simply weren't even aware we were making. So
that explains the why. From a historical and
practical standpoint, it made perfect sense at
the time. But what's actually happening on a
mechanical level... within the soil itself, that
causes these seemingly efficient systems to become
carbon leakers. That's a great setup because
it really highlights the fundamental imbalance
at play, an imbalance that can have long -term
consequences. The article describes soil carbon
depletion in a really vivid way as a hidden withdrawal
from your farm's long -term asset account. Think
of it like constantly skipping routine maintenance
on your milking equipment year after year. You
might get by for a while, and production might
even seem fine, but eventually the bill comes
due, and it's often a much larger, more disruptive
bill than if you just kept up with the regular
upkeep. Right, that makes sense. Here's the catch,
the one that often gets overlooked in discussions
purely focused on forage yield and nutrition.
When corn is harvested for silage, the vast majority
of the plant's above -ground biomass, essentially
the entire plant minus the roots, is removed
from the field. Okay, so you take almost everything.
Pretty much. This leaves minimal crop residue
to return to the soil. So what happens is you're
extracting a huge amount of carbon through the
harvest carbon that was captured from the atmosphere
and built into the plant, but you're depositing
very little back into the soil through those
minimal residues and roots. The system is inherently
extractive in terms of carbon. You're taking
more out than you're putting back. Precisely.
Dr. Mary Beth Hall, a highly respected dairy
nutritionist quoted in the article, uses a fantastic,
incredibly clear analogy to explain this. Think
of soil carbon like your farm's bank account.
When you remove more carbon through harvest than
you deposit through residues and roots, you're
making withdrawals from an account with a limited
balance. Eventually, the soil carbon account
becomes depleted. That's a really clear picture,
a bank account. It's a very tangible way to conceptualize
what's happening beneath your fields. And this
isn't just theoretical, it's backed by robust
science. Studies using direct measurement techniques
across North America and Europe have extensively
documented substantial net carbon losses under
these intensive corn silage systems. With figures
ranging from a staggering 13 .5 to 25 .6 metric
tons of coir equivalent per hectare annually.
Wow, that's a huge range, but all big numbers.
Huge numbers. To give you a more concrete example,
researchers in Minnesota monitored an eight -year
crop rotation that included five years of intensive
silage corn, followed by three years of alfalfa.
Over the entire rotation, they found average
annual net carbon losses of 13 .9 metric tons
of Coero equivalent per hectare. With the most
significant losses a jaw -dropping 17 .9 metric
tons of Coero equivalent per hectare occurring
specifically during those intensive corn years.
So the corn years were really driving the loss.
Exactly. And here's the truly troubling part,
the piece that the article really drives home.
You will likely never see these losses explicitly
listed on your farm's current climate impact
statement or factored into your milk's carbon
footprint. It's invisible in the current accounting.
It's a hidden cost, yeah. That is troubling,
because if we're not seeing it, we're certainly
not managing it, just as Dr. Ruark emphasized.
So let's talk about that accounting gap that
changes everything, as the article titles it.
It's truly eye -opening, almost a paradigm shift
in how we understand our environmental footprint.
Definitely. If these substantial soil carbon
losses aren't included in the reported carbon
footprint in milk, it fundamentally alters the
entire picture, doesn't it? It means we've been
operating with, well, incomplete data. It absolutely
changes everything, and profoundly so. When researchers
at the University of Wisconsin took the critical
step to include these previously uncounted soil
carbon losses in their accounting for a representative
5 ,000 cow dairy operation in the Midwest, the
results were nothing short of astounding. Okay,
what did they find? The total greenhouse gas
footprint of milk didn't just inch up a little,
it increased by a massive 60 % to... 93 percent.
60 to 93 percent. Yeah. That's the difference
between what we thought was a standard 0 .75
to 1 .16 kilograms of co -euros equivalent per
kilogram of fat and protein corrected milk or
FPCM. Jumping to an alarming 1 .45 to 1 .86 kilograms
of co -euro equivalent per kilogram FPCM. Think
about that for a moment, listeners. We've been
celebrating these amazing efficiency gains, and
they are real. But if we're potentially missing
almost double our actual carbon footprint, it's
not just an academic number. It fundamentally
shifts how the industry needs to approach its
net zero goals and how we communicate our environmental
impact. It's like finding out your herd's feed
conversion ratio was wildly off because you weren't
fully accounting for hidden feed waste or maybe
the energy spent on environmental controls. Right.
A critical piece of the puzzle we've been missing.
Exactly. So this isn't just an academic exercise
in accounting. It has real world implications
for the long term health and sustainability of
our farms. Dr. Randy Jackson, a renowned grassland
ecologist also at the University of Wisconsin
-Madison, perfectly captures the gravity of this
situation. Yeah. These carbon losses represent
the mining of a finite resource, soil organic
matter that took centuries to accumulate. Mining
a finite resource. That's a powerful language.
That phrase, mining of a finite resource, really
hits home. It's like pushing your cows too hard
on lactation performance, isn't it? You might
get impressive short -term milk yields hitting
those peak numbers, but at what potential cost
to their long -term health, their reproductive
cycle and their future productivity? You're drawing
down their inherent reserves. Exactly. We're
essentially drawing down a non -renewable resource,
the accumulated organic matter in our soils that
took centuries to build up through natural processes.
When we lose soil carbon, we're not just losing
a number on a spreadsheet, we're losing long
-term productivity, water holding capacity, nutrient
cycling efficiency, and overall resilience of
that land. It's the foundation. It is. It's a
critical point because it implies that the carbon
efficiency gains in milk production that the
industry has rightly celebrated, while real in
terms of of per unit output from the cow may
have come partly at the expense of our underlying
soil carbon stocks. So a trade -off we didn't
realize we were making. Right. Instead of our
soils acting as carbon sinks, which is what we
want them to be helping to offset other emissions
from the farm, many current dairy forage systems
are inadvertently creating a carbon liability.
This makes the challenge of reaching net zero
emissions, which is a significant commitment
for the industry, even harder than it appears
on paper. It forces us to ask, are we just shifting
the problem from one part of the farm to another,
or maybe from today to tomorrow? perhaps more
holistic, spin on things. For you, the listener,
this isn't just about abstract carbon numbers
or scientific studies. It impacts the dairy industry's
credibility, its reputation with consumers, and
its ability to achieve those crucial long -term
sustainability goals it has committed to. Yeah,
the stakes are high. If we're unknowingly depleting
our soil's carbon, we need to address that honestly,
transparently, and proactively. And that, thankfully,
leads us to our next major talking point from
the article, which offers some much -needed solutions
and a path forward. Rethinking forage systems
for climate -smart dairy, and specifically, the
power of perennials. Okay, good. Solutions. So
if modern corn silage systems are creating this
carbon deficit, this vital accounting gap, it
naturally begs the question, are we overlooking
our most powerful natural climate tool by not
prioritizing perennials in our rotations? It's
a fair question. The article really positions
perennials as a leading, perhaps even foundational
solution here. What is it about them? What's
the underlying mechanism at play that makes them
so effective for carbon sequestration compared
to annual crops like corn? That's the million
-dollar question, and the answer is actually
quite elegant in its simplicity, really rooted
in how these plants interact with the soil year
-round. Perennial systems offer some fundamental
advantages for carbon sequestration that annual
crops simply can't match, primarily because they're
not disturbed as frequently. First, they provide
continuous living cover on the land, protecting
the soil from erosion by wind and water, regulating
soil temperature, and mitigating extremes year
-round. This constant cover means active roots
are present in the soil for much longer periods.
Right, always covered. Second, they develop incredibly
extensive and often deep root systems. These
roots are constantly growing, shedding cells,
and interacting with soil microbes, depositing
organic carbon much deeper into the soil profile.
This deeper carbon is often more stable and less
prone to decomposition than surface carbon. Ah,
deeper is better, more stable? Generally, yes.
Third, Because they aren't replanted every single
year, there's minimal soil disturbance from tillage.
This helps to preserve the existing soil structure
and, crucially, the carbon already stored within
it. Every time you till, you introduce oxygen,
which accelerates the breakdown of organic matter
and the release of CO2. Less disturbance, less
carbon loss. Exactly. And finally... Their year
-round or near -year -round photosynthesis means
they are capturing more atmospheric carbon for
a longer period of time compared to annual crops
that only grow for part of the year and then
leave the ground bare. Makes sense. More time
working, basically. You got it. Dr. Sarah Gosley,
a research ecologist with the USDA Agricultural
Research Service, articulates this beautifully
in the article. There's a stark contrast between
what happens under perennial systems versus annual
crops like corn silage she particularly emphasizes
that perennial pastures especially when managed
with practices like rotational grazing have shown
significantly greater accumulation of stable
forms of soil carbon specifically something called
mineral associated organic matter or maomc maomc
okay what's that think of maomc as carbon that's
literally glued to the soil particles making
it incredibly resistant to breakdown and loss
locking it away for centuries. So like super
stable carbon storage. Precisely. This MAOMC
is a much more stable long -term carbon pool
than what you typically find in annual systems,
even those using conservation practices like
no -till or cover crops, because those annual
systems still involve periods of disturbance
and bare ground. That's a powerful distinction,
not just adding carbon, but adding the stable
kind. And the article is very clear. This isn't
about eliminating corn silage entirely, which
for many operations would be a massive perhaps
impractical shift. No, definitely not. It's about
reimagining rotations, finding a new balance.
So what are some of those concrete options for
farmers who are looking to strategically increase
their perennial footprint without necessarily
tearing up their entire established system? Exactly.
It's about balance and strategic integration,
not necessarily throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. The article suggests several very
practical options that can be implemented incrementally.
You could incorporate or extend the phase of
grass -legume -hay mixtures within your existing
rotation. Like alfalfa grass mixes. Yeah, exactly.
We're talking about species like orchard grass,
tall fescue, or timothy paired with nitrogen
-fixing legumes such as alfalfa or various clovers.
These provide excellent forage quality while
building soil carbon. Multispecies pastures are
another excellent option, particularly for operations
that already incorporate grazing or are looking
to expand into it. These diverse pastures are
incredibly resilient and effective carbon builders.
More diversity, more resilience. Absolutely.
And looking to the future, there are exciting
emerging dual -purpose crops, such as Kernza
intermediate wheatgrass, that can provide both
high -quality forage and a grain harvest, offering
a multifaceted approach to perennial integration.
Interesting. Kernza. Yeah, it's getting a lot
of attention. The bottom line for farmers here
is that by extending your perennial forage phases,
you can potentially reduce your annual seed,
fuel, and equipment costs associated with yearly
planting and harvest, all while systematically
building soil fertility and carbon. So potential
cost savings too. Definitely. The article even
references research from the University of Turin,
which shows that dairy farms incorporating a
higher percentage of perennials, specifically
more permitting impacts per kilogram of milk
produced. Essentially, they were making more
milk with a smaller environmental footprint on
less cultivated land. It truly suggests a win
-win scenario. Environment and benefit and improved
efficiency. That makes so much sense, connecting
it back to both the environmental impact and
the bottom line. But what about the winter months,
especially in temperate regions? You mentioned
that soil microbial activity continues, breaking
down organic matter, but photosynthesis largely
stops. Isn't that a period of net carbon loss
for the soil? Yeah, that's a critical point.
How do we proactively fill that winter gap and
prevent those carbon leaks? You've hit on another
critical challenge and, importantly, a substantial
opportunity for carbon capture. You're absolutely
right. In many temperate regions, winter is typically
a period of net carbon loss. Microbial activity
in the soil continues to decompose organic matter
that was accumulated during the growing season.
But without actively growing plants, photosynthesizing,
and adding new carbon inputs through roots and
residues, there's no new carbon being deposited.
So the question becomes, why allow our fields
to essentially leak carbon for months when we
could be actively capturing it and improving
soil health? Good question. And that's precisely
where winter annual crops, often referred to
as cover crops, come in. They offer a strategic
and highly effective opportunity to reverse these
winter carbon losses while also diversifying
your forage supply and offering other co -benefits.
Okay, cover crops. So what kinds of crops are
we talking about here for winter covers and what
are their specific benefits during those traditionally
dormant months? What should a farmer consider
when selecting them? Good questions. We're talking
about hardy options like winter rye, which is
very common due to its cold tolerance and ability
to scavenge nitrogen. Other options include winter
barley, field pennycress, or winter camelina.
The key benefit is that they can capture atmospheric
carbon through photosynthesis during periods
when your fields would otherwise be bare and
inactive. They serve multiple purposes. They
actively grow and build soil organic matter,
acting as a living root system throughout the
colder months. Keeping the soil biology active.
Exactly. They also provide crucial protection
for the soil from erosion caused by winter winds
and rain, preventing valuable topsoil from washing
away. Furthermore, they can scavenge leftover
nutrients like nitrogen that might otherwise
leach away over the winter, keeping them in the
root zone for the next cash crop. Holding on
to nutrients. That's valuable. Very. And as an
added bonus, some of these can even provide additional
forage or grain revenue streams in the spring.
Dr. Mary Beth Hall uses another great analogy
for these winter covers in the article. They're
like hiring a workforce that works for free during
the off -season. I like that. She points out
that they're actively photosynthesizing. diligently
building soil organic matter, and, as a bonus,
can provide valuable supplemental feed or cash
crop revenue before your main forage crop goes
in. Research in the Midwest, for example, has
clearly shown that integrating these winter annual
crops into corn silage systems can substantially
reduce the carbon deficit caused by corn production.
Okay, so they really help balance the books,
carbon -wise. They do. Crucially, they can also
provide additional forage or grain, making them
an economically viable choice. It's a lot like
how strategic dry cow management, while not directly
contributing to immediate milk, can significantly
improve transition cow performance and prevent
costly metabolic disorders later on without necessarily
adding excessive costs. Right. It's a proactive,
preventative and ultimately profitable approach.
Exactly. So it's increasingly clear that this
isn't just about what you grow, but absolutely
how you grow it. The article really emphasizes
that management makes the difference beyond just
the specific species of forage. It suggests that
even within existing systems, strategic management
can dramatically enhance soil carbon. What are
some of those other key management practices
that play a vital role in enhancing soil carbon
and overall soil health? Absolutely. is just
as crucial, if not more so, than the what when
it comes to building soil carbon. Let's break
down some of these key management practices.
First, conservation tillage. Okay, reducing tillage.
Right. This involves significantly reducing soil
disturbance through practices like no -till,
where you plant directly into previous crop residues
without plowing, or strip -till, where you only
disturb a narrow strip of soil for planting.
The goal is to preserve existing soil structure
and, importantly, existing carbon stocks. Keep
the carbon locked in. Yep. When you don't continually
invert and aggressively disturb the soil, you
prevent the rapid oxidation of organic matter,
which would otherwise release CO2 into the atmosphere.
The article aptly compares this to minimizing
stress during cow transitions. Less disturbance,
better long -term outcome for both the animal
and the soil. Studies consistently show this
can be particularly beneficial when you're transitioning
from one forage crop to another, minimizing the
carbon bleed during that period. Makes sense.
Second, cover cropping in general, beyond just
winter annuals. Implementing cover crops between
your main cache or forage harvests adds significant
biomass back into the soil, both above and below
ground, and provides crucial protection for the
surface from erosion. More biomass, more protection.
Exactly. Different types of cover crops offer
complementary benefits. Non -legumes like cereals,
oats, wheat, or brassicas like radishes are excellent
at scavenging leftover nutrients and producing
a lot of biomass. Legumes, such as clovers or
vetches, have the added benefit of fixing atmospheric
nitrogen reducing your need for synthetic fertilizers,
and they often create more stable forms of soil
carbon. Nitrogen fixation, that's a big plus.
Huge. And then mixes of different cover crop
types provide multiple benefits simultaneously,
much like a properly balanced TMR delivers a
complete array of nutrients for your herd's optimal
performance. A diverse cover crop mix builds
a more diverse and resilient soil ecosystem.
That's a good analogy. A diverse cover crop mix
for the soil is like a perfectly balanced ration
for the cow, creating a thriving environment.
What about grazing management and manure? Those
are huge parts of dairy farming and have massive
implications for soil health. Indeed. Third,
strategic grazing. For operations that utilize
pasture, well -managed rotational grazing is
incredibly key to carbon sequestration. It promotes
uniform nutrient distribution across the pasture
by having animals graze a smaller area intensely
for a short period, then moving them, allowing
for essential rest and regrowth periods for the
plants. Rest is key for the plants. Absolutely.
This rest allows plants to put more energy into
root development. which in turn enhances overall
plant health and carbon deposition. Over time,
it can even improve the species composition of
your pastures, leading to greater biodiversity
and carbon uptake. This precision approach to
grazing really mirrors the principles of precision
dairy nutrition, where strategic management of
feed inputs leads to improved feed efficiency
and overall animal health. You're optimizing
the system. Optimizing the pasture system, gotcha.
And manure. And fourth, manure management. Applying
dairy manure back to your fields is a vital way
to return photosynthetic carbon captured by the
plants the cows ate back to the soil, effectively
closing your farm's carbon loop. Right, closing
the loop. However, how that manure is handled
before application makes a significant difference
in its carbon contribution and its ability to
build stable soil organic matter. Recent research
published in the Journal of Dairy Science highlighted
this, showing that anaerobic digestion significantly
reduces slurry dry matter by 55 % compared to
raw manure, from 76 grams per kilogram down to
34 grams per kilogram. Wow, a big reduction.
It is. This reduction in dry matter directly
impacts the amount of stable carbon available
for soil building. While anaerobic digestion
is fantastic for capturing methane emissions
and producing renewable energy, Which is important
too. Absolutely important. But it effectively
breaks down some of the complex organic material
that would otherwise become long -term soil carbon.
So in terms of soil carbon sequestration and
building organic matter, typically raw slurry
or solid manure delivers more of that beneficial
stable carbon than heavily digested or separated
slurry. That's an important nuance to consider
when setting your specific farm goals for carbon.
So there's a tradeoff there between methane capture
and carbon building in the soil itself. Interesting.
There can be. As Dr. Jessica Goatneck from the
University of Wisconsin aptly puts it. The carbon
balance of a dairy farm is fundamentally about
how much carbon you're putting into the soil
versus how much is being removed or lost. Right.
Every management decision, whether it's your
feeding program or your cropping system, tips
that balance one way or another, much like how
subtle tweaks in your feeding program affect
your milk components and bulk tank averages.
It's all interconnected. Totally. Every management
decision you make has ripple effects on that
delicate carbon balance within your farm ecosystem.
It's clear that this isn't just about abstract
environmental benefits, but fundamentally about
holistic farm management and long -term profitability
and resilience. So let's transition from the
theory and the why of these practices to the
practical application for you, the listener.
Okay. Moving into our third major discussion
point, practical pathways, co -benefits, and
the economics. For a farmer considering these
significant yet essential changes to their forage
systems, where did they even begin? What are
the concrete strategic steps to tailor this carbon
smart approach to their specific farm conditions,
their soil types, their climate? That's where
the rubber truly meets the road, isn't it? Transitioning
your forage system to enhance soil carbon certainly
requires a strategic, often phased approach.
It's definitely not a one size fits all solution,
but the article lays out some very clear, practical
steps that can be adapted to almost any dairy
operation. Good. What's step one? First, you
need to assess your current carbon balance. You
can't manage what you don't measure right, so
you need to understand your starting point. Good
question. Getting a real baseline picture. Exactly.
This comprehensive assessment gives you a crucial
baseline, much like evaluating your herd's current
production metrics, genetics, and health status,
before you implement any major breeding or management
changes. It helps you accurately identify your
biggest opportunities for carbon improvement
and where to focus your initial efforts. Okay,
assess first, then what? Second, extend rotations
with perennials. This is often one of the most
impactful changes. Look for concrete opportunities
to lengthen the perennial phase of your rotation.
Instead of, say, one or two years of alfalfa
followed by three or four years of intensive
corn silage. Right. Consider extending that perennial
phase to three or four years of alfalfa or mixed
hay, then perhaps two or three years of corn
before returning to perennials. Shifting the
balance in the rotation. Yeah. You could also
evaluate marginal cropland on your operation
areas that are consistently less productive or
challenging to farm profitably. It might actually
be far more profitable and environmentally sound
to convert those areas to permanent pasture or
dedicated perennial hay fields. Rethinking those
less productive spots. Absolutely. And don't
forget to consider dedicating maybe... 10, 15
% of your land to strategic perennial plantings,
especially in areas prone to erosion, steep slopes,
or those that are naturally less productive.
The Turin study we mentioned earlier specifically
showed that dairy farms with a higher percentage
of permanent grasslands actually had better land
occupation efficiency per kilogram of milk, meaning
they produced more milk with a smaller land footprint
by leveraging those perennial benefits. So it's
about strategically shifting that balance in
the rotation and even finding new, more productive
uses for land that might not be pulling its weight
right now. That seems like a logical first step
for many. It often is. What about those crucial
winter covers and optimized manure management?
How do we integrate those strategically for maximum
carbon benefit? Absolutely. Third, implement
winter covers strategically. You want to target
your investments in winter cover crops where
they'll provide the greatest return and fit best
into your existing workflow. Fields with an early
corn silage harvest, for example, offer an ideal
wider window for getting those winter covers
established properly, ensuring good growth before
winter dormancy. Target the early harvest fields.
Good tip. Yeah. Choose cover crop species based
on your specific goals, whether it's primarily
soil building and carbon sequestration, providing
additional forage in the spring, or nitrogen
fixation to reduce fertilizer needs. You can
even consider innovative techniques like interseeding
cover crops into standing corn, giving them a
head start on establishment and allowing for
greater growth before the corn is harvested.
Getting creative with timing. Exactly. Fourth,
optimize your manure strategy. Manure is essentially
recycled carbon, and it's a fantastic resource
right there on your farm to help close your carbon
loop and build soil health. Use what you've got.
Right. Think about exploring options like solid
-liquid separation to strategically direct carbon
-rich solid manure to those fields that have
the greatest carbon deficit or need the most
organic matter. time your applications to maximize
nutrient use efficiency by the crops and minimize
losses through leaching or volatilization timing
is everything and importantly pair your manure
applications with cover crops that can actively
capture and utilize those nutrients as soon as
they are applied preventing losses and incorporating
that carbon more effectively into the soil Penn
State University Research, for instance, has
compellingly shown how strategic applications
of manure combined with active cover crops significantly
enhance soil carbon levels and improve nutrient
retention, which really mitigates potential environmental
impacts and saves on synthetic fertilizer costs.
So it's about making every application count
and having a living plant there to immediately
take advantage of those nutrients and lock in
that carbon. What else is on the list for practical
pathways to consider for building soil carbon?
Fifth, reduce tillage intensity. While going
completely no -till might not be practical or
desirable in every single forage system, simply
reducing tillage intensity can significantly
help preserve existing soil carbon and build
new organic matter. Every little bit helps. It
does. Consider adopting strip -till for corn
planting, particularly after perennials, which
minimizes disturbance to the rest of the field
while still preparing a seedbed. Strive to minimize
the number of tillage passes whenever establishment
is absolutely necessary. And always use no -till
drills for cover crop establishment whenever
possible, allowing them to be planted directly
into residues with minimal soil disturbance.
Smart use of equipment. And sixth, and this is
truly foundational, focus on soil health monitoring.
Regular, consistent soil testing with a particular
emphasis on tracking soil organic matter, SOM
levels, is crucial for tracking your progress
over time. Keep score, basically. Yeah, establish
baseline measurements of soil organic matter
at consistent depths across your fields and then
monitor those levels annually or biennially.
You might even consider more advanced soil health
tests that measure active carbon fractions, which
can give you an earlier indication of changes
in soil health. Active carbon. And don't underestimate
the power of simple photo documentation. Take
pictures of your soil structure, residue cover,
and plant health throughout the season to visually
track changes over time. It provides a powerful,
tangible record. See the difference yourself.
Exactly. The bottom line for you here, the farmer,
the immediate tangible benefit, get this, Every
1 % increase in soil organic matter can hold
approximately 20 ,000 more gallons of water per
acre. 20 ,000 gallons per acre. Let that sink
in. That's a huge, almost unbelievable increase
in your soil's water holding capacity. This translates
directly to tangible benefits like reduced irrigation
costs during dry periods and significantly improved
drought resilience for your crops. That right
there is money in the bank during dry years,
like having an insurance policy built right into
your fields. That's a massive co -benefit right
there. Huge. Dr. Randy Jackson offers excellent
advice on embarking on this journey. Making these
transitions doesn't have to happen all at once.
Start with pilot areas, perhaps just a few fields
or a specific rotation. Learn what works best
on your particular farm, adapt those practices
based on your observations, and then expand gradually.
Start small, learn, adapt, scale. That's the
idea. He emphasizes that some of the biggest
gains can come from relatively small changes
applied consistently over time, similar to how
small, consistent tweaks in your transition cow
program can lead to significant long -term improvements
in lactation performance and herd health. It's
about consistent, smart choices, building momentum.
That's incredibly reassuring, that it's a journey,
not a sprint, and that incremental changes can
yield big results. And speaking of results, the
article really highlights that while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is a critically important,
noble goal, the benefits of actively enhancing
soil carbon extend far beyond just climate mitigation.
These co -benefits are often immediate, tangible,
and directly impactful on the farm's daily operations
and long -term viability. Let's really dig into
them. What are some of these powerful additional
upsides for a dairy farmer? This is where it
gets really interesting, Sarah, because Okay,
lay them out. First and perhaps most impactful
for many operations is improved drought resilience.
Soil organic matter acts like a massive natural
sponge. The article powerfully states that for
every 1 % increase in soil organic matter, soils
can hold approximately 20 ,000 more gallons of
water per acre. That number is just incredible.
It really is. This dramatically increases your
soil's water holding capacity and its ability
to buffer plants against dry spells. During the
devastating 2012 drought, for instance, Dr. Christine
Jones, a renowned soil ecologist, observed dramatic
differences in forage production between farms
with high and low soil organic matter. Yeah.
She noted that the farms that had consciously
built their soil carbon had a visible buffer
against the drought stress that... utterly devastated
other operations. Wow. Much like how a properly
conditioned cow handles the stress of calving
and peak lactation far better than one that enters
the dry period too thin or too fat. It's essentially
natural built -in irrigation, an emergency water
reservoir right there in your fields at no extra
cost for infrastructure. 20 ,000 gallons per
acre per 1 % of organic matter. That's truly
incredible. It's like having that emergency water
reservoir built right into your fields, as you
said, at no extra cost for infrastructure. So
a tangible benefit that can save you money and
headaches during unpredictable weather. What
else does the article highlight as a co -benefit?
Second, we see enhanced nutrient cycling and
efficiency. Carbon -rich soils are bustling with
more diverse and active microbial communities.
These microbes are the unsung heroes of your
farm. They're absolutely essential for cycling
nutrients more efficiently, making them more
available to your crops and reducing losses.
Exactly. This can directly reduce your synthetic
fertilizer requirements and their associated
costs, which is a major input for any dairy operation.
It also improves water quality by reducing nutrient
runoff and leaching into groundwater or surface
waters. Saving money on fertilizer, protecting
water. Win -win. Big time. Studies in the Northeast
have actually shown that dairy farms implementing
perennial -based rotations with cover crops have
seen their nitrogen fertilizer needs drop by
a significant 30 -50%. all while maintaining
or even improving their yields. 30 to 50 % reduction,
that's huge. It is. This directly enhances farm
profitability and reduces environmental impact
simultaneously. Much like strategic feeding of
bypass proteins can reduce your total protein
requirements while still maintaining optimal
milk production and feed efficiency, it's about
getting more out of what you put in and often
needing to put less in overall. And less going
where it shouldn't be, like into our valuable
waterways, which is a huge win for everyone.
Exactly. Third, reduced erosion and improved
water quality. The improvements in soil structure
that naturally come with higher soil organic
matter dramatically reduce the potential for
soil erosion, whether from intense rainfall or
strong winds. Keeping that topsoil in place.
Absolutely. This means your valuable topsoil
along with the nutrients it contains stays where
it belongs. in your fields, where it can support
your crops, instead of washing away into ditches,
streams, and rivers. And by keeping the soil
and its associated nutrients in place, you're
also directly preventing sediment and nutrient
pollution from impacting our waterways. Dr. Matt
Ruark, whom we heard from earlier, summarizes
this perfectly. Soil health and water quality
are two sides of the same coin. Nice summary.
the very practices that build soil carbon are
inherently the ones that protect and improve
water resources leading to clearer streams and
healthier aquatic ecosystems for everyone downstream
good for the farm good for the community Right.
And fourth, greater farm resilience. Diversifying
your forage systems and building soil health
creates a natural, biological insurance policy
against a whole host of risks that dairy farmers
face daily. Extreme weather events, unforeseen
disease, and pest pressures on single crops,
and even market volatility. Building in a buffer
against shocks. Precisely. If one crop struggles
due to drought or disease, others in a diverse
system may thrive under the same conditions,
providing a crucial buffer against total crop
failure. Dairy farmer Ron Holter from Jefferson,
Maryland, who famously transitioned to a perennial
pasture -based system, articulates this beautifully.
Resilience is about having options. Options are
good. He adds, when you're working with a diverse
carbon building system, you're not putting all
your eggs in one basket, just like you wouldn't
want a herd susceptible to the same genetic weaknesses
or all at the same stage of lactation vulnerable
to a single challenge. It's about spreading your
risk, building robustness into your entire operation,
and creating a more stable, adaptive farming
system that can weather the inevitable challenges.
Those co -benefits are certainly compelling.
Perhaps even more immediately tangible and financially
motivating for many farmers than just abstract
carbon numbers or future climate targets. But
of course, the ultimate question for any dairy
farmer, considering significant changes to their
forage systems, changes that require investment
time and a learning curve as always, does carbon
smart farming actually pay? Yeah, the bottom
line question. What does the article say about
the economics of these shifts, especially in
the short and long term? This is the absolute
crux. Crucial question, isn't it? It's where
the rubber meets the road for farm managers.
And the article doesn't shy away from dissecting
the economics by looking at both the potential
initial costs and the significant potential benefits
and returns. On the cost side, it's important
to acknowledge there can be initial investments.
You might need equipment modifications or new
purchases like specialized no -till drills or
roller crimpers for cover crops. There's definitely
a learning curve associated with adopting new
practices and adapting them to your specific
farm and climate, which requires time and commitment.
Sure, change takes effort. You might even see
some short -term yield adjustments during the
transition periods as the soil biology adapts
and rebuilds, although often these are quickly
offset. There can also be additional management
complexity initially and potentially higher seed
costs for cover crops or diverse perennial forage
mixes compared to conventional monocultures.
Okay, so there are hurdles. What about the benefits?
But then you have the potential benefits and
returns, which are quite significant and often
compound over time. These include... Genuinely
reduced fuel, labor, and machinery maintenance
costs from less tillage and fewer passes across
the field. Big savings there, potentially. Significantly
lower fertilizer requirements due to improved
nutrient cycling and nitrogen fixation by legumes,
as we just discussed. Reduced irrigation needs
from that vastly improved water retention in
the soil. More stable and often higher yields,
especially under weather extremes, thanks to
that increased resilience of the soil. Stability
is valuable. Very. And looking slightly down
the line, potential premium markets for low carbon
dairy products as consumer demand for sustainability
grows. And of course, the exciting, though still
developing, potential for carbon credit revenue.
Carbon credit revenue. That's a relatively new
and incredibly exciting opportunity for agriculture,
particularly dairy. How significant is that market
for dairy farmers right now? And what does a
farm need to do to participate? It's an emerging
market, absolutely, but it's gaining significant
momentum and structure. Carbon credits from agricultural
soil projects are currently ranging, in various
markets, from around $15 to $45 per metric ton
of co -euro equivalent. $15 to $45 a ton. Okay.
To participate and generate these credits, projects
typically require verified changes in management
practices and then measured or credibly modeled
carbon gains in the soil. These credits can stem
from direct soil carbon increases, but also from
other GHG reductions on the farm, such as methane
reductions achieved through manure digestion,
or a combination of both. Do you need proof?
Verification? Yes. Dr. Debbie Reed, Executive
Director of the Ecosystem Services Market Consortium,
or ESMC, a leading player in this space, notes
that forward -thinking dairy farms are strategically
positioning themselves to benefit. She explains
that the farms with good baseline data, documented
practice changes, and a commitment to long -term
soil health will be best positioned to participate
and capitalize as these markets develop and mature.
Similar to how farms that were early adopters
of robotic milking or precision feeding technology
often gained significant market advantages and
efficiencies. It's about being ahead of the curve,
establishing those baselines, and proving out
the practices now. That analogy of early adopters
is a good one. It suggests that while the market
is still maturing, being an early mover could
offer a competitive edge and unlock future revenue
streams. And the article gives some real -world
economic case studies, which really help bring
this concept of carbon -smart farming paying
off to life. Yeah, those are really powerful.
What if farms that have actually made these transitions
experience in terms of their bottom line? The
real -world examples provided in the article
are truly compelling and demonstrate the tangible
economic benefits. Let's look at a few. First,
Rutland Farm in Pennsylvania is a fantastic example
of a dramatic, successful transition. Okay. They
moved from a corn silage -based confinement operation
to a managed grazing system utilizing diverse
perennial pastures. While their milk production
per cow did decrease slightly, wait for it, the
overall farm profitability soared because they
completely eliminated silage production costs,
significantly reduced their grain purchases by
a remarkable 30%, and observed substantial improvements
in herd health. reducing veterinary bills and
improving longevity, the net result. Documented
profitability gains of an astonishing $800 per
cow annually. $800 per cow, that's huge from
changing the forage system. That's a huge, undeniable
economic win stemming from a fundamental shift
in their forage system. Then there's Graysway
Dairy in Wisconsin. They implemented a partial
system where about 40 % of their forage comes
from perennial pasture and 60 % from harvested
feed. Mixed approach. Right. They've documented
a significant 35 % reduction in machinery and
fuel costs, a major expense for any farm, all
while maintaining comparable milk production
to their previous system. Cutting costs, same
milk, good deal. And perhaps even more impressively,
over a 12 -year period, their soil organic matter
on their pastures increased from a baseline of
3 .2 % to an impressive 5 .7%. Building that
soil, I said. That's a measurable, long -term
asset building up in the soil, improving its
productive capacity and resilience for generations.
And Blue Spruce Farm in Vermont took a different,
more incremental approach, proving you don't
have to overhaul everything at once. Okay, the
incremental approach. They maintained their corn
silage system, but strategically added winter
cover crops, reduced tillage intensity, and incorporated
manure injection. While they spent approximately
$30 more per acre on seeds and management for
these practices. Okay, a bit more cost up front.
They saw an immediate return. They reduced their
synthetic fertilizer costs by $45 per acre and
documented yield increases in their subsequent
corn crops worth an additional $65 .90 per acre.
So a net positive return pretty quickly, even
without ditching silage. Exactly. So even without
eliminating corn silage, they found significant
immediate financial gains through strategic carbon
building practices. As fifth -generation dairy
farmer John Gilbert succinctly puts it in the
article, there's a cost to changing, yes, but
there's also a much larger cost to not changing.
Interesting perspective. He expands on this,
saying, When I look at what we're spending on
synthetic fertilizer, fuel, and equipment repairs
in our conventional system versus what we're
seeing in our transition fields using these carbon
-building practices, the numbers increasingly
favor the carbon -building approach. Looking
at the whole picture. Yeah. He says, It's like
comparing the economics of preventing a metabolic
disease in your herd versus waiting to treat
it once it's already caused damage and lost production.
It's about looking at the holistic picture of
your operation's financial health, not just individual
line items in isolation. It's about long -term
vision. So, Jake, after all that incredibly detailed
and practical discussion, what's the key takeaway,
the absolute most important insight for a dairy
farmer listening today who's perhaps feeling
both the challenge and the opportunity of this
topic? The core message is undeniably clear.
Soil carbon management is not just another environmental
regulation or a distant sustainability goal.
It is simultaneously dairy's biggest climate
challenge and, crucially, its greatest on -farm
opportunity. Challenge and opportunity. Exactly.
It offers tangible, measurable benefits for farmers
that go far beyond just carbon numbers. We're
talking about significantly improved drought
resilience, with every 1 % increase in soil organic
matter holding approximately That's money saved
on irrigation and insurance against dry years.
That water number again. Yeah. Huge. We're talking
about genuinely reduced input costs, like less
fuel consumption from fewer passes and less reliance
on expensive synthetic fertilizers, leading directly
to a stronger, more stable bottom line. And perhaps
most importantly, it builds overall farm resilience,
making your entire operation more robust and
adaptable in the face of increasingly unpredictable
weather patterns and volatile market fluctuations.
Resilience is key these days. Absolutely. It's
vital to stress that this is a journey, not an
overnight, immediate transformation. You do not
have to overhaul your entire operation tomorrow.
Start small, perhaps with pilot areas on a few
fields that you're willing to experiment with.
They'll bite off more than you can chew. Right.
Learn what works best on your specific farm's
unique soils and climate conditions, adapt those
practices based on your observations, and then
scale gradually as you gain confidence and see
results. The research consistently shows that
small, consistent changes applied over time really
do lead to significant compounding gains. Like
interest in a savings account. Yes, exactly.
Much like how small, incremental improvements
in herd genetics compound over generations to
create a truly superior herd. For you, the listener,
we strongly encourage active knowledge building.
Attend field days where these carbon -friendly
practices are being demonstrated by other farmers
and researchers. Learn from peers. Connect with
your local extension office or Natural Resources
Conservation Service, NRCS, for soil health programs
and invaluable technical assistance. Join farmer
networks focused on regenerative agriculture
and soil health. Peer -to -peer learning from
those who are already on this path is often the
most valuable resource. Tap into the community.
And definitely consider a comprehensive soil
health assessment to establish your baseline
and accurately track your progress over time.
Don't hesitate to seek out incentives available
through NRCS, state -level programs, or even
from milk processors and carbon market developers
who are increasingly offering financial support
and technical guidance for these practices. Taking
a whole farm systems approach and involving your
nutritionist, crop advisor, and other trusted
team members in the planning process will be
absolutely key to long -term success. Dr. Jed
Colquhoun, Associate Dean for Extension at the
University of Wisconsin -Madison, has a powerful
prediction that really encapsulates the future.
The dairy farms that will truly thrive in the
coming decades are the ones thinking holistically
about carbon. Holistically? Not just how to reduce
emissions, but how to actively build and manage
carbon in their soils. That's a clear and inspiring
vision for the future of dairy. This deep dive
has shown us that by thoughtfully reimagining
your forage systems and actively focusing on
building soil carbon, you can make meaningful
and verifiable progress toward the industry's
critical climate goals. But it's so much more
than that. You can simultaneously build more
resilient, more profitable, and more environmentally
sound operations right there on your farm. You'll
improve environmental outcomes that go far beyond
just carbon, positively impacting water quality,
biodiversity, and the health of your local ecosystems.
You'll position yourself and your farm for emerging
ecosystem service markets. And perhaps most importantly,
you'll be able to tell a truly compelling, authentic
sustainability story to consumers. processors,
and the wider community. That story matters.
It really does. There's no single one -size -fits
-all solution, of course, but the journey toward
carbon smart dairy is not only vital for the
planet, but increasingly vital for the prosperity
and longevity of your farm. The carbon that literally
sustains us, that forms the building blocks of
life, ultimately comes from the soil. By managing
that carbon more thoughtfully, more intentionally,
you can lead agricultural climate solutions or
building operations that will thrive and produce
for generations to come. What will your farm's
carbon legacy be? Great points. And that's all
the time we have for today's Deep Dive. For more
articles and insights, be sure to visit www .thebullvine
.com. Don't forget to subscribe wherever you
get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. Thanks
for joining us on the Bullvine Podcast. Today's
discussion on soil carbon and dairy forage management
reveals just how interconnected our farming practices
are with both environmental sustainability and
long -term profitability. The path to net zero
emissions isn't just about meeting industry targets.
It's about building farming systems that work
better for your bottom line, your soil health,
and your farm's future resilience. As we've heard
today, the solutions are within reach. but they
require us to think differently about how we
manage our land and our forages. Remember, every
management decision you make today shapes your
farm's carbon legacy tomorrow. Keep pushing the
boundaries, stay informed about the latest research,
and never stop asking the tough questions about
how we can do better. Until next time, this is
The Bullvine, where progressive thinking meets
profitable farming. Keep innovating.