Assessing Feasibility of Bio-acidification to Reduce On-farm Ammonia Volatilization from Dairy Manure, Digestate and Urine

Lab Pre-Trial Results

Results from the pre-trial revealed that the two wheys and paper fibers were all effective at lowering pH of all substrates tested (Figure 3). Acid whey lowered pH to a larger degree than sweet whey in digestate at all percentages except the maximum (100%), and it lowered pH more effectively in urine at all percentages except the minimum (12.5%) and maximum (50%) ratios. Both wheys reduced pH by similar amounts in liquid manure. The greatest pH reduction in substrates occurred when additives were added to substrates at their maximum rates; all whey additives added at 100% reduced digestate pH to ≤4.16, liquid manure to ≤3.85, and urine pH ≤5.28.

Paper fibers did not affect the pH of substrates as strongly as whey additives at the ratios tested. The greatest pH reduction from paper fibers occurred when paper fibers were added to substrates at a 50% rate, resulting in pH reductions in digestate to ≤5.69, reductions in liquid manure to ≤5.71, and reductions in urine to ≤6.07.

The addition of culture resulted in noticeably lower pH values in urine mixed with sweet whey or with paper fibers, but it did not affect the pH of digestate or liquid manure. Cultured sweet whey showed greater pH reductions in urine than uncultured sweet whey at all dosing levels, and cultured paper fibers showed greater pH reductions in urine than uncultured paper fibers at all dosing levels except the minimum (2.5%) and maximum (50%) percentages. This difference was especially apparent at low ratios of paper fiber additives, where cultured fiber additions lowered urine pH relative to uncultured fiber additions by 0.79 at 5%, 1.12 at 10%, and 1.46 at 25%.

Lab Full Trial (Long Trial) Results

For the full trial, we monitored pH in samples stored at 24°C and 4°C, for 77 to 98 days, respectively. The pH dynamics were markedly different in the warm and cold environments, as shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6. Detailed graphs of pH behavior of all warm and cold versions of each recipe can be found in the Supplemental Information Document. A striking example of a temperature-related difference is the behavior of the liquid manure with 12.5% acid whey addition (Figure 4), in which the pH in the cold condition descends nearly to 5, while in the warm condition it drops only to 6 and then rises to over 7. Temperature can also influence the duration of pH reduction, as warm conditions frequently led to a sharp pH decrease followed by a pH increase, while the pH in cold environments tended to rebound more gradually or not at all. This rebound behavior was more pronounced with smaller percentages of additive. For example, 50% acid whey additions to manure did not rebound regardless of temperature, yet when added at a smaller rate of 12.5%, pH does not rebound in a cold environment but does rebound in a warm environment (Figure 4).

Ammonia Volatilization Jar Tests

The ammonia volatilization tests simulated a situation where the acidified manure/digestate/urine is applied to the surface of a field, and then left there for a period of days without incorporation. (This equates to the common field condition where manure is applied as a broadcast and sits on the surface of a field until rain leaches the soluble nitrogen into the soil.) For instance, in Figure 7 (liquid manure) the control manure has lost about 0.4 g of ammonia per liter by Day 4, while the 12.5% acid whey recipe has lost virtually no ammonia. If substantial rain were to fall at that point, the ammonia in the 12.5% recipe could potentially be incorporated with very little loss.

The recipes with higher rates of additive generally performed better, with the highest rates resulting in virtually no volatilization for a number of days. However, an important finding was that recipes with low rates of additive and near-neutral pH values still resulted in relevant reductions in ammonia volatilization compared to non-acidified controls.

Table 5: pH measurements of all recipes on day 0 of the ammonia bench trial experiment. All manure and digestate recipes are cold and uncultured, and all urine recipes are cold and cultured. 

Quantifying the benefit

Finally, using the results from the volatilization experiment, we performed a series of calculations to determine the total increase in the amount of nitrogen delivered to the (simulated) soil by each of the tested recipes. Calculated values included:

1. Total reduction in ammonia volatilization (grams of nitrogen per liter of urine/digestate/manure)
2. Reduction in ammonia volatilization per unit of additive (grams of nitrogen per kg of additive)
3. Total net increase in retained nitrogen per unit of additive (the previous value, plus the nitrogen in the additive itself)

Put another way, calculation #3 is how many additional grams of nitrogen will reach the soil for every kilogram of additive used. This number includes ammonia in the urine/digestate/manure that is retained instead of volatilized, plus the nitrogen content of the additive itself.

The graphs below show the result of calculation #3. The x-axis corresponds to the number of rainless days after application of the urine/digestate/manure. For each point on the x-axis, the y-value of the colored lines indicates how many more grams of nitrogen will enter the soil using each acidified recipe (instead of the non-acidified control) if the first substantial rain were to fall at the end of the indicated day.

Calculation #3 is the most useful metric for determining cost/benefit to a farmer. In the context of a given farm, the cost of procuring and adding an additive can be determined, and can be compared to the value of the additional nitrogen that reaches the soil due to the addition of the whey to the manure storage system.

The “additional grams of nitrogen per kg additive” values can be multiplied by 8.4 to approximate pounds of nitrogen per 1000 gallons of whey, or by 2 to approximate pounds of nitrogen per ton of paper fibers.

As an example, on the liquid manure graph (Figure 10), if rain falls at the end of day 4, and the farmer has used 6.25% acid whey as an additive, each kg of whey would theoretically result in just under 5 additional grams of nitrogen reaching the soil. In English units, that would be about 40 pounds of additional nitrogen per 1000 gallons of acid whey added. By factoring in the cost of procuring and adding the whey, and the value of the urine, the farmer could determine the cost/benefit ratio. The liquid manure used in our study was very dilute--with more concentrated manure the volatilization risk is higher, so the benefit from bioacidification might also be higher.

NOTE: These values are from a laboratory jar experiment experiment that did not contain soil, and should be taken only as an indication of what sorts of benefits might be possible on a farm. Followup experiments in a field environment are needed to determine actual effects.

Laboratory Research Conclusions

• Acid whey was generally the most effective additive, and low rates of addition (6.25% and 12.5%) resulted in the greatest benefit per unit of additive added, in both urine and liquid manure.
• Acidification of digestate required relatively large rates of additive, compared to urine and liquid manure.
• The pH of all mixtures were lower than the unamended substrates, for all additives in all substrate types.
• For a given pair of substrate and additive (e.g. urine substrate with acid whey additive), the pH reduction was larger with higher rates of additive (Figure 10).
• Temperature had a large effect on the performance of many recipes, resulting in differing rates of acidification and final pH.
• Reductions in pH were sometimes temporary, with an initial decrease in pH followed by a rebound in pH. Recipes containing larger amounts of additive tended to stay low for longer, and recipes with the highest rates of additive experienced little to no rebound. Warm conditions resulted in faster rebound than cool ones.
• Acid whey more effectively lowered pH than sweet whey when added at the same proportion. In extreme cases, such as addition of whey to liquid manure at a rate of 12.5%, the pH after 98 days of storage in the cold condition was 5.18 ± 0.01 for acid whey and 6.84 ± 0.01 for sweet whey (Figure 12). Acid whey also generally outperformed paper fibers.
• Addition of a starter culture to urine substrates achieved greater pH reductions than uncultured urine substrates. Culture did not measurably affect pH in manure or digestate substrates. 
• For a given pair of substrate and additive, ammonia volatilization was reduced at higher rates of additive, with the exception of 6.25% and 12.5% sweet whey in liquid manure.
• The lower the pH of a substrate on the day of field application, the lower the ammonia volatilization over the course of the following 4 days (see Supplemental Information Document).

Partner site visits to assess feasibility

The Corse Farm Dairy

We conducted a site visit  with Leon Corse on August 16th, 2022 with a follow-up interview on May 15th, 2023. This dairy farm currently has 90-100 cows. It is a no-till operation, and has not been plowed in 35 years. Row crops are not grown. The Corse Farm philosophy is to "treat the land with only products that are naturally occurring, using no herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers and only products that are natural to the earth." In addition to their own manure, some 10 tons of custom formulated organic fertilizer was applied in 2023 at an approximate cost of $13,000 - $14,000.

The Corse Farm has a large manure storage tank with a capacity of 600,000 gallons, built 31 years ago, which was half-full at the time of our visit. The storage tank receives not only manure from the cows, but wastewater from the milking facility, including detergents and other acids used for cleaning. (The wastewater first goes to a buried concrete tank and then is pumped to the manure storage tank.)  A crust forms in the manure storage tank on top of the material stored here, which Corse noted has the effect of reducing ammonia losses. The tank normally has the capacity for seven months of storage. 

There is an agitation system, connected to a tractor, with an articulated manure pump, which operates during the period when the manure is being spread. (Manure is usually spread three times a year, April, June and October, and requires one week each time. They hope to eliminate the June spreading soon.) The system both agitates the stored material to mix solids that have settled to the bottom, and pumps the liquid manure into the spreader. 

Because the manure storage tank is usually full in the spring, it would be difficult to add any additional material such as whey or paper fibers any time before the spring manure application. Corse notes that on most dairy farms, capacity in the spring will be a challenge for adding anything that takes very much volume. Addition of whey or paper fibers prior to the fall applications would be more feasible in terms of manure pit capacity.

If the additive were introduced to the manure pit all at once and then mixed in, this would incur considerable time, labor, and expense of operating the tractor and running the agitation system. There would have to be a significant benefit in order to justify the effort. Corse suggests that the need for agitation could be avoided (in the case of whey) if the whey could be parked in a tractor-trailer on the farm and be gradually added, mixing with the liquid manure going into the manure storage tank. Potentially whey could be added directly to a buried tank between the barn and manure pit, but the tank would have to be modified to accept it. It would be important that this step did not incur significant additional labor.

With regard to ammonia losses through volatilization, Corse believes that his system does not currently result in significant losses during application, due to the low percent solids in the liquid manure, which allows the liquid manure to quicky soak into the ground after application. Because the farm is no-till, there is also deeply rooted sod, which may also play a role in the quick uptake of the nutrients applied. There is also high organic matter in the farm's soil, which likely aids nutrient retention.

Given this situation, although Corse identified a potentially practical way to combine whey and fresh manure before they were added to the storage tank each day, it was questionable whether the benefits would outweigh the costs. The percent solids level in the manure holding tank is very low, due to the addition of wash water. As a result, dissolved ammonia is quickly carried down into the soil by the infiltrating water immediately after application, rather than remaining on the surface in a slurry. This is in line with UVM guidance that there is  less ammonia volatilization as solids content goes down. 

Elm Lea Farm, Putney School

We conducted a site visit with Pete Stickney on October 6th, 2022, with a follow up visit on August 29th, 2023. The Elm Lea farm has approximately 25 cows, and grows forage hay to feed them. The cows produce approximately 1400 pounds of milk per day.  Cheese is also made on the farm on a small scale, but the intention is to increase the cheese operation, making a young jack cheddar. An effort is being made to reduce the amount of purchased synthetic fertilizer - none was used in 2022, and four tons in 2023. (In 2022, urine from the Rich Earth Institute was also used.) 

There is a plastic-lined 180,000-gallon lagoon which collects all the rain that falls in the portion of the barnyard that contains the solid manure pile, and all the leachate from the solid manure pile, as well as the milk room wash water, which includes cleaning components such as liquid soap, acid sanitizers, and chlorine bleach. Some 250 gallons of milkroom wash water is produced daily and added to the lagoon. The barnyard solids are stored separately and turned with an excavator periodically. Food waste from the dining hall is also intended to be added to this composting system.  Elm Lea farm does not make a slurry as they currently do not have the equipment to manage this. As cheese-making is ramped up, whey is also planned to be added to the lagoon, anticipating approximately 400 - 500 gallons/month. (Pete is interested in potentially adding more whey from off-site.)  The lagoon system was built 18 years ago. The plastic lining has a 20 year life, so the intention is to build another larger concrete-lined tank, holding 500,000 gallons, in 2025.  

The material in the lagoon is sprayed on the hay and pasture in the spring, using an overhead sprayer. While the grass receives some nutrients from this application, Stickney feels the water that this adds to the fields is as or more important to hay/pasture health, particularly in a drought year as was the case in 2022. The intended addition of whey, however, will also add valuable nutrients. Unlike Corse farm, there is no crusted layer on top of the lagoon, as very little solids are added to the system.

At Elm Lea Farm, they already intend to add whey to their manure holding pit, simply as a way to manage the "waste" whey. This will be the simplest way of incorporating whey into a manure storage system. However, the whey can also play a role in acidification.  This synergy of having a cheese making operation on farm has the added value of reducing nitrogen losses from the lagoon, as well as during the spray application. In other words, this model has the benefit of increased nitrogen retention by making cheese on the farm, which could potentially be a selling point for this farmstead cheese. 

It would not be feasible or desirable to add paper fibers to this system, as there is no agitation system, and these would likely collect at the bottom of the lagoon and could clog the irrigation system. 

With regard to adding whey-derived biostimulants to irrigation liquid, Stickney is interested in this, particularly as an educational project with the Putney School students, doing a longitudinal study. However, it would be best to add the biostimulant to the system during irrigation, but not added directly to the lagoon, so as to conduct an experiment comparing the added biostimulant to control. It would make sense to do this during applications of urine which Stickney would like to expand if sufficient urine is available. Stickney is also interested in the possibility of adding urine to the lagoon as a way to increase the nitrogen content of the system. He does not think this would result in excess nitrogen application, but would require adding material to his piping system to get the liquid to more distant fields.

It may also be possible to measure differences in ammonia losses during application, after whey has been added. Stickney would also be interested in measuring the levels of chemical components of milk room wash water in the lagoon. With regard to soil health, he is also interested in measuring changes in microbial communities from fields treated with different fertilizers. 

Farmer Interviews

The goal of these interviews was to understand the perspectives, interest, and feasibility of these methods on a range of farm types and to learn what farmers would need in order to consider using whey or paper fibers for nitrogen retention.

In addition to the two partner-farmers, six farmers on five farms in southern Vermont and New Hampshire that have liquid manure storage were interviewed.  All the interviewees were male. Their ages ranged from 23 - 69. While we initially intended to interview 10 or more farmers for this project, and made every effort to do so, it turned out that given the limited number of farmers who have liquid manure storage in our area, and due to some management changes and imminent sales of two farms, we were only able to include five. However, among those five there was a wide range of manure storage systems, so that we were still able to glean significant perspectives on the feasibility of bioacidification on diverse farms. Four of the five operations were described as "conventional" and one was certified organic. All farmers were offered the option of confidentiality. While most were comfortable with their names being used, one was not. Since there are only a small number of interviews and few farms with liquid manure in the region we have elected to keep all responses anonymous to protect that individual's privacy.

The acres under management (primarily in corn silage, haylage, and pasture) ranged from approximately 300  to 700 acres. Most of the farmers interviewed had their home farm and also managed additional rented fields at varying distances to the home farm. The farmers interviewed all had dairy cows that were at least partially grass-fed. Some also had beef animals. The numbers of livestock ranged from 80 to about 550. 

Most of the farmers had both stacked manure and storage tanks or lagoons of varying sizes from "too small!" (this farmer did not recall the size of his lagoon) to an estimated 3.5 million gallons. One farmer noted that they had a storage tank of 600,000 gallons but needed about 2 million. Insufficient storage was a source of frustration for most of the farmers. Those that use sand for bedding need to remove that sand to increase storage size, which adds time and expense. They aim for storage time of 5 - 7 months, but one farmer noted he only had four months of storage available. A wet year such as 2023 increases the amount of precipitation entering the tanks/lagoons, further reducing storage time.

Nutrient Management Challenges

In reviewing interviews conducted as part of our 2018 SARE funded project, we noted that most of the farmers primarily relied on their own livestock manure for fertility management. Several of the farmers utilized rotational grazing of animals on pasture, as well as crop rotation and cover crops, to supply their nutrient needs. Several of the farmers also purchased additional fertilizers and amendments such as a 26-0-26 synthetic fertilizer or a 20-5-25 mix. One farm used the organic mix “Pro-Grow” (5-3-4). Some also used alfalfa and soybean meal as high-N fertilizers. One also used fish emulsion as a foliar feed. Several had also used biosolids. Many of the farmers reported that they do not get enough nutrients for their farms from their own livestock manure. Several had developed bartering relationships with other farmers, exchanging animal feed for manure, for example. The prospect of additional source of nutrients was attractive, especially a high N fertilizer for grass crops, corn, and hemp. That project was exploring the use of urine as a high-nitrogen addition, which most found a potentially beneficial supplemental source of nitrogen. One expressed interest in adding urine to his liquid manure storage so as to increase its nitrogen content.

Farmers interviewed for the 2018 project also had a preference for a local product (in that case, urine) and for “closing loops.” One commented in this regard, “The price we are paying for synthetic fertilizer doesn’t include all the externalized societal costs. Recycling something locally could potentially reduce some of those impacts.” This philosophical preference for re-using a local product that has been considered "waste" was reiterated by several of the farmers participating in the current project. 

Most of the farmers interviewed for this project  have nutrient management plans and make nutrient applications based on soil tests, live tissue sampling, and the recommendations of their nutrient management advisor. However, all noted that they also make decisions based on their observations of their plants (color and robustness) and their knowledge of crop nutrient needs, as well as soil type. Soil health was generally evaluated by noting how well crops performed; water infiltration and water holding capacity; degree of compaction; organic matter as indicated on soil tests; and whether or not there was significant erosion. While microbial life was of interest, none of the farmers emphasized this as a soil health indicator (although several noted that high organic matter was likely correlated with helping beneficial microbes.)

Most of the farmers interviewed worked hard to reduce the amount of fertilizers they needed to buy in. These efforts include crop rotations and cover cropping or interseeding. All the farmers used their own manure, and aimed to practice good manure management to maximize nutrient availability and avoid nutrient losses. For organic farmers, added fertilizers and amendments included Chilean nitrate, feather meal, lime and wood ashes. For the conventional farmers, added fertilizers and amendments mentioned included urea, CoRoN (a controlled-release liquid nitrogen product), and sulfur.

Some farmers do not have sufficient manure production on their own farm to meet their nutrient needs, so they either buy in manure from other farms, trade feed for manure, or use more commercial fertilizer, though that is not desirable due to the expense. The organic farmer noted that he hoped to not have to use any Chilean nitrate or feather meal in the future due to cost. With regard to manure management, one farmer noted that better ability to aerate and/or agitate the storage lagoon would be advantageous to better mix the solids into the liquids, but this farmer needed to rent a manure agitator boat for this purpose, which was expensive, on the order of $300/hour.  

The timing of manure and fertilizer applications varied. One farmer was able to cut hay four to five times per season and applied manure after each cutting so every 30 days from the end of April until mid-November, while another farmer only made two applications per year (spring and fall). One farmer noted that they only agitated their liquid manure storage on the day they were going to spread so as to avoid breaking up the seal or crust that formed on the top of the slurry, helping to prevent nitrogen losses. 

Applications on grassland cannot be incorporated, so farmers noted that anything to reduce ammonia losses would be very helpful for these applications. 

Motivations 

All the farmers interviewed expressed strong interest in retaining nitrogen for fertility (high quality forage), as well as economic and environmental considerations. As one farmer put it, "We're interesting in anything that could benefit our crops and minimize environmental impact." Another commented "Anything we could do to help retain nitrogen is money in the bank for us." With regard to economic issues, the high cost of nitrogen fertilizers was frequently mentioned; for organic farmers especially, obtaining sufficient nitrogen at an affordable cost was cited as a reason bioacidification was intriguing, as urea cannot be used on organic farms. 

While some farmers already add paper fibers to manure, whey appeared to be a more attractive additive to manure storage, primarily because of perceived ease of application. One farmer noted that adding paper fibers could create more of slurry which was not what he aimed for. He noted, "it would be much easier to add [whey] because we're looking for liquid anyway, and sometimes we have to add additional water to our liquids… to get enough to pump and make the manure pumpable, so adding liquid like that would be a good choice." Whey was also looked upon favorably because farmers believed it would supply additional nutrients. (One farmer noted that years ago, when Grafton Cheese had excess whey and needed to dispose of it, they added it to his manure pit. He did not recall whether this provided significant benefit, but it contributed to his positive perception of whey as an additive.)

Farmers also wanted to be sure the paper fibers would not add contaminants, such as PFAS.

Although urine as a fertilizer was not discussed in any depth in these interviews, some farmers also expressed interest in adding urine to their manure storage to add liquid (for ease of application) while also increasing nitrogen and other nutrients.

Concerns

1. The most significant concern mentioned was storage capacity of their systems. Storage capacity is an ongoing difficult issue for farmers who store liquid manure, particularly for farmers in Vermont who are prohibited from spreading between December 15 and April 1. One Vt farmer rents land in New Hampshire and so is able to spread there when the tank is too full, but concern about capacity was mentioned by all but one farmer interviewed.

2. The next concern was the potential cost and availability of these additives. Whey was perceived as likely to be available and the cost of "waste" whey from cheese plants was expected to be minimal; however, this would need to be determined. Paper fibers have different prices depending on the type of paper used, so farmers would need to know the cost and were less likely to utilize this depending on affordability. Availability of the appropriate amounts at the appropriate time was also a concern. Farmers also wondered whether the bioacidification process would complicate the timing of manure application, which must be done to match the timing of plant nutrient needs. 
3. With respect to paper fibers, farmers expressed concerns about chemicals that might be present in the paper (such as dyes), as well as chemicals used in the processing of paper fibers to break them down. Several also mentioned worries about potential PFAS contamination of paper fibers. One also mentioned wanting to know the source of the paper fibers including whether hardwood or softwood, anticipating that these would have different consistencies, acidity levels and/or nutrient make-up. One farmer who currently uses short paper fibers as a bulking agent for manure in the barn commented that he used it because it was available for free; he noted that when this manure was used in the field it caused a lag in nutrient availability, "because it takes nitrogen to break that down," so this farmer wondered if adding paper fibers to his stored liquid manure might result in a similar lag in nitrogen availability to plants. 
4. Certified organic farmers would need to verify that anything added was appropriate or approved by both the federal National Organic Program and the state certifying agency. With regard to whey, farmers thought the questions to be addressed would include anything added to the milk to make cheese - i.e. what is in the rennet or the coagulants. With regard to paper fibers, certifiers would need to know what chemicals had been used to turn wood pulp to paper or to process the fiber product. It was thought that whey would be more likely to be approved than paper fibers. 
5. Paperwork and Permitting: Farmers expressed a strong desire to avoid the need for additional paperwork or permits for these additives. They would be interested in using them if doing so would not create additional permitting requirements for them. As one farmer put it, "the department of agriculture needs to accept it and have it on the books and say this is a best management practice and you guys are free to use it, you know what I mean?"

Research and information needs

In order to consider using these additives, farmers would need to know the specific nutrient analysis of the liquid manure after added whey or paper fiber, and the forms of nitrogen that would result. They would also want to know the nutrient analysis of whey to determine what other benefits might be obtained in addition to nitrogen retention. Some farmers would want to see an analysis of whey for potential contaminants, such as pesticides, chemicals, or antibiotics. 

They would want to consider a cost-benefit analysis that included: 

1. Value of added nutrients
2. Cost of additional equipment required
3. Cost of additional labor or trucking

Some additional questions and curiosities:

No-till systems: Some farmers with no-till systems are double-cropping with different cover crops, but noticing a higher need for nitrogen with the second crop. Could whey-enhanced manure (or urine-enhanced?) be a good application prior to the second crop? Many farmers have moved to no-till systems, but are concerned with N loss on application because incorporation is not possible. Would bio-acidification help with this?

• Type of bedding used and how this might influence consistency of manure in storage, and difficulty of agitation. 
• Some farmers are already using paper fibers with bedding: can this be added to manure storage, and if so, how would it affect ease of agitation and nutrient availability? 
• Different agitation equipment that would best facilitate adding whey or paper fibers
  
• Are there any potential paperwork and permitting considerations?
  
• What, if any, concerns might milk buyers or landowners (of rented fields) have about these additives? It was noted that milk buyers (such as the coop, Dairy Farmers of America) were asking more questions of farmers recently about their practices: "[T]hey’re just going deeper and deeper every year with how much they want to know about us…. They want to be able to tell their customers [that] all of our farms are doing x, y, and z to make sure that you have the highest quality product, you know. It’s all about the sales and maintaining the customers and educating all the people that don’t know what we do every day, you know."
• Application equipment: Would any different equipment be needed or useful? Ex: drop tube attachment to sprayer systems for applying liquid manure when corn is finishing in August, importance of not clogging nozzles in this system
• Could NRCDs or other programs provide cost-sharing to enable farmers to retrofit equipment if needed and/or increase storage size to accommodate bioacidification?

Although farmers mentioned that they would like to see field trials of one or two years to learn how bioacidification of liquid manures actually works in practice, two of the farmers said they'd be happy to try using whey on an experimental basis. One said, "We’re usually game for stuff so… if I have storage space we would be open to…specifically the whey. I mean I gotta believe that if I had storage, whey would be a benefit to us….whether it’s nitrogen or organic matter it’s gotta bring something." Another commented, "Basically, it’s reusing what we’ve got to get rid of anyway, and if you can make it something valuable, then yeah." 

When asked if they thought their customers or buyers would have concerns, one farmer commented "I think they trust us and most people …when they’re buying our milk… they’re buying local, they’re buying from a neighbor, from a friend, a trusted source…. If anything they might be encouraged and especially if [the whey is coming from a local source, they'd say] 'you know it’s local and anything that can help you we’re supportive of, you know.'"