Proceedings Available at: http://www.extension.org/67641 The efforts related to Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park are voluntary, yet there are nitrogen reduction targets, or milestones, established over five year increments out to the year 2032. If a milestone is not met, mandatory controls could follow. How can the proactive emissions reduction efforts being taken by livestock and crop producers today be recognized or credited should mandatory controls be required at some future date? For example, could an agriculture certainty framework (used more for water quality protection/nutrient runoff) be used to validate actions being taken today for air quality purposes? How might an ag certainty program work and what partners should be at the table? Are there other approaches that states are using or researching that Colorado should consider?

1. Agriculture and Nitrogen Deposition in RMNP
Jon Slutsky
La Luna Dairy
Wellington, Colorado

2. Personal Information
 Livestock producer, dairy farmer
 Origins
 Member of Larimer County AAB since 2001
 Board of Directors of WACC since 2005
 Member of WQCC
 Member of CLA
 Member of RMNP Ag Subcommittee

3. Summary
 Ag contributions to Nitrogen Deposition in The Park
 Buy- in in the industry
 Why producers should care about ND and actively try
to reduce NH3 emissions
 What Ag has done so far

4. Ammonia Inventory (2002)
 Ag contribution to ND in The Park
 Ammonia emissions from farms
 Dairies and feedlots.
 Other sources of ammonia

5. Ammonia Inventory
 Ag-the low hanging fruit
 Urban sources of NH3 (and NOx)
 Population is growing, especially along FR
 Urban emissions will increase with population
 Industry and Local Government
 Power plants (NOx)
 Wastewater treatment plants (NH3)
 Sludge deposited in eastern plains (NH3)

6. 2002 Colorado Ammonia Inventory

8. Producer Hesitation
 Not all producers on board, believers
 Can’t see NH3. Most know it is there (duh!) but some feel it
is insignificant.
 Farmers not prone to go along with regs that impact their
lives or bottom line.
 Certain amount of anti-government feeling the result of
 Low margins
 Large risk
 Cheap food policy
 Feeling that consumers and government take us for granted (don’t
know or care where food comes from).
 Already heavily burdened with regs and reporting.

9. Agriculturists’ Concerns
 Producers must be convinced of their role before they
will make changes.
 Just now getting on board with water quality regs.
 Have had a large financial impact on ag
 Some water quality regs can have cross media impacts on air,
especially ammonia emissions.

10. Why Should Producers Care About
and Reduce NH3 Emissions?
 The right thing to do.
 Most have a link to the land and environment
 Historically have been stewards of land and water (need to
add air)
 Respect wildlife and nature
 Want to (and now have to) produce our product responsibly.
Consumer demands.
 Enjoy “country living”; clean air and water, wildlife
 Outdoor Sports, hunting and fishing

11. Reducing emissions is good for the
bottom line
 BMPs are mostly cost effective
 Nitrogen is expensive
 Fertilizer costs
• Cost of N and all fertilizers increasing
• Costly to apply(fuel)
• Want it available for crop utilization
• Timely incorporation or
• Loss to atmosphere
 Feed costs
• Cost of Protein
• Loss in Urine (wasted $$)
 Higher BUN impacts reproductive performance
 Excessive N in soils can reduce yields.
 Implementation is now voluntarily could forestall
mandatory BMPs and regs

12. What Has Ag Done So Far?
 Already some of us are using BMPs that will be
recommended.
 Manure and lot maintenance
 Using good nutrition (not overfeeding N)
 Monitoring MUNs (dairy) using nutritionist
 Monitoring rate of gain using nutritionist
 Soil sampling and agronomic rate of application
 Incorporation of fertilizer within 24 hours

13. What has Ag done?
 Supported Research
 Helping produce a good data base and educational
tools.
 CSU Ammonia BMP Study
 Website
 Video (You tube)
 Other University Studies
 Producer support and cooperation
 CSU, CLA and Industry partners helped with matching funds
to produce National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool with a
CIG grant from NRCS.

14. Education
 “Ag Air Quality Symposium” (2010 & 2012)
 Two days in two locations.
 Speakers from Ag, CSU, EPA, RMNP.
 Producers and industry reps attended.
 Public outreach- fertilizer usage.
 Partner with Environmental Defense Fund, CDPHE
 Brochure on RMNP and Nitrogen Deposition