North Country New York Dairy Farmer Views on Alternative Energy
Production
Megan Gremelspacher, Cornell University
Gil Gillespie, Cornell University
Rick Welsh, Clarkson University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the dairy farmers who took the time to talk with us in person or to complete
and return the questionnaire on which this report is based. Gretchen Gilbert and Dana Shapiro
were key collaborators on many technical details of the survey. We gratefully acknowledge
the support of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the New
York State Department of Agriculture and Markets for funding this project through Clarkson
University and a subcontract with Cornell University
INTRODUCTION
Among the major changes in the New York dairy industry has been an increasing number
of large farms (e.g., those with 500 cows or more). Although the vast majority of dairy farms are
smaller, on these larger farms the concentration of the animals and their manure in relatively
small geographic areas has been a source of concerns about air and water pollution and odor.
One strategy for addressing these concerns has been adopting anaerobic digestion (AD) of the
dairy manure. Although AD technology is more widely used in Europe than in the U.S.,
researchers have recently begun to explore it as an option for U.S. dairy farms. Rising energy
costs have fueled interest in AD as an on-farm energy source. Anaerobic digester technology
processes the manure to produce and capture methane gas (the main component of natural gas
and also a greenhouse gas). The methane can then be used for heating or for fueling generators to
produce electricity, which can be used on farm or sold to utilities through net-metering
arrangements. The AD process also removes much of the odor producing elements from the
manure. The de-odorized solids produced through the AD process can not only be used not only
to fertilize fields near houses and communities, but can also be sold off the farm as a valuable
organic fertilizer. Thus, AD technology gives farm operators the potential for reducing energy
costs as well as for addressing potential odor and nutrient surplus issues. Changing political
climates have also contributed to a surge in interest in AD, including national partnerships and
laws facilitating the production and use of biofuels as well as carbon trading.
Although much progress has been made on the technical and engineering aspects of AD
technology, less is known about the social and economic aspects of its adoption. How aware are
farmers of this technology? How do they feel about AD? Are some farmers more interested than
others and if so, why?
To answer some of these questions we explored New York State dairy farmers’
knowledge of and attitudes toward anaerobic digesters and their opinions on other related
agricultural issues important to New York. We also gathered information on broader farm
structure and socio-demographic factors that will help to understand farmer differences in
attitudes and opinions. Social scientists have long used survey methods to measure farmer
interest in new technologies and the results have allowed social scientists, policy-makers and
other interested parties to understand why farmers make the decisions that they do. Our main
objectives for this study were to gather knowledge that would be useful for the engineers who are
working to improve digester systems in the Northeast, and for policy-makers who will determine
the level of government investment in the technology.
We used a multi-methods approach consisting of interviews with those who have already
adopted the technology, and a survey of dairy farmers in the North Country region of New York.
1
DATA AND METHODS
The data for this study were collected in two stages. The first stage was on-farm
interviews with 6 dairy farmers who had already added AD to their manure management
programs. We identified these 6 farmers through Cornell University’s Manure Management
website; all of the interview subjects had received technical assistance from engineers at Cornell
University. Their herds ranged in size from 150 to 1200 cows. These sessions gave us
information about the attitudes, farm structure characteristics, and socio-demographic
characteristics of the farms and operators who had adopted the AD technology. We used the
findings from these late summer and early fall of 2006 interviews to create a 6 page
questionnaire that we mailed to the population of dairy farmers in the 6-county North Country
region. This by-mail survey was conducted in January through May of 2007. We contacted
addressees up to 5 times. First we sent a pre-survey postcard describing the study. Second, we
sent a letter asking the addressee to complete the questionnaire that was enclosed. Third, shortly
after the first letter we sent a thank-you postcard. Fourth, we sent another letter and questionnaire
to those who had not yet responded. Finally, for those who had not responded to our previous
contacts, we telephoned all those for whom we could obtain a phone number.
Out of the total of 1400 names on the list we mailed letters and questionnaires to 1312
addresses. The lower number is because in the time between the first two mailings, eighty-eight
of the initial postcards were returned because of invalid addresses. Since we needed information
from currently active dairy farm operators, in question #1 on our questionnaire we asked if the
addressee was currently in dairy farming. We asked those who were not to return the blank
questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided. We considered those who had died or whose
addresses were no longer valid to be ineligible. We deemed current farmers who were on the
farms of a former operator on the list, e.g., a son, to remain eligible. Names that were on our
initial list, but were unreachable by mail or phone were also deemed “eligible” for determining
the response rate.
At the conclusion of the mailings and phone calls, 418 farmers had responded out of the
total of 1011 names that we had not otherwise determined were ineligible. This yielded a raw
response rate of 41.3%. Since we knew from the telephone calls that some people on the list who
had gotten out of farming did not bother to respond to our mailings, applying the phonegenerated ratio of ineligible to eligible farms among non-respondents would raise the overall
response rate to 45.5%. The highest rate of response was among farmers with herds of 500+
cows; the second-highest among farmers with 200-499 cows. The lowest rate of response was
among farms of 1 to 9 cows; the second-lowest among farms of 10-19 cows. Thus this suggests
that those with smaller farms were less likely to participate in the study, and therefore, the results
represent their views less well than the views of those with larger herds.
2
RESULTS
As explained above, our primary goal was to better understand the relationships between
dairy farmers’ attitudes toward anaerobic digestion technology and their farm sizes, types, and
other characteristics. Our preliminary interviews had indicated that three main considerations
were central to our interviewees’ adoption of AD: the size of their herds, their proximity to
nearby communities, and a favorable attitude toward technologies. These farmers told us that
farms with herds below 250 cows would not produce enough manure to make the investment
worthwhile. Nor did they think that smaller herds would provoke odor complaints from
neighbors. Although all these interviewees were in Ag Districts, five out of the six had received
complaints from non-farm neighbors and they hoped to minimize such complaints with the AD
process. The interviewees also noted that an interest in technology, that is, an interest in the
whole system of anaerobic digestion as a part of manure management, was an important factor in
why they adopted AD.
What Dairy Farmers Know About Anaerobic Digestion for Dairy Manure
The survey questionnaire included items for measuring knowledge of AD and other
factors among the general population of dairy farmers. The first set of questions asked farmers
whether they had heard of AD and, if so, how; whether they were currently operating a digester
and, if so, for how long; what benefits and risks they associated with anaerobic digesters; and
how much they knew about digester technology. We asked, “Had you previously heard of
digestion for animal manure?” Of the 417 who answered this question, 83% had heard of
digestion. Of those who had heard of AD, we asked them to indicate the types of experiences
from the list in
Table 1.
Table 1: The Experiences Indicated by Farmers Who Had Heard of Anaerobic
Digestion*
“If you have heard of digestion, how much experience would you say that you had? (Check all that apply.)”
Not
Checked
Checked
I have read articles about digesters in the press
9%
91%
I have attended one or more meetings on digestion technology
87%
13%
I have visited a farm or other site with a digester
74%
26%
I have met with a consultant or contractor to discuss a digester for my farm
98%
2%
I am in the process of building digester
100%
0%
I have a digester on my farm
99%
1%
*Answered by 343 farmers.
Most farmers had heard of anaerobic digestion, most commonly by reading about it in the
press. For most farmers, this was the extent of their experience with digestion, although about
one-quarter had visited a digester site. Only 3 of the dairy farmers surveyed were currently
operating digesters, and all their digesters had become operational in the 1980s.
As for the benefits that farmers associated with AD, Table 2 shows that odor reduction
and production of electricity for use on-farm were the most common. More than 50% of farmers
associated heat for hot water and farm buildings and income from surplus power as AD benefits.
3
Few farmers were under the impression that tipping fees could be earned from operating a
digester. Those who checked the “other” category offered as benefits (followed by the number of
people who indicated each response in brackets): protection of water supplies [1], benefits for
larger farms [1], benefits for contractors [1], not having to draw (haul) water to fields [1], saving
money [1], and the sale of green power [2].
Table 2: Potential Benefits Associated with Anaerobic Digesters by Farmers Who
had Heard of AD*
“Below is a list of potential benefits of digesters that we have heard about. Which of these do you
associate with anaerobic digesters? (Check all that apply.)”
Not Checked
Checked
Reduce odor from manure
25%
75%
Reduce pathogens in manure
61%
39%
Provide heat for hot water for farms
36%
64%
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farms
61%
39%
Produce heat for farm buildings
45%
55%
Provide electricity for use on farms
12%
88%
Yield income from sale of surplus power
36%
64%
Provide income from sale of compost made from
57%
43%
separated solids
Provide separated solids for bedding
54%
46%
Yield income from tipping fees for food and certain
81%
19%
other waste materials
Other benefits
985
2%
*Answered by 343 farmers.
As for the concerns associated with
Table 3: Potential Concerns Associated with
digesters, the high cost of installation
Anaerobic Digesters by Farmers Who Had Heard
was by far the most common concern
of AD* “Below is a list of dairy farmer concerns about
(Table 3). Those who checked the
digesters that we have heard about. Which of these do you
associate with digesters? (Check all that apply.)”
“other” category offered as potential
Not
concerns (followed by number of
Checked
Checked
people in brackets who indicated each
27%
Generator engine failures
73%
response): size of farm [7], the effect of
9%
Fires
91%
cold weather on operation [5], and low
17%
Repair parts not available
83%
payout from utilities [4]. Additionally
21%
Pump failures
79%
mentioned were poor return on
31%
Technical expertise not available
69%
investment [1], encouragement for
17%
Clogged pipes
82%
farms to get bigger [2], expensive
30%
Require a lot of labor time to operate
70%
service/repairs [1], cost of trucking (for
87%
Very expensive to install
13%
community digesters) [1], decreased
9%
Other concerns
91%
manure for spreading [2], increased
*Answered by 344 farmers.
liability/ insurance [1], questionable
efficiency [1], getting the money [1], lack of expertise among most farmers [3], problems
emptying the manure storage area [1], and noise [2].
With the quiz” section we aimed to determine how informed farmers were about some
basic facts about digesters. Table 4 shows that most knew that nutrients are not reduced
through digestion, but it appears that either other technical facts have not been communicated
4
to farmers or that the information provided did not seem relevant to them. If journal and press
articles are the main source of information about AD, they should ideally be more informative
on some key facts.
Table 4: Digester Quiz*
“A goal for this project is to assess what farmers know about digester technology. To help with this,
please take our digester quiz.”
True
False
Don't Know
Digesters greatly reduce nutrients in manure.
5%
46%
49%
Digester types include plug-flow and completely mixed.
2%
83%
14%
Digesters are used widely in Europe.
3%
65%
16%
Digesters can be operated at higher and lower temperatures.
11%
78%
12%
Different types of organic waste should not be mixed in digesters.
6%
52%
25%
Correct answers are bolded.
*Answered by 343 farmers.
Farmers’ Potential Interest in Anaerobic Digestion Technology
The second set of questions assessed farmers’ interest in various outcomes of the
technology, and also inquired about farm location. We asked all of the farmers who responded to
the questionnaire to answer these questions. Since not everyone answered each question, we note
the number of those responding under the column labeled “N” in each of the following tables.
The data presented in Table 5 suggest that, regardless of size or other characteristics,
farmers are generally quite interested in generating power for on-farm use or sale. Although our
interviews indicated that odor was a main reason for installing digester technology, it did not
seem to be compelling across all farms; rather it may be a factor confined to certain types of
farms, especially those that are larger and closer to non-farm development. Although power is
the most obvious source of income potentially produced by digestion, we also learned in our
preliminary interviews that sale of solids (for compost) and income from tipping fees (primarily
for non-farm food wastes) can be considerable, and perhaps more reliable sources of income
(largely due to issues over utility rights and obligations under current legislation). The fact that
some farmers seemed not to be interested in these may be due to a lack of information about
them.
Table 5: Potential Interest in Anaerobic Digestion Technology
“Based on your own digester knowledge and experiences and the descriptions we have provided, how
interested would you be in each of the following potential outcomes from digester technology for your
farm?”
None
A Little
Some Great
Reducing or controlling odors from dairy manure
29%
25%
23%
22%
Getting heat and power for on-farm use
16%
8%
23%
53%
Having excess electrical or fuel energy for sale to utilities
20%
10%
24%
46%
or other customers
Reducing pathogens in dairy manure
29%
23%
27%
20%
Having separated solids for use on or off the farm
30%
22%
27%
22%
Earning tipping fees
33%
21%
23%
22%
5
N
405
409
406
396
402
392
Because some researchers have suggested that community digesters would be better than
individual digesters for enabling operators of small farms to take advantage of digester benefits
and that this might increase the range of applicability of AD technology, we also asked farmers
about their knowledge of and interest in community digesters. Since we anticipated that many
farmers might not be familiar with the concept, we prefaced the questions about community
digesters with the following brief paragraph explaining what they are and how they work:
“Installing digestion technology might not be practical for every farm. One option that has been
used is called "community digesters. For a community digester, raw manure from cooperating farms is
transported to a centrally located digester where it is digested, and then these farmers receive their share
of the separated solids for use on their farms.”
Forty-seven percent of respondents had previously heard of community digesters. After
reading the description, 46% indicated that they had no interest, 44% had some interest, and 9%
had great interest.
Because of the potential for AD to reduce the risk of issues with non-farming neighbors
over dairy manure odor, in the last part of this section of the questionnaire we asked farmers
about some characteristics of their farm locations. Eighty-nine percent of respondents reported
that they had rural, non-farm residences within a half-mile of their dairy operations or fields on
which they spread manure. About half (51%) were between 1 and 4 miles away from the nearest
city, village, or residential housing development. Twenty-one percent of respondents had
received an odor complaint in the past five years.
Views on Dairy Farming Topics
In the next section of the questionnaire we asked farmers a series of attitudinal questions
about issues pertinent to their operations and to agriculture in New York State (see Table 6
below).
Most responding farmers agreed that water pollution from dairy cow manure is an
important issue for the NYS dairy industry as well as for their own operations, and that NYS
dairy producers should be required to adopt best management practices to reduce the risks of
water pollution. Most farmers agreed that odor from dairy cow manure is an important issue for
the industry as a whole, but not necessarily for their operations. Most of the farmers seemed to
agree that dairy producers near human settlements should feel responsible for controlling odor,
but should not be required to do so. Most of the farmers did not consider themselves early
adopters of new technologies, and exhibited mixed feelings about the importance/reliance of NY
agriculture on biotechnology. However, most disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement
that organic agriculture is the way to go. Most farmers agreed or strongly agreed that people who
see dairy farms as major polluters don’t understand what dairy farming today is like. Finally, the
responding farmers tended to be not sure about the viability of digesters for NYS dairy farms as
a whole. Also, they tended to feel that digesters are too capital intensive for their own operations
and may be too mechanically complex as well.
6
Table 6: Views on Dairy Farming Topics
“How much do you agree with the following statements?”
Strongly
Disagree
Water pollution from dairy cow manure is an
2%
important issue for the NYS dairy industry.
Water pollution from dairy cow manure is an
12%
important issue for my operation.
NYS dairy producers should be required to adopt best
6%
management practices for reducing the risks of water
pollution.
Odor from dairy cows and their manure is an
4%
important issue for the NYS dairy industry.
Odor from dairy cows and their manure is an
14%
important issue for my operation.
Dairy producers near urban and suburban areas
5%
should feel responsible for controlling odors to
reasonable levels.
NYS dairy producers should be required to adopt
11%
production practices for reducing odors coming from
their operations.
I am generally one of the first farmers to adopt a new
11%
commercial technology for boosting field crop or
milk production.
I consider management intensive rotational grazing to
15%
be a viable option for my operation.
Converting all dairy farms to organic production
40%
would greatly improve the environmental
performance of the NYS dairy industry.
New agricultural biotechnologies (such as Bt corn,
26%
herbicide tolerant crops, and rBST) are essential to
the long-term viability of NY agriculture.
People who see dairy farms as significant sources of
3%
pollution do not understand today’s dairy farming.
Digesters would be viable options for most dairy
9%
farms in NYS.
Digestion technology seems too capital intensive to
2%
make sense for my operation.
Digestion technology seems too mechanically
4%
complex for everyday operation on my farm.
Disagree
5%
Not
Sure
9%
Agree
60%
Strongly
Agree
25%
N
416
22%
13%
41%
12%
415
14%
20%
45%
15%
412
17%
19%
47%
13%
407
38%
11%
31%
7%
414
12%
14%
56%
13%
414
30%
30%
24%
5%
411
40%
22%
23%
4%
408
33%
15%
21%
16%
413
31%
14%
9%
6%
415
25%
20%
19%
11%
415
8%
13%
45%
30%
414
31%
44%
12%
3%
409
2%
21%
45%
29%
413
10%
35%
37%
14%
415
Manure Storage and Management
In the next section of the questionnaire we addressed respondents’ manure management
practices. Fifty-two percent indicated that they stored manure on their farms at some time of the
year, and the majority of these (55% or 116) stored it between 4 and 8 months. Earthen lagoon
storage was the most common, with 97 farmers using this method. The next most common
practice was storage in a pile on the ground (51 farmers); others mentioned were a Slurrystore or
silo (15 farmers), covered concrete pit (14 farmers), uncovered concrete pit or concrete lagoon
(14 farmers), compost pile (3 farmers), covered wooden building (1 farmer), pile on
pad/slab/rock (3 farmers), and windrow (1 farmer).
7
Because the characteristics of dairy manure affects its suitability for processing in a
digester, we also asked farmers what their manure was like. The results in Table 7 show
considerable variation. This type of information may be useful for engineers who are seeking to
improve digester technology based on the consistency and content of the manure that is produced
on dairy farms.
About one percent
of responding dairy
“About what percentage of the dairy manure on your farm would you estimate would
be in each of the following categories?”*
farmers indicated
25% or
75% or
that their manure
26 - 50% 51 - 75%
less
more
was dispersed by
Pure (mostly) manure as scrapings from
pasturing cattle and
gutters or free stall barn alleys
53%
10%
10%
27%
could not be
Manure mixed with organic bedding
described by any of
43%
10%
6%
41%
(e.g., straw, stalks, sawdust)
Manure mixed with sand bedding
80%
3%
3%
14%
these categories.
Organic bedding mixed
We also asked the
with manure (as in bedding
farmers about their
pack)
97%
2%
<1%
1%
manure removal
*Answered by 410 farmers. Percentage responses are collapsed into the 4 categories.
practice for where
they housed their lactating cows; most (85% or 349 people) scraped at least once per day.
Finally, we asked for a percentage estimate of how much feed for milking cows was coming
from pasture during the grazing season; most (53% or 208 people) said 25% or less, and 21% (81
people) said greater than 75%.
Table 7: Manure Storage and Management
Farm Structure and Management
In the final section of the questionnaire we inquired about farm structure and
management. Where possible, we recoded responses so that they matched the relevant USDA
Census of Agriculture categories for cows milked, acreage, etc. Table 8 shows the breakdown of
the size of the herds of responding farmers and their plans for their herd size in the next five
years. About one out of seven plan to be out of milking in five years. In general, those who
expected to be in dairy in five years tended to expect to have larger herds. We are not sure how
to interpret the 15% who expected to be milking 1 to 9 cows in five years.
Table 8: Cows Milked
0
How many cows are you
currently milking?
How many cows do you plan
to be milking in five years?
14%
1 to 9
10 to
19
20 to
49
50 to
99
100
to
199
200
to
499
500
to
999
1000+
cows
N
2%
2%
26%
40%
15%
10%
4%
1%
416
15%
1%
13%
37%
16%
8%
7%
3%
374
Of 392 farmers who answered a question about their herds’ milking averages, about 20%
said they produced less than 50 pounds per cow per day on average; about 27% said they were
producing between 50 and 59 pounds; about 26% were producing 60 to 69 pounds; and about
27% were getting more than 69 pounds per cow per day.
8
We were also interested in how much land that dairy farmers used, both the acres they
farmed and the acres on which they spread manure. (Table 9) With growing herd sizes some
farm operators must spread manure on more acres than they actually farm themselves. This was
relevant to our survey because our interviewees indicated that the need to spread manure on
larger land areas contributed to odor complaints and motivated them to install the anaerobic
digesters on their farms.
Table 9: Farm Size Characteristics in 2006*
99 or fewer
Acres farmed
3%
Acres spread
manure on
26%
*Answered by 412 farmers.
100 to 199
21%
200 to 499
50%
500 to 999
16%
1000+
10%
35%
27%
7%
5%
Sixty-seven percent of the responding dairy farmers got more than 75% of their
household income from their farms. When broken down by net income categories and herd size
as in Table 10, we can see that the farms with the greatest proportion of their household income
from farming are likely to be those with larger farms. There may be some “hobby farmer among
those with the smallest farms (fewer than 50 cows) who have income from other sources and that
skew the results for that category, but in general, most farms of all sizes were heavily dependent
on their farm incomes to support their households.
Table 10: Percent Net Household Income from Farm by Herd Size Category
Net Income
75% or more
51% thru 75%
26% thru 50%
25% or less
Column Total
49 or fewer
cows
71 (61.7%)
12 (10.4%)
22 (19.1%)
10 (8.7%)
115 (100.0%)
50 to 99 cows
120 (73.2%)
14 (8.5%)
19 (11.6%)
11 (6.7%)
164 (100.0%)
100 to 199
cows
51 (83.6%)
3 (4.9%)
5 (8.2%)
2 (3.3%)
61 (100.0%)
200 to 499
cows
28 (68.3 %)
4 (9.8%)
6 (14.6%)
3 (7.3 %)
41 (100.0%)
500+ cows
17 (85.0%)
2 (10.0%)
1 (5.0%)
0 (0.0%)
20 (100.0%)
Total
287 (71.6%)
35 (8.7%)
53 (13.2%)
26 (6.5%)
401 (100%)
On average farms employed relatively few employees as indicated by the average number
of employees: about 2 full time equivalents (an average of 1.88) and one part-time equivalent (an
average of 1.0). However, not surprisingly the number of employees increased as the size of
dairy herds increased (Tables 11 and 12). This was more true of full-time employees (which had
a maximum of 30) than it was for part-time ones (which had a maximum of six).
Table 11: Farms with Full-Time Employees by Herd Size Category
No FT employees
1-5 FT employees
6 or more FT
employees
49 or fewer
cows
82
39
50 to 99
cows
92
76
100 to 199
cows
9
52
200 to 499
cows
1
30
500+
cows
0
2
Total
184
199
0
0
1
9
20
30
9
Table 12: Farms with Part-Time Employees by Herd Size Category
No PT employees
.5 to 5 PT
employees
6 or more PT
employees
49 or fewer
cows
87
50 to 99
cows
81
100 to 199
cows
17
200 to 499
cows
5
500+
cows
2
Total
192
34
87
45
33
19
218
0
0
0
2
1
3
The most common bedding material used by the 406 farmers who answered this question
was hay, followed by sawdust, sand, and then straw (see Table 13). Many other materials are
used, but no more than one or two farmers indicated each one (such as waste paper, soybean
stalks, etc.)
To see if there was any connection between cost of electricity and dairy farmer interest in
AD, we also asked how much the farmers paid per kilowatt hour for electricity. Only 244
farmers answered this question—perhaps not all who had multiple rates based on time of use
answered the question. Based on the single rates provided and estimating an average of any
multiple rates provided, we found that about 20% paid 7 cents or less; about 20% paid between 7
and 9 cents; about 20% paid between 9 and 11.5 cents; about 20% paid between 11.5 and 14
cents, and the remaining 20% paid more than 14 cents per kilowatt hour.
Table 13: Common Bedding
Materials Used
Hay
Sawdust
Sand
Straw
Shavings
None
Fiber/Waste Paper
Lime
Canary Grass
Bedding
Outside/Pasture
Grass
Soybean Stalks
48%
17%
16%
13%
3%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
≤ 1%
Table 14 displays the percent of responding farmers in each of the business organization
types. The one farm represented in the “other” category is organized as a private institute, not for
profit. As for the number of partners, a question that was only applicable for the 21% of the
farmers responding (those who had partnerships, cooperatives, or LLCs—family or a non-family
corporations), the most common number was 2 or 3 partners (9% and 7% of all farms,
respectively).
10
A final question regarded education: we
asked farmers to indicate the highest amount of
formal education they had received. The majority of
the 415 people who answered this question had high
school diplomas (43%), and the next highest were 2year degrees (13%) and 4-year degrees (13%). Some
also indicated other forms of training, such as adult
education classes, Amish school, Cooperative
Extension, parents/family, some college, and
graduate education.
Table 14: Business Organization
Type
“How is your dairy farm organized as a
business? Check the box for the one that you
consider to be the main type.”
Sole Propietorship
75%
Partnership
13%
Cooperative
<1%
Family Corporation
9%
Non-family Corporation
3%
Other
<1%
Many farmers offered additional thoughts and comments on such topics as the state of
dairy farming in New York State today, their personal manure management practices, and their
additional comments on digesters. Although we have not included this information in this
summary report, these comments were highly valuable and helped us to think in new ways about
anaerobic digestion and its place in NYS dairy farming. These comments will be reflected in our
policy and engineering recommendations as well as our future research on the topic. We were
also fortunate in that 75% of the people who responded to the survey generously said we could
contact them again if the study raised additional questions. While we have not yet had to take
most farmers up on that offer, we greatly appreciate the gesture after they had already
contributed their valuable time.
11