The Professional Animal Scientist 26 (2010):123-129@2010 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists

wwr

CASE STUDY: ManureManagement Practices onNew Jersey Equine FarmsM. L. Westendorf,*l PAS, T. Joshua,t S. J. Komar,t C. Williams,* and R. Govindasamy*Department of Animal Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick08901; tUSDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Trenton, NJ 08625: 4Sussex CountyCooperative Extension, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,' Newton 07860; and§Department of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Economics, Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901

ABSTRACTThe number of equine farms is increas-

ing in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.These farms may influence environmen-tal and water quality because of manurecollection, storage. spreading. and dis-posal practices. A manure managementsurvey was mailed to 2,000 New Jerseyequine farms during the winter of 2006to 2007. Of the 2,000 surveys sent, 472were returned: 18.5% were from trainingor performance farms, and the remain-der (81.57c) were from breeding. board-ira], or pleasure farms. Fifty-four percentof all farms spread manure arm theirfarms. Of those who spread manure, only27% had more than 8.09 ha (20 acres)available for spreading. Seventy-fourpercent had a designated area for manurestorage. Eighty-three percent said theirmanure storage was greater than 61 m(200 ft) from water or wetlands, and86% said storage was greater than. 61rn (200 ft) from neighbors. Data weremodeled to determine the relationship be-tween manure storage or manure spread-ing and other management practices.The storage model showed that farms

'Corresponding author: Westendorf@aesop.rutgers.edu

with 6 to 10 horses were more likely tohave storage facilities than farms notincluded in the 'model. This model had apredictive accuracy of 88.9% and anof 0.95 (P < 0.01). The manure spread-ing model showed that those who spreadmanure were also likely to credit manurefor its fertilizer value. The spreadingmodel had an overall predictive accuracyof 95.5% and an R2 of 0.795 (P < 0.01).These results indicate that although mostequine farms did not pose a direct risk towater quality or to a neighbor, most donot currently use best management prac-tices in manaqrnq, spreadiriq, or storing'manure.

Key words: equine, manure man-ageirent, water quality, manure stor-age. manure spreading

INTRODUCTIONThe equine industr y represents the

largest animal industry in New Jersey.with 42.500 horses on 7.200 properties(New Jersey Equine Industry, 2007).Approximately 89,840 ha (222.000acres) of farmland are devoted toequine and equine-related production(New Jersey Equine Industry, 2007).Rutgers Cooperative Extension staff

deliver manure management programsto horse producers in New Jersey,including comprehensive assistancefocused on all aspects of manure man-agement and nutrient, plonrnng. TheState of New Jersey has recently coin-pleted guidelines for nutrient manage-ment oii New Jersey farms. Theseguidelines require the developmentof nutrient management plans on allfarms with 8 or more animal units(1 animal unit = 4.55 kg or 1.000 11)BW). This rule received final approvalI)v the New Jersey Department of Ag-riculture on March 16, 2009: the NewJersey equine industry will he affectedby these rules. According to the NewJersey Equine Industry (2007) 7 29%of the 7.200 equine farms in the statehave 8 or more animal units. Thismeans that more than 2.000 of thesefarnis will have to develop these man-agement plans.

Manure management is the sub-ject of 2 recent surveys of the equineindustry (Swinker and Johnson, 1995:National Animal Health Monitor-ing System, 2005). These 2 studiesfocused oii manure storage and dis-posal practices. Swinker and Johnson(1995) found that for confined horsesin Colorado. most manure was either

124 l)s/r ndorj t a?.

stockpiled or fresh spread. Stockpiledmanure was saved for spreading orwas hauled away. The National Ani-mal Health Monitoring System (2005)

survey was a nationwide survey ofhorse farms that indicated more than60% of operations disposed of rita-nure by applying it to fields (37.6%on grazing fields, 25.5% where nolivestock graze). The objective of thissurvey was to determine manage-rnent practices on New Jersey horsefarms. develop a profile of what well-managed farms are doing. and targetfuture programs for education.

MATERIALS AND METHODSA survey to assess current manure

management practices was mailedto 2,000 New Jersey equine propertyowners in the winter of 2006 to 2007.A modified Dilman (1978) surveymethodology was followed, whichincluded an initial mailing, followedby a 3-wk reminder postcard, and asecond copy of the survey at 6 wk.The initial mailing and the 6-wk copyincluded a stamped, addressed returnenvelope. Surveys were mailed by theNew Jersey Department of Agricul-ture (T. Joshua, State AgricultureStatistician) to farmland tax-assessedfarms in 6 New Jersey counties(Burlington, Hunterdon, Moninouth,Salem. Somerset, and Sussex). Thesecounties were selected because theyare the leading New Jersey countiesfor equine production (New JerseyEquine Industry, 2007). The surveylist came from tax assessment recordsbecause these reflect the most ac-curate estimate of New Jersey equinefarms. The records do not include allfarms with horses, but only those thatqualify for consideration as farms thatreceive lower tax assessment rates.The chief qualification for loweredrates is at least $1000 of farm incomein any calendar year. This list waschosen because of the accessibilityof the farms (the smallest farms arevery difficult to find) and the ease ofconducting the survey using the officeof the State Agriculture Statistician.Excluding surveys returned becauseof inaccurate addresses, a response

rate of 24% (n = 472) was achieved(323 returns were required to showa population difference at the 95%confidence interval).

Surveyrecipients were asked ques-tions (Figure 1) related to best man-agement practices. These includedthe number of horses, pasture acre-age, type of operation, demographics,of the owner or manager. manurestorage and management practicc<manure spreading on the farm or onnearby acreage. soil testing, pasturemanagement practices, and protectionof the environment.

Selected variables and data wereused to develop 2 statistical modelsto determine the relationship betweenfarm demographics, manure stor-

age arid spreading practices. and theimplementation of best managementpractices. The models and the vari-able are described in Table 1. Thesevariables were selected because theyrepresent components of equine bestmanagement practices. Not all cat-egories of horse numbers or manuremanagement were included becausethey did not contribute to the statis-tical model. Only discrete variableswere included iii the analysis.

All data were analyzed using theLOGIT regression model (SAS Insti-tute. 1996), which is often used whenthe dependent variable is binar.The maximum likelihood estimationmethod was used to estimate paun-

I low manv horses do you own/care for?a) 13 0 b)a 1-2 c) 171 3-5 d) 171 6-10 c) 13 11-20 f) El 21-40 g)a >40

2. Describe your type of farm (primary use-pick one only).a) a Breeding b) a Training c) 0 Boarding d) a Performance c) a Pleasuref) a Other (Please describe:

3. 1 low many hectares (acres) of pasture are used for the above horses?a) a 0.4 to 0.81 (Ito 2) b) D 1.21 to 2.02(3 to 5) c) D 2.43 to 4.05(6 to 10)d) a 4.45 to 8.09(11 to 20) e) a 8.5 to 16.9 (21 to 40) f) a >16.9 (40)

4. If you spread the manure generated on your farm, approximatel y how many hectares(acres) do you have available to spread on?a) a 0.4 to 0.81 (1 to 2 ) b) a 1.21 to 2.02(3 to 5) c) a 2.43 to 4.05(6 to 10)d) a 4.45 to 8.09 (II to 20) e) a 8.5 to 16.9 (211040) 1) a >16.9 (40)

5. How man y hours per day do your animals spend inside (in stalls, locked in the barn,etc.)? (Circle one.)a)a 0-4 b)a 5-8 )a 9-12 d) El 13)6 e) D 17-20 t) C7 21-24

6. What is your main source of information for the management of your farm? (Rank topthree.)a) D Feed dealer b) a Rutgers cooperative extension c) a Other retailerd) a Trade magazines c) a Other horse owners 1) a Internetg) a Other (Describe:

7. Do you have a designated area for manure storage oil farm? 7a. is it covered?8. For how long does manure remain on the storage pile before removal?

a) a <3 months b) a 3-6 months c) a 6-9 months d) a 9-12 monthse) a 1-2 years f) a >2 years

9. Do you compost horse manure?10. Do you dispose of manure oIl'- l'arm?11. Do you use a dry lot area on your farm?12. Do you spread manure oil own farm?13. Do you use manure as a fertilizer to meet crop needs?14. Do you test soils to determine crop nutrient needs before spreading manure?15. Do you drag (using a harrow) any of the fields that are grazed to break up manure piles

and make nutrients more available?16. Gender:17. Age:IS. Highest level of education:19.Your ethnicity:20.a) a White h) EI African American c) a Hispanic/Latino d) 0 American

Indian/Alaska Native e) 0 Asian I) 0 Native hawaiian and other Pacific g) a Other21.Annual income category of your household bethre taxes.

Figure 1. Selected questions froin the survey sent to New Jersey equine producers.

Eqv;7?.e Tnaflure inanagerrient practice. 125

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the manure spreading and storage models from the New Jersey equine survey

Storage Spreading

Respondents,' Respondents,Item Frequency' Frequency

Those who have 1 to 5 horses

0.55

92

0.55

94Those who have 6 to 10 horses

0.19

92

0.19

94Those raising horses for pleasure

0.43

80

0.43

82Those who have 2.43 to 4.05 ha of pasture

0.29

92

0.29

93Those who have 4.05 to 8.09 ha of pasture

0.25

92

0.25

93Those who have ^!8.09 ha of pasture

0.19

92

0.19

93Those who spread manure on 0.4 to 2.02 ha

0.25

54

0.24

55Those who spread manure on 2.43 to 4.05 ha

0.27

54

0.28

55Those whose horses spend 0 to 4 h/d indoors in stalls

0.48

89

0.49

90Those whose horses spend 5 to 9 h/d indoors in stalls

0.15

89

0.15

90Those whose horses spend 10 to 12 h/d day stalled indoors

0.24

89

0.24

90Those who get educational information from Rutgers Cooperative

0.31

87

0.31

88Extension

Those who get educational information from trade magazines

0.44

87

0.44

88Those who clean their horse stalls daily

0.70

75

0.70

74Those who cover their manure pile

0.13

83

0.13

82Those who dispose of manure off site

0.39

32

0.39

33Those who use a dry lot area for horses

0.48

84

0.47

84Those who credit manure as fertilizer in cropping systems

0.32

78

0.31

78Those who soil test their fields

0.31

86

0.32

86Those who drag fields to break up manure piles

0.75

88

0.75

89Those who are female

0.52

90

0.52

91Those who have a 2- or 4-yr college degree

0.45

89

0.45

90Those with a postgraduate degree

0.26

89

0.26

90Those with income between $50,000 and $100,000

0.28

81

0.28

82Those with income between $100,000 and $149,000

0.24

81

0.24

82Those with income above $150,000 dollars

0.27

81

0.26

82

'Frequency (no.) of positive responses.

'Percentage of total responses answering that question.

etcrs (Gujarati. 1992: Singer et al.1999. 2002).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Data

Of those respoiidiiig to the survey.18.5% raised horses on training orperformance farms: the remainder(81.5%) were from breeding. training.or pleasure farms (see Table 2). Morethan 50% of farms had 5 or fewerhorses: only 11.8% had more than 20horses. There were 56.5% of farmsthat had 405 ha or less, and only18.6% had more than 8.09 ha. Thesefarms would all be defined as smallfarms and may, pose different environ-mental challenges than other farms.

Of all the farms. 54% indicated theyspread manure on their farmland,and 74% indicated that they have adesignated area for storing manure(Table 3). The manure spreading ratewas highest on farms with 20 horsesor fewer (Table 4). Rate of manurespreading decreased on farms withmore than 20 horses and with morethan 8.09 ha (Tables 1 and 5)

The trend for manure storage wasfor more farms having greater than8.09 ha to have storage areas com-pared with farms with less than 8.09ha (Table 5). Farms with more horsesalso had more storage; 94% of farmswith more than 20 horses had stor-age, 84% of farms with 6 to 20 horseshad storage. and only 64% of farmswith 5 horses or fewer had storage(Table 4). Greater numbers of larger

farms. both horses and acreage. hadmanure storage areas but a lowem' rateof manure spreading. More farms thatstored manure disposed of their ma-nure by having it trucked off the farmrather than by spreading manure.The LOGIT models, to he presentedlater, showed that there was a posi-tive correlation (P < 0.05) betweenmanure storage and off-farm disposaland a negative correlat ion (P < 0.01)between manure spreading on theirown acreage or on nearby acreage andoff-farm disposal.

Farm operations (breeding. board-ing. pleasure, training, and perfor-

mance) that had adopted manurespreading had rates of 47 to 59%(Table 6). Performance farms had thelowest rate of manure storage. Thereason for this difference is unclear.

Spread manure, %

52.3851.0259.0658.5644.0045.45

Manure storage, %

75.0071.4368.2573.1583.3393.75

126 hU/eiu1m[ ( . 1 (Ii.

Table 2. Type of operation,number of horses, and size offarm on New Jersey equinesurvey farms'

Item Response, %

Type of equineoperation

Breeding 16.5

Boarding 24.8

Pleasure 39.8

Training 13.4

Performance 5.1

Size of farmNo. of horses

1 to 2

21.43 to 5

32.26 to 10

18.511 to 20

12.621 to 40

8.1>40

3.7No. of hectares(acres)0.4 to 0.81 (1 to 2)

5.21.21 to 2.02 (3 to 5)

22.32.43 to 4.05 (6 to 10)

29.04.45 to 8.09 (11 to 24.9

20)8.5 to 16.9 (21 to 40)

11.2>16.9 (40)

7.4

'Frequency (no.) of responses fortype of equine operation was 470, fornumber of horses was 459, and fornumber of hectares (acres) was 445.

One purpose of this survey was togain an understanding of the use ofmanagement practices for promotingenvironmental quality and reducingwater quality risks posed by horsefarms (see Table 3). Of all the farms.83% stored manure 61 m (200 ft) ormore from water or wetlands, only 1%reported storing manure within 15.2in of water or a wetlands. and 86%reported storing manure more than61 in from a neighbor. The NaturalResource. Agriculture, and Engineer-ing Service (1999) recommends thatstorage facilities be a minimum of15.2 in from a property hue, 61 infrom a residence, and 30.5 in fromwetlands or other surface waters.Forty-seven percent indicated theycompost their manure; however, therewas no indication of what compost-

Table 3. Percentage ofNew Jersey equine surveyfarms implementing variousmanagement practices

Response,Management practice

Manure spread on farm 54

Designated manure 74

storage areaComposted horse 47

manureOff-farm manure disposal

58Maintain and use dry lot

47areas

Credit manure as a 39fertilizer to meet cropneeds

Regular soil tests to 32

determine crop needsDrag pastures on a 75

regular basis to breakup manure piles

Clean stalls daily 70Manure storage <50

1.1ft from water orwetlands

Manure storage >200

83.2ft from water orwetlands

Manure storage <50 ft

1.1from any neighbors

Manure storage >200 ft

86.4from any neighbors

ing best management practices werefollowed. Fort y-two percent of horsefarmers reported disposing of manureoff site. Management practices suchas the use of dry lot areas, spreadingmanure according to crop needs. and

No. of hectares (acres)

0.4 to 0.81 (1 to 2)1.21 to2.02(3to5)2.43 to 4.05 (6 to 10)4.45 to 8.09 (ii to 20)8.5 to 16.9 (21 to 40)>16.9 (40)

Table 4. Percentage of NewJersey equine survey farmsspreading or storing manure'

No. of Spread Manurehorses manure, % storage, %

1 t 2 55.2 65.33 to 5 59.2 62.96 to 10 55.3 80.7ii to 20 50.0 87.921 to 40 37.8 94.4>40 37.5 93.3

'Frequency (no.) of responses forspreading manure was 442, and forstoring manure was 434.

soil testi ig \vere print icd by 17. 39.and 32W of respondents. respectively.However. 75% of producers indicatedthat they drag- or chain-harrow fieldsto break up manure piles. and 70%indicated they cleaned stalls daily.

ModelingA manure storage area that reduces

the risk of manure-contaminated,waste-polluting streams is a desirablemanagement practice. In addition,spreading manure, especially accord-big to crop needs and according to anutrient management plan, can reducethe buildup of nutrients iii the soiland the potential for surface-watercontamination.

Based on inialuire storage andspreading survey responses, 2 sepa-rate LOGIT models were used thatallowed prediction of the maximum

Table 5. Percentage of New Jersey equine survey farms spreading orstoring manure'

'Frequency (no.) of responses for spreading manure was 440, and for storing manurewas 432.

Spread manure, %

53.747.359.658.755.6

Manure storage, %

79.478.768.982.255.6

2.5876-0.5330

0.53280.0000

-0.3294-0.3706

0.6993-0.4560

0.4553-0.2313

0.3839-0.1533

-0.00230.00370.00100.00390.00080.00120.0000

-0.0003-0.0010-0.0001-0.1659

0.1662-0.1050

0.10460.4086

0.41150.20150.20160.00040.25430.25570.32920.23410.23410.23960.31790.2674

0.23820.23810.00040.00060.00040.00050.00050.00070.00090.00130.18600.18600.20500.20500.3517

6.2880-2.6450

2.6430-0.0930-1.2950-1.4490

2.1240-1.9480

1.9450-0.9650

1.2080-0.5740

-0.01000.01502.76606.39902.28402.67100.0950

-0.4810-1.1230-0.1050-0.8920

0.8940-0.5120

0.51001.1620

0.00000.00820.00820.92600.19520.14720.03360.05140.05180.33430.22720.5663

0.99230.98770.00570.00000.02240.00760.92450.63030.26150 .9 1640.37230.37150.60840.60980.2453

-0.083230.08320

-0.00001-0.05145-0.05788

0.10921-0.07121

0. 07 111-0.03612

0.05995-0.02395

-0.000360.000570.000160.000600.000130.000190.00001

-0.00005-0.00016-0.00002-0.02591

0.02596-0.01640

0.016340. 060 17

1"(plim i1ul/H/I( el/II(t(J(I(l( /11 J)il(//((. 127

Table 6. Equine producers spreading or storing manure on farm by typeof operation

Primary function

BreedingBoardingPleasureTrainingPerformance

likelihood that a respondent wouldeither spread manure or have a desig-nated inamire storage area based onother (lemographic and nianagen ientiiforination in t lie survey. A LOGITmodel is a. regression inodc.1 that willresult iii predictive probabilities from

zero to one. Manure spreading andmanure storage were chosen becausethese are 2 fundamental manage-nient practices on livestock farms.The manure storage model predictedthe state of the dependent variableiii 3.3% of the observations, and the

manure spreading model predictedthe state of the dependent variable in95.5% of the observations.

Table 1 includes the variables thatmade up the LOGIT iiiaxiinuin likeli-hood estimation models. The frequen-cv numbers represent those variablesincluded in the model.

Table 7 shows the correlation be-tween the model variables (indepen-(lent) and having designated manurestorage (dependent). Number ofhorses was a predictor for the pres-ence of manure storage. Those with 1to 5 horses were negatively correlatedwith iiianure storage, and those with(ito 10 were positively correlated (P< 0.01). Farms having 2.43 to 4.05ha for manure spreading were alsopositively correlated with havingirianure storage.. Farms with greater

'Frequency (no.) of responses for spreading manure was 388, and for storing manurewas 379.

Table 7. Manure storage model: Independent variable effect on the probability that a producer will have amanure storage area

Change inVariable Coefficient SE t-ratio P-value probabilitiesConstant**Those who have 1 to 5 horses**Those who have 6 to 10 horses**Those raising horses for pleasureThose who have 2.43 to 4.05 ha of pastureThose who have 4.05 to 8.09 ha of pastureThose who have ^8.09 ha of pasture*Those who spread manure on 0.4 to 2.02 ha*Those who spread manure on 2.43 to 4.05 ha*Those whose horses spend 0 to 4 h/d indoors in stallsThose whose horses spend 5 to 9 h/d indoors in stallsThose whose horses spend 10 to 12 h/d stalled indoorsThose who get educational information from Rutgers

Cooperative ExtensionThose who get educational information from trade magazinesThose who clean their horse stalls daily**Those who cover their manure pile**Those who dispose of manure off site*Those who use a dry lot area for horses**Those who credit manure as fertilizer in cropping systemsThose who soil test their fieldsThose who drag fields to break up manure pilesThose who are femaleThose who have a 2- or 4-yr college degreeThose with a postgraduate degreeThose with income between $50,000 and $100,000Those with income between $100,000 and $149,000Those with income above $150,000*p < 0.05; < 0.01.

128

/ (1/.

Table 8. Manure spreading model: Independent variable effect on the probability that a producer will spreadmanure

Variable Coefficient SE f-ratio P-value Change in probabilities

Constant 2.1134 0.5719 3.6950 0.0002 -Those who have 1 t 5 horses 0.4047 0.3242 1.2480 0.2120 0.08493Those who have 6 to 10 horses -0.4078 0.3245 -1.2570 0.2088 -0.08559Those raising horses for pleasure* 0.0013 0.0007 1.8830 0.0596 0.00026Those who have 2.43 to 4.05 ha of -0.4691 0.4360 -1.0760 0.2820 -0.09844

pastureThose who have 4.05 to 8.09 ha of 1.3066 0.4945 2.6420 0.0082 0.27421

pasture-Those who have ^8.09 ha of pasture* -0.8370 0.4515 -1.8540 0.0637 -0.17565Those who spread manure on 0.4 to -0.4069 0.4054 -1.0040 0.3155 -0.08540

2.02 haThose who spread manure on 2.43 to 0.4165 0.4057 1.0270 0.3046 0.08742

4.05 haThose whose horses spend 0 to 4 h/d -1.2729 0.4454 -2.8580 0.0043 -0.26714

indoors in stalls***Those whose horses spend 5 to 9 h/d 0.9659 0.6040 1.5990 0.1098 0.20270

indoors in stalls*Those whose horses spend 10 to 12 0.3084 0.5046 0.6110 0.5411 0.06472

h/d stalled indoorsThose who get educational information -0.8191 0.4277 -1.9150 0.0555 -0.17191

from Rutgers CooperativeExtension*

Those who get educational information 0.8195 0.4277 1.9160 0.0553 0.17199from trade magazines*

Those who clean their horse stalls -0.0013 0.0008 -1.7810 0.0749 -0.00028daily*

Those who cover their manure pile -0.0015 0.0010 -1.5910 0.1116 -0.00032Those who dispose of manure off -0.0015 0.0006 -2.5820 0.0098 -0.00031

site***Those who use a dry lot area for -0.0006 0.0011 -0.5370 0.5915 -0.00012

horsesThose who credit manure as fertilizer 0.0023 0.0009 2.4410 0.0146 0.00048

in cropping systems**Those who soil test their fields -0.0021 0.0018 -1.1720 0.2413 -0.00043Those who drag fields to break up -0.0013 0.0019 -0.6970 0.4856 -0.00028

manure pilesThose who are female*** -0.0051 0.0018 -2.8330 0,0046 -0.00107Those who have a 2-or 4-yr college -0.4155 0.3417 -1.2160 0.2240 -0.08720

degreeThose with a postgraduate degree 0.4193 0.3419 1.2260 0.2201 0.08799Those with income between $50,000 -0.7838 0.3939 -1.9900 0.0466 -0.16450

and $100,000**Those with income between $100,000 0.7841 0.3940 1.9900 0.0466 0.16457

and $149,000**Those with income above $150,000 0.6425 0.6965 0.9220 0.3563 0.14180*JJ< 0.10; **< 0.05; ***< 0.01.

pasture acreage were positively cor-related with having manure storage(P < 0.05). Cleaning daily, coveringmanure storage, disposing of manureoff site, and having a dry lot area forhorses were also positively correlatedwith the presence of manure stor-

age. This storage model predicted thecorrect result 364 times for the 437respondents, for a predictive accuracyof 83.3% (R 2 = 0.35: P < 0.01).

Table 8 describes the manurespreading model. Spreading manurewas positively correlated with plea-

sure farms and with having 4.05 to8.09 ha of pastures. Spreading wasnegatively correlated (P < 0.10) with>8.09 ha of pastures. Farms keep-ing horses indoors for less than 4h/d were negatively correlated withspreading. This indicates that people

I

Eq a i / f I 11/HI//I Il 111(11? HfJf 11/1 Ii / p/ /C(:.s 129

that keep horses turned out forgreater periods of time are less likelyto spread. Keeping horses indoors for5 to 9 li was positively correlated withspreading.

Information sources were correlatedat P < 0.10. Receiving informationfrom Rutgers Cooperative Exten-sion was negatively correlated withspreading. Receiving informationfrom a trade magazine was positivelycorrelated with spreading. and clailcleaning was negatively correlated.as was off-farm disposal. There wasa significant positive relationshipbetween those who spread and thosewho use manure as a fertilizer. Thisis a suggested practice for nutrientmanagement. Female respondentswere less likel my to spread anure.Income was correlated NN, ith manurespreading in the model. The spreadingmodel predicted the correct response424 times for the 445 respondents, fora predictive accuracy of 95.5% (R 2 =0.795: P < 0.01).

The National Aninial HealthMonitoring S ystem (2005) study ofequine management practices foundthat 32.1% of equine operations allowmanure waste and bedding to accu-mulate or leave it to nature. Fort y-two percent apply it to fields where110 animals graze. and 39.27(: applyit to fields where horses graze. Thisstudy was completed to determinethe demographics and horse manuremanagement practices of New Jerseyequine farmers. Storage and spreadingmodels were used to determine thecharacteristics of farms that imple-merit those practices.

The New Jersey Equine IndustrySurvey (2007) indicated that there are7,200 equimie operations in the state.with an average of 6 horses/farm and5.26 ha/farm. Sixt y-one percent ofthese farms had less than 4.05 ha.30% had less than 2.43 ha, 32% . had8.09 to 20.23 ha.. and 7% had morethan 2(.).23 ha. New Jersey, althoughincreasingly suburban, places a highvalue on open spaces. Horses andother livestock and the land the y oc-cupy are one means of keeping openspace.

With the LOGIT model, the pres-ence of manure storage was positivelycorrelated (P < 0.05) with having 6to 10 horses, with having more than8.09 ha of pasture, with spreadingnianure On 2.43 to 4.05 ha, cleaningdaily, covering the storage, disposingoff site, and having a dry lot area. Itwas negatively correlated with ha y

-ing 1 to 5 horses and with spreadingmanure on 2.02 ha or less Spreadingmanure was positively correlated (P< (.).05) with having 4.45 to 8.09 haof pasture and with crediting manurefor its fertilizer value. It was nega-tivelv correlated with farrris keepinghorses inside <4 h/d and with off-sitedisposal. The relationship betweenspreading and horse turnout ma y indi-cate that when horses are turned out,here is less need for spreadmg. The

relationship with crediting manure forits fertilizer value may also indicatethat producers are spreading manurewith crop uptake in mind.

Horses in New Jersey are estimatedto produce approximately 400,000tolls of waste every year. These resultsindicate that although most equinefarms did not pose a direct risk towater quality or to a neighbor. manydo not currently use best managementpractices iii managing, spreading, orstoring manure. Fewer than half ofproducers make use of dry lots. usemanure as a fertilizer, or soil test.regularly. However, most clean theirstalls regularly, and 75% drag fieldsregularly to break up manure. Themanure storage model indicated thatfarms with 6 to it horses were morelikely to have a designated storagearea: conversely, the spreading modelindicated that larger fa.rnis did notnecessarily spread manure. The ma-nure spreading model also indicatedthat those who spread manure weremore likely to credit manure for itsfertilizer value.

IMPLICATIONSHiese results. based oil a New

Jersey survey of 172 equine producers,indicate that although most equinefarms did not pose a direct, risk to

water quality or to a neighbor. mostdo not currentiv use best managementpractices iii managing. spreading, orstoring manure. Because most equinefarmers did not store manure nearstreams or other water bodies andbecause tile majorit y (74%) of respon-dents indicated they have a manurestorage area, there may he less risk ofmanure waste reaching surface waters.Although farms that spread manureare more likely to credit manure infertilization programs. the y are lesslikely to soil test or drag their fields.The amount of grazing or turnouttime also affected manure spreadingrates ill this study. Outreach pro-grams should be targeted to increas-ing the adoption of niamire-relatedbest management, practices especiallythose related to manure spreading andthe management of grazing horses.

LITERATURE CITED

Dilman. D. A. 1978. Mail and TelephoneSurveys: The 'Total Design. .Ji.ilin Wiley andSons, New York, NY.

Gujarati, D. 1992. Essentials of Econometrics.McGraw Hill. New York. NY.

National Animal Health Monitoring System.2005. Equine 2005. Part 1: Baseline Refer-ences of Equine Health and Management,iageii tent,2005. USDA-NatI. Anioi. Ficaitli Monit. Syst,Fort. Collins. CO.

Nat.sira.l Resource. Agriculture, and Engineer-ing Service. 1999. Field Guide to On-FarmComposting. PuhI. NBAES-111. Nat. Re-sour.. Agric.. Eng. Serv., Ithaca, NY.

New Jerse y Equine Industr y Survey. 2007.Economic Inipact. Rutgers Equine Sri. Cent.mid the New Jerse y Agric. Exp. Stn., NewBrunswick.

SAS Institute. 1996. SAS/STAT Software.Changes and Enhancements Through Release6.11. SAS Inst. inc., Car. NC.

Singer. J. W.. N. Bobson. and \\ . ..I. Barnka.1999. I-h/rae 1/list/ire management .1. EquineVet. Sei. 19:510., 585.

Singer. J. W.. D. 1Kl,'hiinski. W. J. Banika.N. Bol)son, and B. Govuidasunay. 2002.Effectiveness of cooperative extension equinepasture management programs. J.Nat. Re-sf/fir. Life Sri. Educ. 31:59.

Sivinker. A. and D. E. Johnson. 1995.Equine md//si rieS niain.mre disposal practices.variations and magnitude. Prof . Anim. Sri.11:210.

I