Proceedings available at: www.extension.org/67651 The 2010 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Corn data will be used to examine the price paid for manure as a function of type of manure (i.e. species), form of manure, distance, size of farm, location, yield goal and whether the application rates of manure were influenced by Federal, State or local policies. Based on economic theory and the few empirical studies on manure use, it is hypothesized that swine manure will command a lower price than manure from cattle or poultry operations, all else equal. Liquid manure, due to dilution and volatilization of nutrients, will have a negative effect on price received. Due to transportation costs, which are included in the ARMS manure cost question, distance is hypothesized to have a positive effect on price. Farms in areas with high nutrient demand, such as the Corn Belt, are hypothesized to pay higher prices for manure while those in areas with excess manure nutrients, such as the Chesapeake Bay area, will pay lower prices or even be compensated to accept manure. Similarly, if policy affects application of manure, it is an indication that there are problems of excess manure in the area so prices are expected to be lower. Higher yield goals are expected to be positively associated with the price paid for manure since nutrient requirements will be higher.

1. Factors Affecting the Price
of Manure Applied on Corn
Laura McCann
Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics
University of Missouri

2. Motivation
 Expanded use of manure may benefit crop
farmers facing higher fertilizer prices and
provide an extra source of income for
livestock farmers
 More careful use of manure nutrients may
also improve water quality
 Little information exists on prices paid for
manure or their determinants
 “Manure Entrepreneurs: Turning Brown to
Green”

3. Previous Research:
Nunez and McCann, 2008
 Looked at factors affecting which crop-only
farmers used manure in MO and IA in 2004
 19% used manure, 36% of those paid for it
 Tended to be younger, less-educated farmers
with little off-farm income and a small farm
 Significant barriers included perceived
transportation costs, difficulty in estimating
application rates, and smell
 Generally manure was applied by the supplier or
a custom applicator

4. Previous research:
Ali et al., 2012
 Examined testing of manure that was
transferred off the farm, indicator of nutrient
value?
 Livestock farmers in MO and IA were surveyed
in 2006 (also see poster)
 51% tested manure vs 20% for whole dataset
 57% were paid for manure
 Species differences as to payment and distance
transported (e.g. poultry vs swine)
 Manure was less likely to be tested if solid and if
AU/acre was higher

5.  Manure was more likely to be tested if farmers
thought the practice was profitable, if it was
transported further, if there was a contract for
the manure, and if payment was received.
  “Value of manure nutrients, rather than the
water quality impacts, is driving manure testing”
 Also a paper by Norwood et al. (2005) that
showed, among other things, that people had a
lower willingness to pay for swine manure.

6. Research Questions
 How can we characterize U.S. manure markets?
 What factors affect the price of manure paid by
corn farmers nationally?
 Region?
 Species?
 Distance?
 Solid vs liquid?
 Who applies?
 Size of farm, expected yields?

7. Data and Methods
 USDA Agricultural Resource Management
Survey (ARMS) of corn farmers for 2010
 Dependent variable was total price paid
for manure applied on a specific field and
included transportation costs but not
application costs
 SAS Enterprise, OLS regression analysis
(results are preliminary)

8. Characteristics of manure users
Full dataset
(n=2654)
Manure users
(n=919)
Acres of corn 345 190
Size of field 48.5 30.3
% of revenue
from corn
38.4 18.4
% certified
organic
0.34 0.33

9. Char. of manure users, cont.
 The majority (76.9%) used their own manure
 Distance from the source of manure to the field
was 3.29 miles on average with a range from 0-
320 miles (and this excludes compost!)
 16% indicated that federal, state or local
regulations affected application rates
 Custom applicators were used in 17% of cases
with a mean cost of $297/field.

10. Char. of manure users, cont.
 Manure was tested in 22% of cases (similar to
Gedikoglu and McCann, 2012 for MO and IA).
 The most common source of manure was dairy
(49%), followed by beef (24%), poultry
(16%), and swine (8%).
 Most manure users (43%) were in the ERS
Northern Crescent region with Heartland
representing 39%.
 (note that this data is only corn farmers)

11. Off-farm manure users
 The form of manure was similar between
own and off-farm, almost 70% used solid
and almost 17% used lagoon liquid
 Of the farmers who sourced manure, 129
(or 61%) paid for it, 79 received it for
free, and 4 were paid to accept it.
 The subset of farmers who used manure
from off the farm and had no missing data
were included in the regression, n=169

12. Preliminary Regression Results
 Adjusted R2 was 0.417
 Acres of corn planted on the farm (i.e. farm
size), and expected production on the field were
not significant
 There was no effect of government regulations.
It was expected that this would lower the price
paid if it was linked to excess manure issues.
 There were also no regional effects after
controlling for other factors

13. Preliminary Results, Cont.
 Trivially, size of field was associated with a
higher price paid
 In line with expectations, the price paid
for dairy, beef and poultry manure was
higher than for swine manure
 Being custom applied was associated with
a significantly higher price paid (and this
cost was supposedly not included in the
price)

14. Preliminary Results, Cont.
 Distance between source and field was
positively and significantly related to price
paid, (it does include transportation costs)
 The price paid for lagoon liquid was sig.
higher than the price paid for
slurry, contrary to expectations.
However, this may just be due to the
higher transportation costs.

15. Conclusions
 There do not seem to be major differences
between the MO/IA studies and the national
data but more careful comparison of regions is
planned
 People are increasingly willing to pay for manure
nutrients
 People are willing to pay less for swine manure
so addressing smell issues may be useful

16. Conclusions, Cont.
 Organic corn production doesn’t seem to be an
important source of manure demand
 People who want to sell their manure to
neighbors may need to apply it or identify
custom applicators; corn farmers have
equipment for conventional fertilizer but not for
manure
 It would have been useful if transportation costs
and the value of the manure nutrients had been
separate questions

17. Acknowledgements
 This research was partially funded by a USDA-
NIFA Integrated Research, Extension and
Education 406 Project
 Thanks also to USDA-ERS for permission to use
the ARMS data and Missouri Ag Stats Service
 Contact info:
Dr. Laura McCann
McCannL@missouri.edu