Tag: nutrient management

Posted on

Developing a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP)

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Livestock producers are presented with a number of challenges and opportunities. Developing a quality Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) can effectively help landowners address natural resource concerns related to soil erosion, water quality, and air quality from manure management. As livestock operations continue to expand and concentrate in certain parts of the country, utilizing a CNMP becomes even more important. Following the NRCS 9-step planning process is critical in developing a good plan. Effective communication is a key element between all parties involved in the planning process. A CNMP documents the decisions made by the landowner for the farmstead area, crop and pasture area, and nutrient management. Information will cover the elements essential for developing a quality CNMP.

What did we do?

Since the CNMP documents the records of decisions by the landowner, it has to be organized in such a fashion that it is understandable to and usable by the landowner. The CNMP is the landowner’s plan. Therefore, the role of the planner is to help landowners do the things that will most benefit them and the resources in the long run. This will take both time and effort. To provide consistency with other conservation planning efforts within NRCS, CNMPs following the same process outlined in the National Planning Procedures Handbook. There are several items that are essential for a quality CNMP to be developed:

• Have a good understanding of potential resource concerns especially soil erosion, water quality and air quality.

• Make the appropriate number of site visits. Trying to do this from the office will likely lead to a poor quality CNMP that may not be implemented.

• Address resource concerns for the Farmstead and Crop and Pasture areas.

• Ensure that all nutrient sources are addressed.

• Follow the 9 steps of planning.

• Decisions are agreed upon by the landowner. The CNMP reflects the landowner’s record of decisions.

• Follow-up to address any questions or concerns.

• Update as necessary. A CNMP is not a static document.

Field

Land application of animal manure without proper land treatment practices

Muddy field with standing water

Proper animal manure storage required to address water quality issues

Picture of lined water bed

Evaluation of storage area to adequately address surface and subsurface
water quality issues

Picture of tractor and tanker spreader

Land application and nutrient management are critical elements for a
properly prepared CNMP

What have we learned?

The quality of CNMPs varies greatly across the country. Some were becoming so large that landowners were having difficulty finding the activities that needed to be completed. The revised CNMP format and process following the NRCS Conservation Planning approach should improve both the quality and usability of the plans developed. Due to statutes in the Farm Bill, all conservation practices recorded in the record of decision of the CNMP, whether receiving financial assistance or not, must be implemented by the end of the established contract period between the landowner and NRCS. Therefore it is important to only include the practices that are going to be implemented. CNMPs should be periodically updated to account for operational changes such as animal numbers, cropping systems, or land application methods.

Future Plans

The CNMP planning process will be evaluated to determine whether landowner objectives are being met and resource concerns properly addressed. Additional evaluations will look at the consistency of the plans generated across the country and the usability by landowners.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Jeffrey P. Porter, P.E.; National Animal Manure and Nutrient Management Team Leader, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

Corresponding author email

jeffrey.porter@gnb.usda.gov

Additional information

References

USDA-NRCS General Manual – Title 190, Part 405 – Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans

USDA-NRCS Handbooks – Title 180, Part 600 – National Planning Procedures Handbook

Code of Federal Register (CFR) Title 7, Part 1466 – Environmental Quality Incentives Program (1466.7 EQIP Plan of Operations and 1466.21 Contract Requirements)

Webinar

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans and the Planning Process – http://www.conservationwebinars.net/webinars/comprehensive-nutrient-management-plans-and-the-planning-process/?searchterm=cnmp

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Pathways for Effective Manure Nutriment Management Information Sharing and Education Between Agriculture Professionals: A South Dakota Pilot Test


Why Look at Barriers in Nutrient Management Information Flow?

 

The issue of manure nutrient management has been the subject of controversy and new policies in recent years as the non-point source discharge of nutrients and bacteria is substantial if manure is not managed properly. Unfortunately, there are barriers between organizations and individuals that prevent the flow of important, timely information between audience types and limits the impact and usefulness of research results. These barriers may be in the form of institutional language differences, job descriptions, or a mismatch between information outputs and inputs.

What did we do?

A national team of researchers, Extension specialists, consultants and government staff developed a survey to quantify the role, programming, and barriers to information flow between organizations and individuals regarding manure nutrient management. The electronic survey was disseminated via cooperating agencies, organizations and personal contacts to technical service providers, producers, university personnel, regulatory personnel, private sales or service enterprises and other professionals who contribute to manure nutrient management in South Dakota. Respondents were asked to indicate the relevance of information sources (inputs), information products (outputs) and collaborators (links), as well as barriers to their use. The relevance selections were transformed into scalar data and an analysis of variance was performed on the average relevance scores to test for differences based on input/output/link type and organization type.

What have we learned?

There were 139 surveys started, and 80 surveys completed. Data from partially completed surveys were, however, included in the analysis. The main categories of self-identified respondents were NRCS (n=36), Producers (n=29), University personnel (n=15) and Regulatory personnel (n=9). The remaining categories respondents were grouped into an Other category (n=22). The average relevance score for each of the information sources, information products and collaborations listed in the survey were consistent (no significant difference between organization types). As sources of information, consultation, eXtension and field days were ranked most relevant, with classroom and social media being least relevant. Similarly, consultation, field days and eXtension were ranked the most relevant means of sharing information; social media was ranked least relevant. Barriers to information sources and products were specific to the activity or product. The select ion “No barriers to use” was not an indicator of relevance. All organization types deemed producers the most relevant collaborator, followed by state, university and federal agencies.

Future Plans

The South Dakota-based survey was a pilot test for a nationwide survey being conducted in 2015. From feedback and data review, the survey has been refined and shortened to elicit the key input, output and collaborator data. With the national data in hand later in 2015, the project team looks forward to linking information producers and users in effective pathways for manure nutrient management information transmission, and ultimately, adoption.

Authors

Erin Cortus, Assistant Professor and Environmental Quality Engineer at South Dakota State University erin.cortus@sdstate.edu

Nichole Embertson, Nutrient Management Specialist, Sustainable Livestock Production Program, Whatcom Conservation District; Jeffrey Jacquet, Assistant Professor, Sociology and Rural Studies, South Dakota State University

Additional information

Anyone interested in participating on the Pathways Project team are invited to contact Erin Cortus (erin.cortus@sdstate.edu) or Nichole Embertson (NEmbertson@whatcomcd.org).

Acknowledgements

The nationwide team who contribute to and guide the Pathways project are gratefully acknowledged. Funding provided through the South Dakota SARE Mini-Grant Program supported data collection and analysis for the survey pilot test.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

 

Posted on

Identify and Synthesize Methods to Refine Phosphorus Indices from Three Regional Indexing Efforts

Purpose

This project was started to work with regional CIG projects to calibrate and harmonize Phosphorus Indices across the U.S., demonstrate their accuracy in identifying the magnitude and extent of phosphorus loss risk, and provide suggestions to refine or improve existing Indices. This research is important to provide consistency among state Phosphorus Indices and their subsequent recommendations.  

What did we do?

We will combine and compare results from each of the four regional and state Phosphorus Index CIG-funded projects, in order to synthesize, summarize, and describe the science-based information and lessons learned from the individual Phosphorus Index assessment projects (i.e., Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Heartland Region, Southern States and Ohio Lake Erie Basin) and build a harmonized framework that yields consistent Phosphorus-based risk assessment across the U.S. by doing this, we plan to ensure that the refinement of Phosphorus Indices is grounded in the best available science, reflects local environmental and agronomic conditions, anticipates impacts to water quality and farm management, and provides consistent recommendations within and across varied physiographic regions of the U.S.

What have we learned?

Despite the success of the Phosphorus Index concept in state-level nutrient management planning strategies as part of the NRCS 590 Standard, there remain concerns about the effectiveness of the Indexing approach for attaining water quality goals. Different versions of the Phosphorus Index have emerged to account for regional differences in soil types, land management, climate, physiographic and hydrologic controls, manure management strategies, and policy conditions. Along with this development, differences in Phosphorus Index manure management recommendations under relatively similar site conditions have also emerged. To date, we have learned that the individual projects with slightly differing objectives have shown there to be a paucity of field measured runoff, against which to reliably compare Index performance. Thus, several off-the shelf and pre-calibrated models (e.g., APEX) were tested to provide adequate phosphorus runoff information to validate Indices. Use of off-the-shelf models can provide unreliable estimates of phosphorus runoff, while calibrate models can provide more reliable estimates when given adequate site information.

Future Plans

It is planned to have extend the research for one more year to the end of 2016 to continue model assessment, compile field runoff databases, conduct statistical and uncertainty analyses, and compile cross project findings.

Authors

Andrew Sharpley, Distinguished Professor, Division of Agriculture University of Arkansas System sharpley@uark.edu

Deanna Osmond, Professor and Soil Science Department Extension Leader; David Radcliff, Professor; Peter Kleinman, Research Leader; Doug Beegle, Distinguished Professor of Agronomy; John Lory, Associate Professor of Extension; and Nathan Nelson, Professor.

Additional information

Sharpley, A.N., D. Beegle, C. Bolster, L. Good, B. Joern, Q. Ketterings, J. Lory, R. Mikkelsen, D. Osmond, and P. Vadas. 2011. Revision of the 590 Nutrient Management Standard: SERA-17 Recommendations. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 412. Published by SERA-IEG-17, Virginia Tech. University, Blacksburg, VA. Available at https://sera17dotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/590-sera-17-recommendations.pdf 2011.

Sharpley, A.N., D. Beegle, C. Bolster, L. Good, B. Joern, Q. Ketterings, J. Lory, R. Mikkelsen, D. Osmond, and P. Vadas. 2011. Revision of the 590 Nutrient Management Standard: SERA-17 Supporting Documentation. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 412. Published by SERA-IEG-17, Virginia Tech. University, Blacksburg, VA. Available at https://sera17dotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/590-sera-17-recommendations.pdf

Sharpley, A.N., D.G. Beegle, C. Bolster, L.W. Good, B. Joern, Q. Ketterings, J. Lory, R. Mikkelsen, D. Osmond, and P.A. Vadas. 2012. Phosphorus indices: Why we need to take stock of how we are doing. J. Environ. Qual. 41:1711-1718.

Osmond, D.L., A.N. Sharpley, C. Bolster, M. Cabrera, S. Feagley, B. Lee, C. Mitchell, R. Mylavarapu, L. Oldham, F. Walker, and H. Zhang. 2012. Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern USA states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies. J. Environ. Qual. 41:1741-1750.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

 

 

Posted on

Relationship between Surface Waters and Underlying Stream and Ditch Sediment in Selected Eagle Creek Tributaries


Why are stream and ditch sediment important to water quality?

Best management strategies implemented in most watersheds to reduce phosphorus (P) loads to surface waters have been successful, however, internal P loading within streams and ditches may still provide P to overlying water. Phosphorus retention and release by sediments is important for understanding sediment P status and buffering capacity and for determining the potential environmental fate of sediment bound P in flowing water systems.

What did we do?

Eight headwater streams and drainage ditches within Eagle Creek Watershed in central Indiana were selected to evaluate soluble P (SP). Stream and drainage ditch water and sediment were collected monthly from 8 selected locations within the Eagle Creek watershed in central Indiana for two consecutive years to estimate if there were any seasonal and/or land use trends. Sediments and water were analyzed for soluble P, and 24-hour P isotherms were performed to determine the P sorption capacity and to calculate the equilibrium P concentration (EPC0). The relationship between  EPC0 and SP in the water column allows for the prediction of the potential for sediments to either release P to or retain P from the water column.

What have we learned? 

Surface water P concentrations varied seasonally and were consistently greater during summer (P<0.05). Surface water SP concentrations increased with the percentage of land classified as urban (P<0.0001). Generally, we observed lower P concentrations in sediment during summer and greater P concentrations during winter and spring. We also observed greater P concentrations in areas that had a greater percentage of land used for agriculture and in some cases, sub-catchment area influenced the P content that was observed. Sediment EPC0 concentrations were not related to water column SP, however, when sediments were separated as ‘sinks’(r = 0.49) or ‘sources’(r = 0.65), a strong correlation was found between sediment EPC0 and water column SP (P<0.0001).

Future Plans    

Information from this study will assist managers and planners in targeting areas with the greatest potential for loss of P from sediments to overlying water. These results will also assist in improving nutrient criteria thresholds for the watershed.

Authors      

Candiss O. Williams, Research Soil Scientist, USDA NRCS Kellogg National Soil Survey Laboratory & Research Candiss.Williams@lin.usda.gov

Brad Joern, Professor, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University Douglas R. Smith, Research Soil Scientist, USDA ARS Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Small to Mid-Sized Dairies: Making Compact Anaerobic Digestion Feasible

Why Consider Small or Medium Digester Projects?

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is an environmentally-friendly manure management process that can generate renewable energy and heat, mitigate odors, and create sustainable by-products such as bedding or fertilizer for dairies and farmers. However, due to economics, a majority of commercially available AD technologies have been implemented on large farming operations. Since the average herd size of dairies across the country is below 200 head of milking cows, there is a need for small-scale AD systems to serve this market.

eucolino allen farmsWhat did we do?

The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, in collaboration with BIOFerm™ Energy Systems, installed the EUCOlino—a small-scale, mixed, plug-flow digester—onto on a 136 milking head Wisconsin Dairy. The system is pre-manufactured, containerized and requires very limited on-site construction.   This includes grading, pouring a concrete pad for the containers and electrical services installation.

Start-up and commissioning were performed after the delivery of the 64 kWe combined heat and power (CHP). The input materials consist of bedded-pack dairy manure (corn or bean stover and straw), parlor wash water, and minor additional substrates such as lactose or fats, oils, and grease.

Solid materials are dumped via bucket tractor into a hopper feeder system that uses an auger to feed substrate into the anaerobic digestion tank. Additional parlor water is piped directly into the anaerobic digestion tank and mixed with the solids to make a feedstock of approximately 13% total solids. The solids are fed hourly, which is controlled by the PLC system.

The digester has a ~30-day retention time and the biogas produced is stored in a bag above the fermenters. Biogas produced is conditioned and combusted in a CHP mounted on a separate skid. Effluent from the system is pumped directly to an open pit lagoon for storage and subsequently land applied as fertilizer. The system produces approximately 25 – 33 m3/hour of biogas, with a raw biogas quality of 52-60% CH4 and less than 700 ppm H2S.

concrete pads for installation
installation
input

What have we learned?

This project has been an important step forward in developing future small-scale anaerobic digesters across the U.S.  Notably, our installation has given us insight into balancing system economics with the size of small-scale models; the energy output of the system must exceed pre-processing energy requirements and the digester must still be large enough for the designed residence time. Our experience has shown that, while reducing the size of a digester, these requirements remain essential for an installation to economically make sense.

Additionally, challenges involved in AD at the small-scale are related to pre-processing or feedstock conveyance. Once suitable consistence or size for conveyance, anaerobically digesting the organic fraction can be relatively easy. Inconsistency of incoming feedstocks is very detrimental to the system’s stability. Additionally, exterior feedstock storage and above ground piping can limit processing potential when severe cold weather settles in. While all of these are challenges that are easily overcome with engineering, they come at a cost and that can make or break the economics at this scale.

Future Plans

For the small-scale EUCOlino to be effective in the United States, it is key to establishing a U.S.- based manufacturing location. Pre-processing needs to be well-suited to the incoming feedstock. Post-digestion products need established off-takers, for electricity generation, bedding, fertilizer, etc.

Authors

Steven Sell, Manager Application Engineer, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems beaw@biofermenergy.com

Whitney Beadle, Marketing Communications, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems

Additional information

The following publications offer additional information on the Allen Farms digester:

Readers interested in this topic can also visit our website for more information on the Allen Farms digester and other BIOFerm projects. We can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Low-Power Aerators Combined with Center Pivot Manure Application at a Northeast Nebraska Hog Finishing Facility Created an Easy to Manage, Turn-Key System

trnkey animal waste management systemApplying livestock manure from lagoon storage through center pivot irrigation has long been considered a low-labor, uniform method of application that can deliver nutrients in-season to a growing crop. Three challenges with this system have been odor, pivot nozzle clogging and loss of nitrogen. A new innovation in lagoon treatment addresses these challenges. Low-power circulators were installed at a Northeast Nebraska commercial hog finishing facility and used to aerate the lagoon by moving oxygen-rich water and beneficial microbes to the bottom of the lagoon, reducing odor and potent greenhouse gases while lowering disease pathogen risk. This process preserved nitrogen and made it 40-60% more available in the first year of application. Circulation also reduced lagoon solids and bottom sludge, resulting in reduced agitation and dredging expense. Having a continuously well-mixed lagoon facilitated accurate manure nutrient sampling and consistent nutrient concentration delivery to the irrigation system. Combined with the ease of calibration of the center pivots, precision uniform nutrient application was achieved. Center pivot application had several additional advantages over tractor-based systems: less soil compaction, optimal nutrient timing during plant growth, higher uniformity, lower labor and energy costs, and eliminating impact on public roads. The circulators combined with flush barns and center pivot irrigation creates a complete turn-key manure management system.

Do Circulators Make a Difference in Liquid Manure Storage?

pumping nutrients from lagoon on korus pig siteThe purpose of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of low powered circulators to treat livestock waste in lagoons. The objective was to evaluate how the addition of circulators to a livestock pond would change: 1. Odor levels, 2. Pivot nozzle clogging problems, and 3. Nitrogen loss.

What did we do?

A demonstration was conducted by installing five circulators on a lagoon receiving manure from a 3000 pig finisher facility. The lagoon is owned by a Lindsay customer that was already pumping the top water from the pond through pivots, but was having difficulty with plugging nozzles and was hiring a commercial pumper to agitate and pump solids. The circulators were installed in May of 2013. Starting with the day of installation and each month after through November 2013, effluent lab samples were collected, photos of the pond and effluent were taken, and odor level estimated.

comparison of manure application systems

report from Korus farm
table of report from Korus farms

The effluent was pumped through pivots where odor and nozzle clogging problems were evaluated on August 15th and December 2nd of 2013. The pond was refilled with fresh water, circulated for a few days, and re-pumped right after the August 15th event so more of the nutrients could be utilized by the crops.

What have we learned?

The benefits of using aerobic lagoons with livestock waste have been known for many years. The challenge has been finding a cost effective and reliable method to facilitate the process. The cost to run all five circulators was about $3300 per year figuring $0.10 per kWh.

The circulators facilitated the following changes in the pond:

  • Reduced dry matter in effluent to <0.4%-starting at 0.57% and ending at 0.37%
  • Greatly reduced hog hair and soybean hulls caught in the filter resulting in virtually eliminating nozzle and pressure regulator clogging on the pivot
  • Reduced solids and bottom sludge-sonar indicated a 5+ ft reduction in bottom solids in 5 months
  • Doubled 1st year availability of nitrogen-%NH4 to total N was >80% compared to average book values of 40%
  • Greatly reduced offensive manure odor-downwind from pivot applying effluent, very little odor was observed
  • Reduced disease pathogens-Total Coliform went 11,000 to 30 CFU/g & Escherichia coli went from 460 to <10 CFU/g
  • Reduced flies-virtually eliminated floating solids and fly habitat on the pond
  • Reduced severe greenhouse gasses (GHGs)
  • Generated safer and lower odor water to recycled back through the barn for manure removal

Future Plans

We would like to continue evaluating the system for more precise odor reduction ratings, nitrogen preservation during pond storage, and affect on disease pathogens.

Author

Steve Melvin, Irrigation Applications Specialist, Lindsay steve.melvin@lindsay.com

Additional information

Call Steve Melvin at 402-829 6815 for additional information.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Thermal-Chemical Conversion of Animal Manures – Another Tool for the Toolbox


How Can Thermo-Chemical Technologies Assist in Nutrient Management?

Livestock operations continue to expand and concentrate in certain parts of the country. This has created regional “hot spot” areas in which excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus, are produced. This nutrient issue has resulted in water quality concerns across the country and even lead to the necessity of a “watershed diet” for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. To help address this nutrient concern some livestock producers are looking to manure gasification and other thermo-chemical processes. There are several thermo-chemical conversion configurations, and the one chosen for a particular livestock operation is dependent on the desired application and final by-products. Through these thermo-chemical processes manure Factory processingvolumes are significantly reduced. With the nutrients being concentrated, they are more easily handled and can be transported from areas of high nutrient loads to regions of low nutrient loads at a lower cost. This practice can also help to reduce the on-farm energy costs by providing supplemental energy and/or heat. Additional benefits include pathogen destruction and odor reduction. This presentation will provide an overview of several Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) and other manure thermo-chemical conversion projects that are being demonstrated and/or in commercial operation. Information will cover nutrient fate, emission studies, by-product applications along with some of the positives and negatives related to thermo-chemical conversion systems.

Exterior of factory processingWhat did we do? 

Several farm-scale manure-to-energy demonstration projects are underway within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Many of these receive funding through the USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant program. These projects, located on poultry farms, are being evaluated for the performance of on-farm thermal conversion technologies. Monitoring data is being collected for each project which includes: technical performance, operation and maintenance, air emissions, and by-product uses and potential markets. Performance of manure gasification systems for non-poultry operations have also been reviewed and evaluated. A clearinghouse website for thermal manure-to-energy processes has been developed.

What have we learned? 

The projects have shown that poultry litter can be used as a fuel source, but operation and maintenance issues can impact the performance and longevity of a thermal conversion system. These systems are still in the early stages of commercialization and modifications are likely as lessons are learned. Preliminary air emission data shows that most of the nitrogen in the poultry litter is converted to a non-reactive form. The other primary nutrients, phosphorus and potassium, are preserved in the ash or biochar co-products. Plant availability of nutrients in the ash or biochar varies between the different thermal conversion processes and ranges from 80 to 100 percent. The significant volume reduction and nutrient concentration show that thermal conversion processes can be effective in reducing water quality issues by lowering transportation and land application costs of excess manure phosphorus.

Future Plans    

Monitoring will continue for the existing demonstration projects. Based on the lessons learned, additional demonstration sites will be pursued. As more manure-to-energy systems come on-line the clearinghouse will be updated. Based on data collected, NRCS conservation practice standards will be generated or updated as necessary.

Author       

Jeffrey P. Porter, PE, Manure Management Team Leader, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service jeffrey.porter@gnb.usda.gov

Additional information                

Thermal manure-to-energy clearinghouse website: http://lpelc.org/thermal-manure-to-energy-systems-for-farms/

Environmental Finance Center review of financing options for on-farm manure-to-energy including cost share funding contact information in the Chesapeake Bay region: http://efc.umd.edu/assets/m2e_ft_9-11-12_edited.pdf

Sustainable Chesapeake: http://www.susches.org

Farm Pilot Project Coordination: http://www.fppcinc.org

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund: http://www.nfwf.org/chesapeake/Pages/home.aspx

Acknowledgements

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., Sustainable Chesapeake, Flintrock Farm, Mark Weaver Farm, Mark Rohrer Farm, Riverview Farm, Wayne Combustion, Enginuity Energy, Coaltec Energy, Agricultural Waste Solutions, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Environmental Finance Center, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Lancaster County Conservation District, Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Eastern Shore Resource Conservation and Development Council, with funding from the USDA Conservation Innovation Grant Program and the U.S. EPA Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

User capabilities and next generation phosphorus (P) indices

Purpose

The phosphorus (P) index is the primary approach to identify field management strategies and/or manure application strategies likely to lead to excessive risk of P loss. It has been over 40 years since the first research connecting agronomic P management and water quality and over 20 years since the initial publication defining a P Index. This session will consider opportunities to build on and expand existing P Index strategies to make them more effective at protecting water quality and friendlier to the target user.

What did we do?

Nutrient management is a process providing guidance on the rate, source, timing, and method of nutrient applications. After completing an initial one to five year strategic plan there are tactical adjustments for new information such as new soil and manure tests and changes in crop selection. Additional assessments are needed when implementing the plan such as determining if current weather and soil conditions are appropriate for application.

We initially reviewed current P Indices and the skills needed to implement those P Indices. We then considered how those requirements aligned with the likely users of the P Index at a particular steps in the development and implementation of a nutrient management of plan.

What have we learned?

Many current P Indices require using the soil erosion program RUSLE2 which is then a barrier to the use of these P Indices by anyone except planners with specialized planning. Such expertise is never available on some farms and unlikely to be available on most farms during tactical and implementation phases of the plan. There has also been suggestions that more complex strategies such as models should replace existing P Indices; this will lead to more complex P loss assessment tools.

Next generation P Indices will be more effective if we consider the capabilities and training of those likely to be making decisions at each critical juncture. Instead of “the” P Index we need to design a suite of tools that target key decision points. At each decision point, a first step of the development process must be defining who the likely decision maker is and what are their skills and training. We can only succeed if our tools are accessible to those that need to use them.

Future Plans  

Sessions like this one and regional efforts to evaluate and update P Indices are critical to the continued improvement of state P Indices. We all must recognize that the P Index concept is still relatively young; in comparison it took about a century to move from the first research on agronomic soil testing to our current soil test extraction methods and interpretation. We are still early in our journey to identify and implement the most effective tools to minimize P loss from agricultural fields.

Authors  

Dr. John A. Lory, Associate Professor of Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO loryj@missouri.edu

Dr. Nathan Nelson, Associate Professor, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

Additional information            

Please contact the authors for more information about this topic.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

 

Posted on

Variation in state-based manure nitrogen availability approaches

The phosphorus (P) index is the primary strategy used in nutrient management planning to identify field management strategies and/or manure application strategies likely to lead to excessive risk of P loss.  Current P Indices were developed primarily as strategic planning tools guiding the development of a nutrient management plan spanning one to five years.  In reality, a nutrient management plan should be viewed more as a process than a result.  After completing the initial strategic plan there are tactical adjustments for new information such as new soil and manure tests and changes in crop selection.  Additional assessments are needed when implementing the plan, determining if current weather and soil conditions are appropriate for application.  Many current P Indices require using the soil erosion program RUSLE2 which is then a barrier to the use of these P Indices by anyone except planners with specialized planning.  Such expertise is never available on some farms and unlikely to be available on most farms during tactical and implement phases of the plan.  There has also been suggestions that more complex strategies such as models should replace existing P Indices; this will lead to more complex P loss assessment tools.  Next generation P Indices will be more effective if we consider the capabilities and training of those likely to be making decisions at each critical juncture.  Instead of “the” P Index we need to design a suite of tools that target key decision points.  In each instance a first step of the development process must be defining who the likely decision maker is and what are their skills and training.  We can only succeed if our tools are accessible to those that need to use them.

Purpose      

Extensive research has documented fertilizer value of manure nutrients for crops. It has been long recognized that manure nitrogen (N) excreted by animals is not 100% available to crops. Surveys indicate failure to credit or under crediting manure nutrient value to a crop by farmers continues to be an issue. Our goal was to assess the current state of manure nutrient availability recommendations and requirements in the US.

What did we do?

We surveyed state recommendations for state nutrient availability calculations for four sources of manure: finish hog slurry, dairy cow slurry, solid cattle manure and broiler litter. The top 12 states for production of each associated commodity were determined using inventory data from the 2012 Agricultural Census; the top 12 states for production were states we surveyed for each manure type. For each state and each manure type surveyed we attempted to identify nitrogen availability calculation recommendations from three sources: the State Land Grant University, the state USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) standards and supporting documents, and the state regulatory documentation for operations with a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

What have we learned?

We were able to identify a primary publication or publications published by the State Land Grant University in all but four of the 30 surveyed states for the manure types of interest. Median date of publication for the 22 dated publications was 2006 (range 1991-2014). The NRCS documentation referenced the state Land Grant publication (10 states), a state-specific NRCS worksheet or reported numbers in the standard (7 states) or referred to regional or national reference (3 states). The USEPA NPDES regulatory documentation did not specify availability coefficients in 11 of 30 states. In nine states the regulatory documentation cited the USDA-NRCS 590 standard but in three of those states the NRCS standard did not provide nutrient availability coefficients. Consequently it was not possible to determine regulatory nutrient availability coefficients in nearly half of the surveyed states (14 of 30). Availability calculation approaches fell into two main categories, states that calculate availability based on manure total nitrogen content and states that account separately for availability of organic and ammonium nitrogen. Availability estimates among states were more variable for strategies known to be more variable (e.g. surface application of liquid manure).

Future Plans

Our work emphasizes the varied approach to N availability calculations as we cross state borders. We hope this publication will encourage regional discussions among states with similar climate to work towards more consistent recommendations. More consistent recommendations may help farmers have more confidence in those recommendations,

Our work also demonstrates how difficult it can be to identify the appropriate calculations within a given state. We encourage that state recommendations from all three organizations (Land Grant, NRCS, regulatory) be documented in a standard place in the state NRCS Nutrient Management Standard so planners, farmers, and people developing and managing nutrient management tools can easily and with confidence access the most current information on N availability information for manure nutrients.

Authors    

Dr. John A. Lory, Associate Professor of Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO loryj@missouri.edu

Ms. Caitlin Conover, USEPA and Visiting Scholar, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Additional information         

Please contact the first author for more information.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Estimation of phosphorus loss from agricultural land in the Heartland region using the APEX model: a first step to evaluating phosphorus indices

Purpose

Phosphorus (P) indices are a key tool to minimize P loss from agricultural fields but there is insufficient water quality data to fully test them. Our goal is to use the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender Model (APEX), calibrated with existing edge-of-field runoff data, to refine P indices and demonstrate their utility as a field assessment tool capable of protecting water quality. In this phase of the project our goal is to use existing small-watershed data from the Heartland Region (IA, KS, MO and NE) to determine the level of calibration needed for APEX before using the model to generate estimates of P loads appropriate for evaluating a P Index.

What did we do?

APEX model is designed to simulate edge-of-field water, sediment, and nutrient losses. Our analysis included data from 19 watersheds at four sites in the Heartland Region representing a range of hydrologic conditions and including grazing, tilled row-crop, and no-till row-crop management systems.

We evaluated two strategies to optimize settings of model parameters: i. a watershed-specific parameterization based on full calibration/validation comparing measured data with simulated results of the model for runoff volume, sediment load and P load, ii. a minimal parameterization approach based on best professional judgment (BPJ) consistent with using APEX when measured runoff, sediment and P data are not available for model calibration. Model fitting for strategy (i) was done using event data in each watershed. The two parameterization strategies were evaluated based on the fit of “annual” totals where data at each location were summed by year (total of 97 site-years). The Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency and regression methods were used to quantify model fit.

Figure 1. Examples of small watershed studies that generated runoff water quality used to assess APEX calibration strategies: a.Kansas; b. Missouri.

What have we learned?

Full calibration provided excellent fit for runoff and total P (NSE>0.8 for each) and marginal fit for sediment (~0.3). In contrast, the BPJ resulted in unacceptable estimates of sediment and P load, and marginal fit for runoff volume (NSE~0.4). These results emphasize that failure to calibrate APEX with runoff and water quality data (the BPJ approach) will result in poor estimates of annual sediment and total P loads.

Future Plans      

We are testing a regional parameterization strategy as another possible way to extend the APEX model to locations where there is no runoff and water quality data. The next phase of this project will then use appropriately calibrated models to generate the long-term estimates of P loss needed to evaluate P indices in IA, KS, MO and NE.

Authors

Dr. John A. Lory, Associate Professor of Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO loryj@missouri.edu 

Dr. Nathan Nelson, Associate Professor, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

Dr. Claire Baffaut, Research Hydrologist, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Columbia, MO

Dr. Anomaa Senaviratne, Post-doctoral Researcher, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Dr. Mike Van Liew, Watershed Modeling Specialist, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Ammar Bhandari, Doctoral Candidate, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

Dr. Antonio Mallarino, Professor, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Dr. Matt Helmers, Professor, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Dr. Ranjith Udawatta, Associate Research Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Dr. Dan Sweeney, Professor, SE Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University, Parsons, KS

Dr. Charles Wortmann, Professor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Additional information 

Please contact the authors for more information about this project.

Acknowledgements      

This project is funded, in part, by a USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Proudly powered by WordPress