Yahara Pride Farms 2015 Phosphorus Reduction Report

Transcription

1 Yahara Pride Farms 2015 Phosphorus Reduction Report Yahara Pride Board of Directors July 8, 16 July 8, 2016

2 During 2015 the Yahara Pride Farms (YPF s) board of directors continued operating and implementing a number of agricultural conservation programs designed to reduce the loss of phosphorus within the Yahara Watershed. There were four major incentive programs offered within the watershed in 2015 including: 1. Cover Crop Assistance, 2. Low Disturbance Manure Injection, 3. Strip tillage, and 4. Headland Stacking of Manure / Composting Each of these programs offers some unique benefits both from a phosphorus reduction standpoint as well as educational and confidence/trust building within the watershed. This report provides an update on the number of acres and farms involved in these programs as well as an estimate of the number of pounds of phosphorus prevented from entering the Madison lakes. A. Strip Tillage: Strip-tillage is a conservation system that offers an alternative to no-till, full-till and minimum tillage. It combines the soil drying and warming benefits of conventional tillage with the soil-protecting advantages of no-till by disturbing only the portion of the soil that is to contain the seed row (similar to zone tillage). Each row that has been strip-tilled is usually about eight to ten inches wide. The system still allows for some soil water contact that could cause erosion, however, the amount of erosion on a strip-tilled field would be light compared to the amount of erosion on an intensively tilled field. Compared to intensive tillage, strip tillage saves considerable time and money. Strip-till conserves more soil moisture compared to intensive tillage systems. However, compared to no-till, strip-till may in some cases reduce soil moisture and increase the potential for soil loss. Strip-till is performed with a special piece of equipment and the YPF s strip till program assisted with the rent of a strip till machine to determine if this farming system fit with their overall farming goals and management. In the first two years of the Yahara cost share program a unique partnership formed between the Yahara Pride Farms Inc. and Kalscheur Implement. For the 2015, Kalscheur Implement was no longer able to provide a strip tillage machine, so the YPF s board approved a grower payment of $20/acre for up to 20 acres (maximum payment of $400 per farm). The data contained in the table on page 4 is a combination of fields that were tilled using a strip till machine. There were four farms that cooperated in the strip tillage program and these operations were spread out around a wide area in the Yahara watershed. As can be seen in the table, strip tillage was conducted on 20 different fields with a large variation of soil types, soil test and slopes. This year the number of acres planted using a strip tillage system was about 1,489. Running the SNAP calculations for each field is important because as demonstrated in the table, assuming that phosphorus reductions directly correspond to slope is not an accurate assumption. Based on the information gathered over the three years of this project, the factors that influence phosphorus loss (or reductions in phosphorus loss) include slope, tillage prior and after strip tillage, soil test levels, 2

3 manure management program and the crop rotation. All of these factors play a large role in predicted phosphorus loss. The 2015 strip tillage program was conducted on 1,488.6 acres in the Yahara Watershed. However, the vast majority of these acres were not cost shared by the Yahara Pride Farms program. Total acres stripped tilled 1,488.6 o YPF cost share acres 60.0 Acres of strip tillage done without financial assistance = 1,428.6 acres A study of the estimated phosphorus savings by changing farming systems from what the farm was currently using to strip tillage shows a wide range of data. Switching from whatever the current tillage system was to strip tillage had a range from 0.1 to 5.6 lbs phosphorus per acre. For 2015 the data shows that in all cases, switching from the old farming system to strip tillage reduce phosphorus loss. As demonstrated in the table, there are times when switching to strip-tillage had a very minor affect on phosphorus loss. On other fields and conditions the change to strip tillage had a dramatic affect. A closer evaluation indicates that there are times when changing tillage systems can reduce particulate loss while increasing soluble losses. The challenge is to determine when a change in the tillage system has the greatest positive impact on water quality. In summary, the 2015 strip tillage program had an estimated reduction of phosphorus loss of pounds in 2015 (this is the one year estimated change phosphorus loss. The average reduction in phosphorus loss was 0.8 pounds/acre for the 20 fields in the program. The cost share program for strip tillage was $20 / acre for less than are equal to 20 acres. All three cooperators had more than 20 acres, so their payment was $400. Based on the average phosphorus reduction of 0.8 lbs / acre the cost for this phosphorus reduction strategy was: $20 / acre divided by 0.80 lbs of phosphorus reduced per acre = $25/pound of P 3

4 2015 Phosphorus Report -Strip Tillage Acres Soil Type Soil Symbol Slope Soil Test P PPM Rotat. Without Strip Tillage With Strip Tillage Annual Part. Soluble Rotat. Annual Part. Soluble Annual P change per acre Annual P change for field 90.0 Plano PlA 1% Plano PmA 1% Plano PmA 1% Plano PlA 1% Plano PlA 1% Plano PlA 1% Plano PlA 1% Kegonsa KeB 2% Elburn EoA 2% Kidder KeB2 4% St Charles SaB 4% Dresden DsB 4% Dresden DsB 4% Plano PlB 4% St Charles SaB 4% Troxel TrA 5% Batavia BbA 9% Dresden DsC2 9% Whalan WxC2 9% No SNAP Average Median Range Acres Lbs P - Total 4

5 Comparing the 20 fields (1,489 acres) in the program offers great insight into when and where phosphorus reductions because of the adoption of strip-tillage have the greatest potential to occur. Switching from no-till to strip-till increases the potential for particulate loss while having minimal impact on soluble losses. Considering that strip tillage normally replaces more aggressive tillage (chisel plowing, cultivation, etc.), it seems reasonable that most of the advantage to changing to this tillage system will be in the reduction of soil loss. However, there is a potential that with high surface manure applications, strip-tillage could reduce soluble losses, but there were no fields within this dataset to test this theory. The greatest reduction in loss occurs with particulate (soil particle bound) phosphorus. Therefore, strip-tillage offers significant potential to reduce losses of particulate bound phosphorus when adopted by farming systems using intensive tillage (chiseled - either spring or fall with or without disking) or on farms surface applying manure without incorporation. This year's phosphorus reduction = lbs Cost per pound of P reduced this year = $ / lb. Total investment by Yahara WINS in Strip Tillage Program = $1,200 Total acres planted with the strip tillage system = 1,489 Total acres cost shared = 60 acres Acres planted without cost share in watershed = 1,429 5

6 B. Low Disturbance Manure Injection: The northern portion of the Yahara Watershed is an area with high concentrations of livestock and therefore a great deal of manure. Manure is either incorporated into the soil using a number of different tillage implements (chisel plow, disk, or field cultivator) or it is applied to the soil s surface and not incorporated. Surface applications of manure have been shown to increase nitrogen and phosphorus runoff to rivers and streams, while injection/incorporation places manure below the surface where it doesn t interact with runoff water during storms. However, on steep slopes tilling in manure can make the soil more susceptible to erosion. For many livestock operations in the Yahara, manure incorporation is a standard practice. Traditional incorporation methods move a great deal of soil and increase the potential for soil erosion. Field evaluations conducted by the Yahara Pride Certification Program during the spring of 2013 and 2014 identified reducing soil erosion as a high priority. Since much of the tillage was conducted to incorporate manure, a system of incorporating manure with minimal soil disturbance needs to be implemented in the watershed. Minimum disturbance equipment also works well with no-till planting farming systems and allows farmers to experiment with new methods of preserving nitrogen and phosphorus to save on fertilizer costs. In addition to the economic benefits, improved manure utilization benefits the environment by ensuring efficient nutrient use and improving soil and water quality. In 2013 the Yahara Pride Farms was one of the first groups in Wisconsin to experiment with vertical manure injection (VMI). VMI is a relatively new farming system that incorporates manure into the soil with minimal soil disturbance. This system uses a single large fluted coulter to cut crop residue and open a channel in the soil surface for manure placement. Significantly less soil disturbance occurs with this process than with either chisel or chisel/disk incorporation. To encourage farmers to try this new incorporation system, the Yahara Pride Farmers Board worked with VTI of Washington Iowa and a local equipment dealer to outfit a manure tanker with the VTI injection system. During 2015 there were some challenges with renting a tractor and manure tanker in the watershed and YPF s and the equipment supplier were forced to modify the program. In 2015 the manure application program was modified to include any manure application equipment that was defined as low disturbance (Low Disturbance Manure Injection LDMI). Participants in the program were either farmers who had purchased LDMI equipment, or were hiring a custom operator who had LDMI equipment. For 2015 YPF s had four farms cooperated in the LDMI program. The cost share program was modified to provide $15 per acre with a 50-acre maximum payment ($750 maximum). The four farms used the equipment in 32 separate fields, which totaled 566 tillable acres. There was additional manure applied using this equipment, but some of that land was out of the Yahara Watershed. The data contained in the tables on pages 8 and 9 are from the fields within the Yahara Watershed. 6

7 Estimates for reductions in phosphorus loss were conducted using crop rotation, tillage practices and manure application data provided by farmers in the watershed. The tables on pages 8 and 9 are a summary of the SNAP data collected from these operations and contains the information for all of the cooperating farms. Four farmers worked with the low disturbance manure incorporation equipment on approximately 566 acres. This is a significant decrease in acres over what was done in 2014 (848 acres). There still is a significant interest in using this equipment and over the past few years a few farmers and custom operators have purchased the equipment for use within the watershed. As seen in the tables on pages 8 and 9, Yahara Pride was able to obtain comparable SNAP data on all of the 32 fields where manure was injected. In 2013 VMI was the only program where every field showed a reduction in potential phosphorus loss. This was not true for the 2014-cropping season where we had one field that showed an increase in the risk of phosphorus loss with VMI. When we evaluate the 32 fields in the program in 2015, the range in phosphorus reduction was from -0.6 to 5.9 lbs/acre. This is a field with a fairly high estimated annual phosphorus loss with most of those losses coming in the form of particulate phosphorus. The greatest potential for reducing losses occurs in intensive tillage farming systems with high rates of manure applied. These types of farming systems typically use either fall or spring chisel/disk tillage. LDMI has minimal impact on soluble loss and in most cases the risk for loss increases. This may have more to do with the calibration and operation of the model than in the field, because those who have used LDMI notice that the manure is well injected into the soil. The estimated annual phosphorus loss was reduced by (-0.6) to 5.9 lbs/acre through this manure application system, with the 2015 average reduction of 1.7 lbs per acre. Based on the 2015 field data, the LDMI cost share program reduced phosphorus loss by 1,080 lbs. The average reduction in phosphorus was calculated to be 1.7 lbs/acre, and efforts should be directed on farms/fields with high potential for soil loss (based on slope and tillage). This year's phosphorus reduction = 1,080 lbs Cost per pound of P reduced this year = $15 / acres divided by 1.7 lbs / acre average phosphorus reduction = $ 8.82 / lb. Total investment by Yahara WINS in LDMI Program = $ 2,100 Total acres planted with the LDMI system = 566 acres Total acres cost shared = 140 acres Acres planted without cost share in watershed = 426 acres 7

8 2015*Phosphorus*Report*N*LDMI Acres Soil*Type Soil* Symbol Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Without*LDMI With*LDMI Rotat.*** Annual* Rotat.** Annual* Part.* Part.* * * change* per*acre change*for* field ********* ********* ********* ********* ************ 6.3 Batavia BbA 1% ************ 8.6 Troxel TrB 2% ********* 20.0 St*Charles ScB 3% ********* 13.5 Dresden DsC2 4% ********* 38.8 Plano PnB 4% ********* 26.5 Plano PoB 4% ********* 19.2 St*Charles ScB 4% ********* 10.2 Batavia BbB 4% ************ 8.7 Batavia BbB 4% ********* 24.4 Batavia BbB 5% ************ 9.0 Kidder KdC2 7% ********* 13.1 Kidder KdD2 7% ********* 15.5 Kidder KdC2 8% B. 8

9 2015*Phosphorus*Report*N*LDMI Acres Soil*Type Soil* Symbol Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Without*LDMI With*LDMI Rotat.*** Annual* Rotat.** Annual* Part.* Part.* * * change* per*acre change*for* field ********* 16.0 Dresden DrD2 9% ********* 13.5 Kidder KdC2 9% ********* 11.0 Kidder KdC2 9% ********* 80.0 Ringwood RnB 9% ************ 7.4 Warsaw WrC2 9% ************ 9.8 Ringwood RnC2 9% N0.6 N5.9 ********* 12.2 Dodge DnC2 9% ********* 18.0 Kidder KdC2 9% ********* 14.5 Dodge DnC2 10% ********* 11.5 St*Charles ScB 16% ********* 29.9 Dodge DnC2 16% ********* 10.3 Plano PnB 16% ********* ************ ********* 17.1 Dodge DnC2 28% *fields (N.6)*N*5.9* Average Acres 1,080.1 ***** Lbs*P*N*Total Median Range 9

10 C. Cover Crop Assistance Program: Cover crops are grasses, legumes, small grains or other crops grown between regular grain crop production periods for the purpose of protecting and improving the soil. The most common cover crops are fall-seeded cereals, such as rye, barley or wheat, and fall-seeded annual ryegrass. Late summer-seeded spring oats are sometimes used, even though they winterkill. One of the two major reasons for growing winter cover crops is to reduce soil erosion. In the Yahara Watershed a significant amount of the tillable acres has sufficient slope to be at risk for erosion if not adequately protected. Eroding soil particles not only fill in wetlands and streams, but they also carry particulate bound phosphorus to surface water. Based on the data collected by the Yahara Pride Farms during the spring of 2013 and 2014, the use of cover crops need to be targeted to specific fields and farming systems. Cover crops have a high potential to reduce phosphorus loss on fields being harvested as corn silage with manure incorporated in the late summer or fall. Research has shown that fields with winter cover incorporated in the spring have 55 percent less water runoff and 50 percent less soil loss annually than do fields with no winter cover. More recent studies show soil losses from corn or soybeans notilled into a vigorous growth of rye or wheat to be percent less than soil losses from corn and soybeans conventionally tilled. The Yahara Pride Farms began working with cover crops as a demonstration program in The program got a fair amount of publicity and recognition and other farmers within the watershed became interested in cooperating because of the ease of getting into the program. The table below shows the changes in participation over the past three years: farms 37 farms 35 farms 80 fields 53 fields (in SNAP) 160 fields (in SNAP) 2,382 acres 4,732 acres 4,908 acres Range - P reduction (-3.1 to 6.2) Range P reduction (-0.6 to 6.2) Range P reduction (-1.0 to 13.4) Average 1.0 lbs / acre Average 0.8 lbs / acre Average 1.8 lbs / acre Total P reduction 1,957 lbs Total P reduction 3,786 lbs Total P reduction 6,572 lbs While not all the fields in the watershed planted into cover crops can be attributed to the Yahara Pride Farms program, it is clear that cover crops are becoming a recognized and accepted practice in the watershed. There are still a number of important considerations that need to be evaluated and addressed in regards to cover crops in this region of the state. Some of these include the crops planted, the timing of planting, targeting fields that have the greatest potential for nutrient and sediment loss and targeting farming systems that have the greatest potential for nutrient and sediment loss. In 2015 YPF s worked with local crop consultants to get the information required to calculate the potential environmental benefits of all three cost shared practices. The information on the following 10

11 pages for the cover crop program shows that this year there were 160 fields with crop rotations and farming systems in the SNAP format. This represented about 75% of the total acres planted with cover crops, though most of these acres were not cost shared. For the final calculation of phosphorus reductions the average reduction in phosphorus loss (1.8 lbs/acre) was multiplied by the acres of cover crops where we did not have SNAP data (about 25% of the land). Of the 35 farms participating in the program, SNAP data was collected from 29 farms. This wide range of farms and farming systems improves our understanding of the potential for cover crops to reduce phosphorus loss. Based on the 160 fields with data, the estimated annual phosphorus loss was reduced in the range of -1.0 to 13.4 lbs/acre by the adoption of planting cover crops, with an average reduction of 1.8 lbs per acre. This is significantly higher than past years, which maybe because of the size and the wide variation in farming systems contained in the data set. The 2015 data had 75% of the cover crop acres and 83% of the farms provided a current SNAP plan. Based on the field data collected during the 2015 seasons, the cover crop incentive demonstration program reduced phosphorus loss by 6,572 pounds in This reduction in the potential phosphorus delivery to surface water was a 73.6% increase over the 2014 cover crop program. The average reduction in phosphorus was calculated to be 1.8 lbs/acre, and efforts should be directed on farms/fields with high potential for soil loss (based on slope and tillage). This year's phosphorus reduction = 6,572 lbs Cost per pound of P reduced this year = $40 / acres divided by 1.8 lbs / acre average phosphorus reduction = $ / lb. Cost share program sponsored at $40 / acre for a maximum of 50 acres Total acres planted using a cover crop system = 4,908 acres Total estimated acres cost shared = 1,390 acres Acres planted without cost share in watershed = 3,518 acres 28.3% of the acres planted to cover crops on YPF s land were cost shared 11

12 2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops Acres Soil*Type Soil* Symbol Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Rotat.*** Without*Cover*Crop With*Cover*Crop Annual* Part.* * Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * change*per* acre change*for* field 8.7 Sable SaA 1% ******************* Sable* SaA 1% ******************* Grays GsB 1% ******************* ******************* ******************* ******************* J0.2 J******************* Plano PlA 1% ***************** Plano PlA 1% J ******************* Plano PlA 1% J ******************* 16.1 Plano PoA 1% ******************* Houghton Ho 1% J ******************* 34.0 Plano PnA 1% ***************** Plano PlA 1% ***************** Plano PmA 1% J ******************* 18.0 Plano PlA 1% J0.1 J******************* Orion*Variant Os 1% ***************** Plano PmA 1% J0.1 J******************* Hayfield HaA 1.50% J ******************* 16.0 Elburn EoA 1.50% ******************* Kegonsa KeB 2% ******************* Kegonsa KeB 2% ***************** Troxel TrB 2% ***************** Kegonsa KeB 2% ******************* Troxel TrB 2% ******************* Troxel TrB 2% ***************** Radford RaA 2% ***************** Plano PnB 2% *******************

13 Acres Soil*Type Soil* Symbol 2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Rotat.*** Without*Cover*Crop With*Cover*Crop Annual* Part.* * Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * change*per* acre change*for* field 14.0 Elburn EfB 2.50% ***************** Elburn EfB 2.50% ***************** Virgil VrB 2.50% ******************* Elburn EfB 2.5% ******************* Elburn EfB 2.50% *************** Plano PnA 4% ***************** Boyer BoB 4% J ******************* 12.5 Dodge DnB 4% ******************* Ringwood RnB 4% J ******************* 9.0 Mchenry MdC2 4% ******************* Batavia BbB 4% ***************** St*Charles ScB 4% ***************** St*Charles ScB 4% J0.1 J******************* Kidder KrD2 4% ******************* Ringwood RnB 4% J ******************* 4.0 Ringwood RnB 4% ******************* Ringwood RnB 4% ******************* Batavia BbB 4% ******************* Dresden DsB 4% ******************* Dodge DnB 4% ***************** Batavia BbB 4% ***************** Plano PnB 4% ******************* Ringwood RnB 4% ***************** Plano PnB 4% ***************** Plano PoB 4% *************** Plano PnB 4% J0.1 J******************* Batavia* BbB 4% ***************** Dresden DsB 4% J0.2 J***************** Plano PlB 4% J0.1 J***************** Plano PmB 4% *******************

14 Soil*Type Soil* Symbol 2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Rotat.*** Without*Cover*Crop With*Cover*Crop Annual* Part.* * Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * change*per* acre change*for* field 87.0 Dresden DsB 4% J ******************* 9.9 Plano PnB 4% ***************** Wacousta Wa 4% ***************** Wacousta Wa 4% ***************** Wacousta Wa 4% ***************** Elburn EgA 4% *************** Plano PoB 4% ******************* Plano PoB 4% ******************* Batavia BbB 4% ***************** Batavia BbB 4% ******************* St*Charles SaB 4% J0.2 J******************* Batavia BbB 4% J ******************* 10.2 Batavia BbB 4% ***************** Kidder KeB2 4% ***************** St*Charles SaB 4% J ******************* 53.0 Plano PlB 4% J ******************* 95.0 Troxel TrA 5% J0.1 J******************* Batavia BbB 5% ***************** St*Charles ScB 5% ***************** Mchenry MdD2 6% ***************** Batavia BbB 7% J0.1 J******************* Batavia BbB 7% ***************** Kidder KdC2 8% ***************** Kidder KdC2 8% J ******************* 16.0 Dodge DnC2 8% ***************** Dresden DsC2 8% *************** St*Charles ScC2 9% ***************** Plano PnB 9% ***************** St*Charles ScB 9% ***************** Sable SaA 9% *******************

15 Soil*Type Soil* Symbol 2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Rotat.*** Without*Cover*Crop With*Cover*Crop Annual* Part.* * Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * change*per* acre change*for* field 14.6 Dresden DsC2 9% ***************** Warsaw WrC2 9% ***************** Ringwood RnC2 9% ******************* Kidder KdC2 9% ***************** Ringwood RnB 9% ******************* Mchenry MdC2 9% ***************** Dresden DsC2 9% ***************** Dresden DsC2 9% ******************* Dresden DsC2 9% ******************* Whalan WxC2 9% ***************** Dresden DsC2 9% ***************** Mchenry MdC2 9% ***************** Dodge DnC2 9% ***************** Mchenry MdC2 9% ***************** Plano PnC2 9% ******************* Dodge DnC2 9% ******************* Plano PnC2 9% J0.1 J******************* Plano PnC2 9% ******************* Rockton RoC2 9% *************** Batavia BbA 9% J ******************* 18.1 St*Charles ScB 9% ******************* Ringwood RnC2 9% J0.8 J***************** St*Charles ScB 9% ******************* Elburn EgA 9% ***************** Ringwood RnC2 9% *************** Plano PnC2 9% ***************** Dodge DnC2 9% ***************** Griswold GwC 9% ******************* Edmund EdC2 9% ******************* Mchenry MdD2 9% J0.1 J*******************

16 Soil*Type Soil* Symbol 2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Rotat.*** Without*Cover*Crop Annual* Part.* * With*Cover*Crop Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * change*per* acre change*for* field 9.5 Ringwood RnC2 9% ***************** Mchenry MdC2 9% ***************** Ringwood RnC2 9% ***************** Dresden DsC2 9% ***************** Dodge DnC2 9% ***************** Kidder KdC2 9% ***************** Dodge DnC2 10% ***************** Kidder KdC2 13% ***************** Kidder KrD2 15% ******************* Kidder KrD2 15% ***************** Kidder KrD2 15% ******************* Griswold GWD2 16% ***************** Griswold GWD2 16% ******************* Griswold GWD2 16% ******************* Dresden DsB 16% ******************* St*Charles ScC2 16% ***************** Ringwood RnB 16% ***************** St*Charles ScB 16% ***************** Dresden DsB 16% J0.3 J******************* Dunbarton DuD2 16% J1 J***************** Boyer BoD2 16% *************** Mchenry MdD2 16% ***************** Mchenry MdD2 16% ******************* Kidder KrE2 16% ******************* Kidder KrE2 16% ******************* Kidder KrE2 16% ******************* Kidder KrE2 16% ******************* Kidder KrE2 16% ***************** Whalan WxD2 16% ******************* Whalan WxD2 16% *****************

17 Soil*Type Soil* Symbol Slope* Soil*Test* P*PPM Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * Rotat.*** Annual* Part.* * change*per* acre change*for* field 27.2 Mchenry MdD2 16% ***************** Mchenry* MdD2 16% ***************** Mchenry* MdD2 16% ******************* Mchenry MdD2 16% ***************** St*Charles ScB 16% ***************** Dodge DnC2 16% *************** Plano PnB 16% *************** Mchenry MdD2 16% ***************** Dresden DrD2 16% ******************* Whalan WxD2 16% J ******************* 1.6 Kidder KrE % ******************* Dodge DnC2 28% *************** No*SNAP* ************ 1, No*SNAP* *************** No*SNAP* *************** No*SNAP* *************** *************** No*SNAP* 2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops Without*Cover*Crop With*Cover*Crop 30 No*SNAP* ***************** No*SNAP* ***************** Average ***** 4,908.1 Total*Acres 0.75 Median (J1)*J*13.4*lbs Range ***** 3,688.1 SNAP*Acres 75% ************ 6,572.2 Lbs*P*J*Total 17

18 D. Combined Practices The assistance of the local crop advisors provided use with an adequate data set so that we could evaluate How does stacking different best management practices impact the potential for phosphorus loss? This question could have been evaluated on many fields, but it was only after some of the initial calculations were completed that the author thought about running those comparisons. Therefore, the data contained on pages 19 and 20 are a sampling of how stacking different best management practices can potentially reduce phosphorus loss. For the purposes of the discussion, the three cost shared practices (cover crops, low disturbance manure injection and strip tillage) were evaluated on fields that had multiple practices applied. The 2015 data set did not contain any fields that had all three practices, but this data set contains a total of 34 fields that had two of the three practices. The tables on pages 19 and 20 contain all the data for these fields. The 34 fields totaled 1,606.5 tillable acres. The range in estimated phosphorus reduction for these fields was -0.3 to 8.7 lbs per acres. Of the 34 fields only one showed a negative potential phosphorus reduction. The average for these fields was 2.14 lbs per acre. The summary table showing the 2015 critical data for the three practices, the combined practices and the use of practices for multiple years are on page 21. However, it is important to note here that combining practices yields had a higher average (2.14 lbs per acre) than any one of the practices (strip tillage = 0.8; LDMI = 1.7; and cover crops = 1.8 lbs per acre). This information is exactly what the YPF s board had expected but had never calculated. To determine the impact of more than one best management practices, the author first ran the SNAP calculation with all the practices in place. Then one practice was removed from the field and the numbers were entered into the table for that practice. Then that practice was added back to the field and the second practice was removed. Those numbers were entered into the spreadsheet for that practice. Finally both best management practices were removed from the field and the impact on the potential phosphorus loss was recorded. The data contained in the tables on pages 19 and 20 are from only one year with both practices. The potential impact of continuing a practice for several years was calculated in section E. However, it is important to note that if a farm plants a cover crop on a field coming out of corn silage and continues to do this year after year, there is a tremendous potential to reduce phosphorus loss. 18

19 19

20 20

21 E. Multiple Years of Best Management Practices One last question that needs further evaluation is How important are multiple years of practice implementation? In other words, instead of thinking about cost sharing a practice for several years, what happens if the practice becomes an integral part of the farming system? That s what happened on many farms that experimented with no-till. The first few years were often challenging, but the farmers determined that the benefits to this farming system out-weighed the negatives and they worked to perfect the system on their farms. This question didn t occur to the author until late in the study, so most of the cooperators were not evaluated for multiple years of BMP s. There is no doubt that there were many more fields and acres that should have been part of this paper, but by the time this occurred to the author most of the farms and fields were completed. Therefore, this data set contains only 10 fields with a total of acres. To show the impact of both multiple years and combining practices, the following table was constructed: LDMI Strip Tillage Cover Crops Combined Practices Multiple Years of Practice Fields Acres 566 1, ,908 1, Range in P -0.6 to to to to reduction/acre Average P reduction/acre Total P Reduction 1, ,572 1, Each of the three cost shared practices does a good job or reducing the potential for phosphorus loss in any given year. However, when you combine practices, there is an increase in the potential to reduce phosphorus loss from most fields. This increase is even greater when a farmer continues to use a practice for several years in a row. The ten fields in this group were all corn silage that had a cover crop planted on it for either 5 or 6 years in a row. The cover crop and the change in tillage because of the cover crop had a dramatic impact on the potential for phosphorus loss. None of the 10 fields in this year s data had an increased potential for phosphorus loss. 21

22 2015 Phosphorus Report - Multiple Years Without BMP With several years of BMP Acres Soil Type Soil Symbol Slope Soil Test P PPM Rotat. Annual Part. Soluble Rotat. Annual Part. Soluble Annual P change per acre Annual P change for field Years Used in Calculation 7.5 Houghton Ho 1% Kegonsa KeB 2% Radford RaA 2% Wacousta Wa 4% Wacousta Wa 4% Wacousta Wa 4% Batavia BbB 4% Elburn EgA 4% Elburn EgA 9% Dresden DsC2 9% fields Acres Lbs P Total Average Median Range 22