Agricultural Financing Forum: Show Me The Money

Transcription

1 Agricultural Financing Forum: Show Me The Money January 30, 2014 Yoder s Market, Lancaster-area New Holland, Pennsylvania 14 S Tower Rd, New Holland, PA am - 10:05 10:05-10:35 10:35-11:25 11:25-11:35 11:35-12pm 12-12:45 12:45-1pm Welcome and Opening Remarks Environmental Finance Center (EFC) and Lancaster County Conservation District Financing through Nutrient Management Manure Injection and No-Till Practices that Yield Cost Savings Nutrient Management Credit available Jeff Graybill, PA Extension Federal and State Funding and Tax Credit Programs for Farmers Practices that Improve Water Quality with Public Support Stream fencing, practices to control erosion and improve water quality, Environmental Quality Incentives Programs (EQIP) and other incentive programs Heather Grove, USDA Natural Resource Conservation District Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and conservation loan programs Julie Holland, USDA Farm Service Agency PA Programs: State loans and grants Brion Johnson, PennVest Transferable tax credit program, REAP Joel Simke, PA State Conservation Commission Q & A Practices that Improve Water Quality with Private Support Return on Investment for Buffers Ashley Spotts, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Conservation Districts as Linkage to The Money Don McNutt, Lancaster Conservation District LUNCH Conservation Districts as Linkage to The Money (continued) Stream Channel Restoration and Permitting Matt Kofroth, Lancaster Conservation District Continued on next page

2 1pm -1:50 (Continued) Agricultural Financing Forum: Show Me The Money January 30, 2014 Local Funding Resources: Round Table Discussion Roger Rohrer, Fulton Bank Amanda Ramer, Mid Atlantic Farm Credit Jeff Swinehart, Lancaster Farmland Trust Matt Knepper, Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program Lyle Hosler, Lancaster Economic Development 1:50-2:15 2:15-2:30 2:30-3pm 3pm Panel - What is the Role of the Shepherd? - Linking Farmers to Money and Practices Moderator: Don McNutt, Lancaster Conservation District Peter Hughes, Red Barn Jeremy Weaver, Team Ag Bill Rogers, AET Consulting On the Horizon Practices in the Future for Savings - Maure to Energy, Biodigesters, others Don McNutt, Lancaster Conservation District Questions from the audience Don McNutt, Lancaster Conservation District Jill Jefferson, Environmental Finance Center Wrap Up - Environmental Finance Center 1.0 Nutrient Credit Points available for full participation 10 AM - 3 PM Thank you to our Sponsors for supporting this workshop

3 No-till, Nitrogen and Manure Management Jeffrey Graybill, MS, CCA Penn State Extension Lancaster County, PA

4 No-Till is here to Stay!! It works!! In 2009: 1.25 Million acres of row crops! 57.7% no-till " 770,000 a. of corn " 315,000 a. of beans " 110,000 a. of wheat " 36% of alfalfa seeding! Savings in Time,& Labor! Benefits: Erosion, Tilth, OM, Yield?

5 Manure is a valuable resource! (but is it here to stay?)! Raises OM in soils " Improves water holding capacity " Increases CEC and natural fertility " Improves soil structure! Adds Macro nutrients " N, P, K, Mg, Ca, S, Cl! Adds Micro nutrients " B, Zn, Mo, Fe, Mn, Co, " Great micro package

6 And We have a lot of it!! Cow 54.0 Billion # of raw manure! Hefiers 8.5 B.! Beef 4.0 B.! Hogs 5.4 B.! Layers 1.8 B.! Broiler 3.0 B.! Total production in PA: 38.4 Million Tons* *Graybill estimate using 2007 Ag Statistics

7 Pennsylvania Manure Production By Region 1990 Crop Reporting Service Data

8 Average Daily Production and Total Nutrient Content of Manure Agronomy Guide Table !!!! Manure!%!! Analysis!!! Animal!type! Daily!production! dry!matter! units!! N!!!!!!!!!P 2 O 5! K 2 O! Comments! Dairy&cattle&! Lactating!Cows,!Liquid!13!gal/AU/day! <5%! lb/1,000!gal! 28! 13! 25! Production!does!not!include!dilution.!Analysis!includes!dilution!to!!!!!!!!!!!! approximately!5%!solids.& & Lactating&Cows,&Solid& 106&lb/AU/day& 12& lb/ton& & 10& 4& 8& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & Dry&Cow& 82&lb/AU/day& & & lb/ton& & 9& 3& 7& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & Calf&and&Heifer& 87&lb/AU/day& & & lb/ton& & 7& 2& 7& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & & & & & & & & & Veal& 3.5&gal/AU/day& 4& lb/1,000&gal& 36& 27& 55&& Production&and&analysis&do&&not&include&dilution.& & Beef&cattle& & Cow&and&Calf& 60&lb/AU/day& & 12& lb/ton& & 11& 7& 10&& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & Calf& 60&lb/AU/day& & 12& lb/ton& & 11& 7& 10&& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & Steer& 75&lb/AU/day& & 8& lb/ton& & 14& 5& 8& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & & Swine& & & & & & & & & These&comments&apply&to&all&swine&categories:& & Gestation& 4&gal/AU/day& & 4& lb/1,000&gal& 30& 35& 15& Production&includes&a&typical&amount&of&inQbarn&dilution&& & Lactation& 10&gal/AU/day& 2& lb/1,000&gal& 25& 20& 15&& water&but&not&rainfall&for&an&outdoor&storage& & Nursery& 14&gal/AU/day& 6& lb/1,000&gal& 40& 40& 25&& Analysis&includes&dilution&to&approximately& & GrowQfinish& 11&gal/AU/day& 7& lb/1,000&gal& 50& 55& 25& the&%&dry&matter&indicated.& & Farrow&to&Feeder& 7&gal/AU/day& & 4& lb/1,000&gal& 40& 35& 15& & Swine,&anaerobic&lagoon&& & & & & & & & & These&figures&apply&only&to&a&treatment&lagoon.& & Supernatant& & & 0.25& lb/1,000&gal& 2.9& 0.6& 3.2& & Sludge& & & 7.6& lb/1,000&gal& 25& 23& 63& & Sheep& 40&lb/AU/day& & 25& lb/ton& & 23& 8& 20& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & Horse& 45&lb/AU/day& & 20& lb/ton& & 12& 5& 9&& No&bedding&included&in&production&or&analysis&figures.& & Poultry& Layer&(364&d) 1 & 26&lb/AU/day& & 41& lb/ton&& & 37& 55&& 31& & Pullet&&(126&d) &1 & 48&lb/AU/day& & 35& lb/ton&& & 43& 46& 26& Light&Broiler&(44&d) &1 & 22&lb/AU/day& & 34& lb/ton& & 79& 62& 42& Production&and&analysis&figures&include&litter.& Heavy&Broiler&(57&d) &1 & 20&lb/AU/day& & 25& lb/ton& & 66& 63& 47& Production&and&analysis&figures&include&litter.& Turkey&(tom)&(123&d) &1 & 13&lb/AU/day& & 60& lb/ton&& & 52& 76& 42& Production&and&analysis&figures&include&litter.& Turkey&(hen)&(88&d) &1 & 11&lb/AU/day& & 65& lb/ton& & 73& 88& 46 & Production&and&analysis&figures&include&litter.& & & & & 1 &Typical&production&days& &

9 Manure provides a lot of Nitrogen However, N is a slippery beast most of it is lost! " Form of N varies with type of manure " Mineral forms vs. Organic forms " Availability varies " w/ time of application " w/ handling practices " Lost N has negative consequences " Agronomic, Economic, & Environmental

10 Manure Nitrogen Availability Agronomy Guide Table Planned Manure Application Season Planned Manure Target Crop Utilization Application Management Nitrogen Availability Factor 1 Poultry Manure Swine Manure Other Manure Spring or Summer Spring utilization by grass hay and small grains Summer utilization by corn, other summer annuals and grass hay Summer utilization by grass hay Incorporation the same day Incorporation within 1 day Incorporation within 2-4 days Incorporation within 5-7 days Incorporation after 7 days or no incorporation Early Fall 2 Fall and spring utilization by grass hay and small grains Incorporation within 2 days Incorporation within 3-7 days Incorporation after 7 days or no incorporation Following summer utilization by corn or other summer annuals All situations Late Fall or Winter 3 Spring utilization by small grains and grass hay Following summer utilization by corn or other summer annuals All situations No cover crop Cover crop harvested for silage Cover crop used as green manure Late spring through early fall grazing Manure deposited more less continuously by grazing cattle Grazing Year round grazing Manure deposited more less continuously by grazing cattle

11 Manure Management No-till Tradeoffs! Tillage reduces N volatilization! No till increases N volatilization! Tillage increases erosion & P loss! No-till reduces erosion & P loss! Tillage reduces odor! No-till does not reduce odor! Tillage reduces soluble P loss! No-till increases soluble P loss! Tillage can reduce leaching! No-till can increase leaching! Is there a way to get the benefits of manure incorporation and retain the benefits of no-till?! What are the tradeoffs?

12 Penn State Field Scale Research! 6 Treatments " Broadcast " Disk Injection " Aerator/ Aeroway " Chisel/Disk " DGI Pressure Injection " No Manure! Variables: (Effects on) " Residue " Nitrogen loss at NH4 " Odor " P runoff Not Highlighted " Soil Nutrient Erosion " Nitrate leaching

13 Broadcast application 6000 gal/ac Surface

14 Shallow disk injection 6000 gal/ac 30 in (adjustable) 30 Shallow Disk 4 in

15 Aerator w/banded manure No manure 6000 gal/ac 6 in 3 in 6 in Aerator

16 High pressure injection 6000 gal/ac 6 in 10 in 3 in High Pressure 3 in

17 Rock Springs Trials: Residue ( average) 100 Residue cover (%) Manure 0 No manure Chisel Plow Pressure Disk Inject Aeration Surface

18 Ammonia Loss: more manure on the surface, more ammonia emitted Dairy manure (6,000 gal/ac) Ammonia emission (kg/ha) Chisel Aeroway Disc Injection Manure on soil surface (mg/m 2 ) Broadcast Data courtesy C. Dell, USDA-ARS

19 Alternatives to broadcasting manure in no-till! Generally slower! Require more horsepower (up to 30%)! Equipment costs more! Contract application with injectors costs more! Greater nutrient use efficiency = lower application rates! Can it be competitive economically????

20 Rock Springs Trials: N Loss ( average) Ammonia-N Loss (lbs/ac) % less 84% less 61% less 79% less 24% less No manure Chisel Plow Pressure Disk Inject Aeration Surface Data courtesy C. Dell, USDA-ARS

21 Odor 200 ft Brandt, PSU One Pass with Manure

22 Phosphorus: more on the surface, more dissolved phosphorus in runoff Dissolved P (mg/l) Water extractable P on surface (mg)

23 Rock Springs Trials 2006 and 2007 Total P runoff (lbs/ac) What s up with these two??? No manure Chisel Plow Pressure Disk Inject Aeration Surface

24 Economics $$$ Integrated Farming Systems Model Farm net returen ($/cow) $775 $750 $725 $700 $675 Pennsylvania 100 cow dairy Chisel Plow Disk injection Aeration Surface Data courtesy A. Rotz, USDA-ARS

25 Application Method Comparison Dairy Manure Taller bars are worse except for economics Relative Loss Ammonia Nitrate Phosphorus Sediment Odor Economics 0.00 Surface Chisel Shallow Disk Aerator Application Method

26 : NRCS - CIG Program (Conservation Innovation Grant)! Research taken from university farms into the hinterland! 5 Commercial haulers will receive disk injectors! 5 Counties w/ minimum of 2-3 cooperators each " Berks " Bradford " Franklin " Lancaster Lehman Ag " Dauphin

27 : NRCS - CIG Program! Manure Broadcast vs. Shallow Disk Injection " Replicated strips on corn silage or Grain fields " Manure applied in spring! Parameters measured: " PSNT, Stalk test, Yield, No-till compatibility! This is part of an integrated system " Will include cover crops, N management, ryelage, etc " Soil test nutrient balances will be tracked

28 : NRCS - CIG Program: Lancaster & Dauphin Co.! Manure Broadcast vs. Shallow Disk Injection " Kopp farm: Dauphin Co.- Middletown! 150 cows, Corn grain after Corn grain! Approx. 7,000 gallons broadcast & injected! No additional nutrients " Garman farm: Lancaster Co.- N. Holland! 60 cows, Corn Silage after Soybeans! Approx. 7,500 gallons broadcast & injected! No additional nutrients

29 : NRCS - CIG Program: Lancaster & Dauphin Co.! Manure Broadcast vs. Shallow Disk Injection " Third cooperator added in 2011 " Zimmerman farm: Lancaster Co.- Manheim! 95 cows, 100 acres! Corn silage after Corn silage! Approx. 7,000 gallons broadcast & injected! Rye and Crimson Clover forage! No additional nutrients

30 Shots at Kopp Dairy:

31 Shots at Kopp Dairy:

32 Shots at Kopp Dairy:

33 Shots at Kopp Dairy:! Seeding date: August 25 th! 30% Crimson Clover! 39% Ryegrass! 10% Radish! 15% M. Red Clover! Seeding Rate: 25# acre! 750 acres in 10 mixed success

34 Shots at Kopp Dairy: Fall 2010 Oct 20 th 2010

35 March 28th, & May 12 th, 2011

36 May 12 th, 2011: Injection and broadcasting

37 June 21 st, 2011 (Where is the cover crop?)

38 Kopp Farm: Stalk N near Black Layer 3 reps per treatment each year Kopp$Farm$ Stalk$Nitrate$ (PPM)$ Year% Broadcast% Injected% 2010$ 92$ 156$ 2011$ 118$ 83$ 2012$ 64$ 86$ < 700 low; optimum; > 2000 High

39 Yield Data: Kopp Farm (7,000 Gallon & No additional N all years, cover crop 2011 only) Kopp$Farm$Grain$Yield$ (Bu/acre),$(%$Mst)$ $ Year% Broadcast% Injected% 2010$ 118$Bu$ 16.5$%$ 123$Bu$ 16.0$%$ 2011$ 152$Bu$ 24.7$%$ 157$Bu$ 24.1$%$ 2012$ 178$Bu$ 27.7$%$ 173$bu$ 27.7$%$

40 2010 Yield Data from the Kopp Farm (7,000 G. & No additional N both years) Ron$Kopp$PlotL$Manure$InjecOon$Study$ harvest%date:%% % %% % % % Raw% Dry$yield$ %% length% weight% %H2O% Yield:%Bu/a% Bu/acre$ field%#1%44%north4%east%side:% $ %% Top:%Injected% 907% 2639% 16.1% 150.9% 149.8$ %% BoKom:%Broadcast% 860% 2013% 16.2% 121.4% 120.4$ Field%#2%44%North4%west%side:% $ %% Top:%Broadcast% 1140% 2893% 16.8% 131.6% 129.6$ %% BoKom:%Injected**% 1295% 2955% 16.4% 118.3% 117.1$ Field%#3%44%South%field:% $ %% Top:%Broadcast% 1114% 2273% 16.8% 105.8% 104.2$ %% BoKom:%Injected% 1330% 2651% 15.5% 103.4% 103.4$ **%rows%ran%together%several%places%and%had%some%planqng%issues%in%1%row.% %% $$ Yield$@$15.5%$ Averages:$ Bu/acre$ $ $$ Broadcast$ 118.0% $$ Injected$ 123.4%

41 2011 Yield Data from the Kopp Farm (7,000 G. & No additional N both years) (Aggressive Cover Crop in 2011) Stoney%Lawn%Farms%%2011%harvest% Grain%% Yield%@%15.5%%4Bu/a% Hvst%Moisture4%%% Yields% Inject% Broadcast% Inject% Broadcast% Field%#1% 159.3% 145.8% 23.4% 24.4% %% % % Field%#2% 163.5% 155% 24.2% 25.2% %% % % Field%#3% 148.1% 154.8% 24.8% 24.6% Average% $ $ 24.13$ 24.73$ 5%bu%X%7.00%=%%$35.00%extra!!%

42 Shots at the Garman Farm

43 Shots at the Garman Farm

44 Shots at the Garman Farm

45 Shots at the Garman Farm: Oct 13

46 Test field March 8 th, 2011

47 Crimson Clover Silage May 9 th, 2011 (21% CP, 26% ADF, 34.5% NDF 185 RFV)

48 Application following forage harvest

49 Garman Farm ( stalk nitrate near black layer data), (7,000 Gallon, No N, legume cover crop 2011 only) Garman$Farm$Stalk$ Nitrate$(PPM)$ year% Broadcast% Injected% 2010$ 599$ 3860$ 2011$ 4717$ 8000$ 2012$ 232$ 534$ Garman$Farm$Silage$ Yield$(t/a)$ Rep% Broadcast% Injected% 2010$ 21.1$ 21.8$ 2011$ 18.7$ 18.5$ 2012$ 17.0$ 17.1$ < 700 low; optimum; > 2000 High

50 Zimmerman farm, Manheim

51 Zimmerman Yields: 2011 Yields: T/Acre Treat averages 1 Injected a 2 Broadcast a 2012 Yields: Bu/acre Treat averages 1 broadcast injected

52 Thoughts:! Concentrated band of manure " Dairy manure stimulated root growth " What about nutrient stratification " What about hog manure! Equipment performance " Minimal soil disturbance " Could easily no-till with well equipped planter " Thick manure can be a problem " Maintenance? Time management? Cost?

53 Thoughts:! Steve Lehman s Thoughts " Can it be Cost Competitive? " Application Time! Depends on field dimensions! Broadcast: 3-5 mph! Inject: 6-8 mph! Actual emptying time is the same!! Estimate about 25% longer on medium field " With experience costs will come down " Has done several commercial fields (Duck, Hog & Dairy) " May be even better with Hog manure?! Yes it can!!

54 Franklin Co 3 farms all saw benefits in 2012! Farm bu/a better grain harvest for injection plots (145.2 vs bu/a)! Farm T/A better for injection. However yields at this farm were low (13.9 T/A vs 12.3 T/A) so water probably limited growth. Late planting and poor canopy lead to weed competition. Perhaps injected manure held more moisture here.! Farm T/A better for injection (20.9 vs 18.9 T/A). Yields were better here. Corn planted earlier than at Farm 2.

55 2012 Berks Co 1 farm had higher yield on broadcast (13.3 T/A) vs inject (13.0 T/A). These low yields should help indicate that the limiting factor here was probably water. Possible reasons for lower yield with injection plots: Roots did not reach banded nutrient zone The opening slot could dry soil

56 2013 Farm Information! 2013 Lancaster County CIG-NFWF Cooperator Contacts! Steve Harnish - dairy; Joel Harnish - crops/manure; Andy Harnish - Business! FARM LOCATION: Blue rock Road, Washington Boro, PA! Dave Hess! 549 Second Lock Rd, Lancaster, PA 17603! Lamar Stoner! 100 Marcticville Rd, Lancaster, PA 17603

57 2013 Silage Yield Differences Harnish Farm Average yields from 3 large plots of each treatment Stoner Farm Average yields from 4 large plots of each treatment Inject plot avg = 23.2 T/A Broadcast avg = 21.6 T/A Injection gain = 1.6 T/A Inject plot avg = 22.6 T/A Broadcast avg = 20.9 T/A Injection gain = 1.7 T/A Corn%Stalk%Nitrate%Tests%for%all%inject%and%broadcast%plots%at%both%farms%were%in%the%% Low%category,%meaning%that%N%soil%supply%was%inadequate%and%probably%limited%growth.%

58 No-till, Nitrogen and Manure Management Questions? Jeffrey Graybill, MS, CCA Penn State Extension Lancaster County, PA :

59 PA Manure Application Research General Peter Kleinman Doug Beegle - dbb@psu.edu Robb Meinen - rmeinen@das.psu.edu Al Rotz al.rotz@ars.usda.gov Mark Goodson mark.goodson@pa.usda.gov N management Curt Dell - curtis.dell@ars.usda.gov John Schmidt john.schmidt@ars.usda.gov Odor Robin Brandt rcb100@psu.edu Poultry Paul Patterson php1@psu.edu

60 Aerator Swine Manure Application Straight Manure After Angled Manure After

61 Aeration variations Banded Manure After Aerator at 0 angle Banded Manure After Aerator at 10 angle Straight Manure Before Aerator at 0 Angled Manure Before Aerator at 10 angle Courtesy T. Myers, Penn State

62 Aerator Swine Manure Application Yield 2008 (Manure After was banded) 130% 125% Corn%Yield%(bu/A)% 120% 115% 110% 105% 100% Aerway%Angled% Manure%A]er% Aerway%Angled% Manure%Before% Aerway%Straight% Manure%A]er% Aerway%Straight% Manure%Before% Surface% Myers, PSU & ARS

63 Aerator Swine Manure Application Ammonia Loss Ammonia Volatilization (lb/a) Aerway Angled Manure After Aerway Angled Manure Before Aerway Straight Manure After Aerway Straight Manure Before Surface Myers, PSU & ARS

64 No-till Litter Injection mg N m -2 h * Maryland Rainfall simulation Subsurface application Surface application No litter Rainfall simulations 0 * * * * * Days after application mg N m -2 h * Pennsylvania Rainfall simulation Days after application Subsurface application Surface application PSU & ARS

65 Equipment for perennial forages Sleight foot Shallow injection Trailing hose Eco slit Trailing shoe Aerator High pressure

66 Ammonia Volatilization " Urea containing sources (Urea, UAN, manure) are susceptible to significant volatilization losses from the soil surface! 30% loss from urea possible within 1 week! Most of the loss is in the first 48 hours! ~$50 worth of N " Tillage, ½ in. soaking rain! Timing is critical " Most of the loss is in the first 48 hours! Coordinate fertilizer/manure application and tillage/rain

67 Ammonia Volatilization! Application Methods " Injection! Economics can be positive! Less soil disturbance than tillage No-till! Time required is a concern! Combined with planting works very well " Banding " 4-6 in. from the row! Surface banding usually reduces volatilization significantly compared to broadcasting " Surface dribbling, almost as good as injection " Alternative to injecting with planter

68 N Fertilizer Additives! Urease Inhibitors " Reduces volatilization losses from unincorporated urea N! Buys time for incorporation or rainfall! Usually 10 to 14 days! Depends on rate " Can be used with Urea and UAN " Less benefit if low potential for volatilization " Agrotain and Nutrisphere " Don t confuse with nitrification inhibitors

69 N Fertilizer Additives! Nitrification Inhibitors " Reduces nitrification! Keeps N in NH 4 + form thus held on CEC! Reduce leaching and denitrification " Especially effective in excessively well and poorly drained soils " Most benefit when N is applied well ahead of crop need (Fall application of NH 3 ) " Nitrapyrin (N-Serve, Instinct ) " DCD (Guardian, Agrotain Plus )

70 N Materials Comparison! Materials " Urea " Ammonium Sulfate! Honeywell " Urea/Ammonium Sulfate 50/50 " ESN! Agrium " Nutrisphere N! Growmark " Super U! Agrotain! Rates " 0 to 250 lb N/A all materials! Locations " Scott Harkcom - Rock Springs " Mike Fritz - Tioga County " Rich Flinchbaugh - York County! Years " 2008 & 2009 " Will be repeated in 2010

71 Yield Relative to Urea at Common Responsive N Rate Average all sites

72 Return to Fertilizer N Economic EONR Average all site

73 N Fertilizer Additives! General Considerations " Urease inhibitors, nitrification inhibitors, and controlled release N fertilizers are legitimate products for managing N behavior! Urease inhibitors reduce volatilization loss from surface applied urea! Nitrification inhibitors can reduce leaching/denitrification losses for N applied far ahead of crop uptake on soils prone to leaching/denitrification loss " However... If the conditions are not there for losses to occur, these products may work perfectly but show no practical benefit " Consider the probability that conditions for a benefit will occur " Consider the expected magnitude of the benefit " Consider the cost of the product and other management

74 Summary Nitrogen Management in No-till! Slower N mineralization " Visual difference but not usually a yield difference! Ammonia Volatilization " Incorporation, dribble, rain, inhibitor! Reduced erosion! Reduced P loss! Manure " Low disturbance injection options

75 2010 Manure Expo Balancing Production and Conservation Thursday, July 15 Ag Progress Days Fairgrounds Pennsylvania Furnace, PA (814) " Robb Meinen, Expo Chair,