Sources of Organic Amendments & Analysis of Nutrients

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Sources of Organic Amendments & Analysis of Nutrients"

Damian Nelson
6 years ago
Views:

1 Sources of Organic Amendments & Analysis of Nutrients Nutrient Smart Organic Amendments March 23, 2018

2 Organic Amendment Options Outline: Organic Amendments compared Nutrients vs organic matter Synergies with other practices? How much can we afford to pay for amendments? New Technologies Opportunities

Decrease/eliminate organics from landfill (MOECC) These initiatives have BMPs

3 Soil Health Strategy Initiatives/Policies: Great Lakes Water Quality (phosphorus reduction) Climate Change (greenhouse gas reduction) Pollinator Health Decrease/eliminate organics from landfill (MOECC) These initiatives have BMPs where increasing SOM as a common denominator BMPs around these issues could have cost-share funding

4 Reality: Soil organic matter levels can not be maintained with crop rotations that include frequent use of soybeans without the use of: More diverse rotations Cover crops and/or Organic Amendments

5 Organic Amendment Synergy Cover Crops without digestate Cover Crops with digestate

6 Approximate Biomass Yield of Three Cover Crop Mixes with and without Organic Amendments Cover Crop With Manure Without Manure Increase from manure Approximate Yield (ton/ac)* Oats Multi-Species Mix: Planted at 40 lbs/ac 33% Oats, 4% Nitro radish, 2% Brassica, 2% Sorghum Sudangrass, 1% Phacelia, 2% Sunflowers, 4% Sun hemp, 5% Turnips, 25% Crimson Clover, 23% Austrian Peas 3 Species Mix: Planted at 30 lbs/ac 14% Nitro Radish, 16% Crimson Clover, 70% Oats % % % * biomass yield that includes top-growth and comparative root mass The above data represents one site one year 3,500 gal/ac digestate was applied in mid-august. Nutrient composition of digestate is similar to hog manure.

7 Different Amendments provide Different Benefits to Soil sugars cellulose proteins hemicellulose polyphenols lignin Cover crops Digestate Manure/Biosolids Compost humus

8 Diversity benefits the soil sugars Bacteria cellulose proteins hemicellulose polyphenols Actinomycetes lignin humus Fungi

9 Building SOM Wake up the soil microbes with: Organic amendments Kallenbach & Grandy (2011) Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 144,

10 Building SOM Organic amendment Plant residues Farm yard manure Cattle manure Poultry manure Swine manure Change does not occur over-night Kallenbach & Grandy (2011) Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 144,

11 Building Healthier Soils with Amendments Soil Water Characteristics Manure on clay loam Poultry Sewage Sludge Straw Alfalfa Anaerobic Digestate (sewage biosolids) % Change compared to control Organic C content Bulk Density "-" "-11 to -28 Aggregate Stability Moisture Content Water Infiltration Neutral Martens And Frankenberger (1992), Kladiviko and Nelson (1979), Lindsay and Logan (1998)

12 Matching Goal with the Right Amendment Goal Build Soil Organic Matter quickly Supply nutrients Improve soil structure quickly Appropriate methods Use stable organic amendment e.g. compost Apply raw or minimally processed waste high in nutrients Plant a legume cover crop (Nitrogen) Add high carbon raw waste Restoratio n of grass or Pasture Graze cover crop rather than till Rotation with high residue crop Appropriate materials Manures Processed wastes Municipal Wastes DDG / FOG Pumice or Fruit culls Vegetable wastes Leaves Liquid Manure Anaerobic Digestate Plant a cover crop Heavily bedded manures Incorporate crop residues Living mulch

13 Organic Amendments: Nutrients or Organic Matter? How long does it take and how much material is required to raise Soil Organic Matter by ~1% Amendment Type Total N (lbs/ton) C:N ratio Application rate (ton/ac) Stable C (lb/ton) % SOM increase 1% SOM (applicatons) N - P K 2 0 (lbs/ac)* (available) High C:N dairy 6 lbs , ,179 High C:N dairy , Mushroom compost , ,143-5,000-9,390 Mushroom compost , Solid Dairy manure , ,160-3,600-6,900 Solid Dairy manure , Leaf/yard compost , ,808-2,315-3,445 Leaf/yard compost , Solid Horse manure , ,836-3,103 Solid Horse manure , *NMAN3 data using average database nutrient values for application 1 x per 3 years for a 180 bu corn crop Materials are not created equally Need to know the nutrient and OM, C:N ratio of the materials being considered.

Categories of Organic Amendments Solid Manures / Biosolids /

carbon/organic matter Unrestricted Compost manure and municipal

environmental risk with application Potential for high ph, high

14 Categories of Organic Amendments Solid Manures / Biosolids / Immature Compost Nutrient rich, Odours, pathogens High carbon/organic matter Unrestricted Compost manure and municipal Liquid Manures / Anaerobic Digestate Available nutrient rich Higher environmental risk with application Potential for high ph, high ammonia, Low carbon/organic matter Processed Biosolids e.g. N-Viro, Pellets, LysteGro Other Biochar

15 Sources of Organic Matter (& Nutrients) Cover crops Manure Biosolids Biosolids Pellets N-Viro Biochar Digestate Lystegro Compost (manure & municipal)

Livestock Manure (Solid) What Is It? Livestock waste with bedding materials (straw, wood chips etc.) Benefits: Available on-farm (livestock neighbours?

16 Livestock Manure (Solid) What Is It? Livestock waste with bedding materials (straw, wood chips etc.) Benefits: Available on-farm (livestock neighbours?) provides many of the required macro and micro nutrients supplies organic matter which will help maintain or improve soil health Challenges: contains odours and pathogens which, can lead to water contamination application to wet soils can cause soil compaction. Nutrient content usually not in proportions needed by crops Application to crops further from manure storage takes time and planning

17 Manure Value Animal Type DM Useable N 1 P K 2 0 Year 1 Value Year 2-4 Value 3 % lbs lbs lbs $ $ Liquid Hog /1000 gal Liquid Dairy /1000 gal Solid Cattle /ton Poultry layers /ton Poultry broilers/ton Sheep /ton Horses /ton Spring applied; incorporated; 40% P in application year; Organic N and 40% P in yr 2-4 Are there opportunities to move/sell manure to fields with higher fertility needs?

18 What Is It? Compost (manure) Material with specific C:N ratio and moisture content that goes through a process of heating, turning and curing provides nutrients and organic matter with reduced volume and odour compared to the original material Benefits: provides many of the required macro and micro nutrients (ration based) Low odour and pathogen content Low risk of nitrogen loss (leaching or volatilzation) supplies organic matter which will help maintain or improve soil health Challenges: Higher labour requirement than with manure Could have odour issues if C:N ratio or moisture content is too high or low

19 Municipal Compost What Is It? Municipal good waste mixed with high carbon materials (ie wood chips) and composted in-vessel, or in windrows, under specific conditions to meet MOE un-restricted compost guidelines Analysis will vary for each facility, depends on process and length of curing. Benefits: High OM product with good balance of available N-P-K and micro nutrients. (Varies with inputs i.e. food waste v.s. leaf-yard waste) Cured compost = low odour & low risk of N loss Uniform application is easier than with most solid manure types Ideally applied once in the rotation (after cereal harvest) at ~10-15 ton/acre

reoccurs when wetted if material is not incorporated Temporary field storage can cause some compaction damage Timing of product

20 Challenges: Municipal Greenbin Compost Low bulk density as low as 20 lbs/cubic foot, makes transport expensive Contaminants plastics Maturity could result in class B compost = NASM 3 = more work Odour - Un-cured or green compost can have a distinct odour that reoccurs when wetted if material is not incorporated Temporary field storage can cause some compaction damage Timing of product availability and application Some variability in product time of year input availability Un-incorporated, surface applied = soluble P runoff risk?

21 Knowing Material Composition is Important AIM Hamilton Try Recycling Compost Analysis Available (lbs/ton) Analysis Available (lbs/ton) Dry Matter % 72 1, ,234 Total Nitrogen % = ~20 NH 4 -N (ppm) = ~5 Phosphorus % (P ) (P ) Potassium % (K 2 0) (K 2 0) Organic Matter % * * ph C:N ratio 12 : 1 17 : 1 Bulk Density 329 kg/m lbs/ft kg/m lbs/ft 3 Sulphur (ppm) EC (conductivity) (ms/cm) Sodium % Aluminum (ppm) Boron (ppm) Calcium (%) Copper (ppm) Iron (ppm) Magnesium (%) Manganese (ppm) Zinc (ppm) * ~20% of OM is assumed stable

22 What is It? Biochar Black carbon material produced from a thermochemical process (pyrolysis) of organic feedstocks Stable, inert material that can adsorb nutrients and increase nutrient retention without carbon release to atmosphere Benefits: Increases water holding capacity when applied at high rates Yield response to biochar when added to fall applied liquid manure: Viscosity (thickness) increased Provides odour control benefit from immobilization of NH 4 -N & NO 3 -N to slow release / could N loss Challenges: Soil applied (without manure) - little impact on biomass grain yield Difficult to handle and apply in a practical operation Composition influenced by feedstock and manufacturing conditions Supply driven by energy industry (carbon offsets) -limited Ontario supply

23 Biochar - Alberta Study Canadian Cattlemans Magazine, June 2017 Reduce methane emissions? Nitrogen and water retention in soil? Nitrous oxide emission reductions?

24 Biochar % Change in manure composition from feeding biochar in livestock rations

25 What Is It? Dried & dewatered sewage biosolids Pulp & paper waste Processing waste Biosolids Benefits: similar to manure from nutrient and organic matter perspective custom applied and applied at no cost for the farm (usually) regulatory changes in application rates set to meet crop needs Challenges: Sewage biosolids contain little or no potash contain trace elements (ie lead, copper) wider setbacks are required from residences and sensitive features setback areas = additional trip with commercial fertilizer regulatory requirements NASM plan required pre-application

26 What Is It? N-Viro Biosolids material processed with kiln dust to provide liming benefit Regulated through CFIA - treated as a fertilizer material Benefits: high calcium and potassium = liming capacity relatively high sulphur content ideal product for sandy soils with low ph regulated through CFIA = product consistency - no NASM plan Challenges: nitrogen contribution and organic matter is relatively low. N-Viro is dusty and should be applied under low wind conditions

27 What Are They? Process - digested sewage to biosolids cake Followed with pelletization (heating and drying) Regulated through CFIA - treated as a fertilizer Benefits: excellent source of OM, N, P and micro-nutrients Biosolids Pellets Regulated through CFIA = product consistency -no need for NASM plan biosolids pellets - Windsor, Detroit and Toronto - similar in nutrients Challenges: Low K = not the product of choice if potash is important requirement Can heat and ignite in storage Water treatment processes result in differences in aluminum, calcium, iron levels which could affect phosphorus availability, in low ph soils Pellets application rate restricted to meet heavy metals limits (~1 T/ha for Toronto pellets)

Label (guaranteed analysis) v.s. real analysis Label: 4.

28 Label (guaranteed analysis) v.s. real analysis Label: Actual: Available:

29 Biosolids Pellets Compared Windsor Toronto Detroit

30 Biosolids Pellets Compared Windsor Toronto Detroit Dry Matter Total N Ammonium N Phosphorus Potassium 3.7 Sulphur Magnesium Manganese Calcium Sodium Organic Matter C:N ph ? ? ,266 1,169 1, :1 6.6 :1 7.6 : lbs/ton

31 Toronto Biosolids Pellets applied at 3 ton/ac

32 Toronto Biosolids Pellets applied at 3 ton/ac

combines sewage biosolids + potassium hydroxide + heat (70 C) + a lysing process Benefits:

high sulphur (~14 lbs) and high organic matter (> 500 lbs) content Custom applied Available N -

33 What Is It? Lystegro Regulated through CFIA - treated as a fertilizer material Patented process that combines sewage biosolids + potassium hydroxide + heat (70 C) + a lysing process Benefits: 14-15% dry matter ~ lbs/1000 gal of available N- P K 2 0 in year of application high sulphur (~14 lbs) and high organic matter (> 500 lbs) content Custom applied Available N - P 2 O 5 - K 2 O - S value: ~$ / 1000 gal (difference is value placed on residual N) Challenges: High ph, high NH 4 -N = high volatilization risk Requires immediate incorporation or injection

34 Label (guaranteed analysis) v.s. real analysis Label: Actual:

35 What Is It? Anaerobic Digestate By-product of anaerobic digesters strategy for GHG reduction Composition will vary with inputs testing is important Opportunity for liquid solid separation further composting? Benefits: Higher N & lower C:N ratio compared to pre-ad Available N - P 2 O 5 - K 2 O - S value: ~$ 18 25/1000 gal (difference is length material has been stored) Challenges: NH 4 -N and C:N ratio similar composition to liquid hog manure Higher risk = more management Application rate, uniformity, timing is more important ph, NH4-N Higher risk of volatilization & leaching

Liquid Solid Separation an Example Water is the most expensive manure nutrient to transport separating out the water would solve many nutrient

5 % Dry Matter liquid/solid separation to 90% DM 6,000 gal tanker 10 ton spreader 145-83-135 lbs available N-P-K 400-347-566 lbs available

36 Liquid Solid Separation an Example Water is the most expensive manure nutrient to transport separating out the water would solve many nutrient and logistical problems easier to broker solid manure economics of storage Example: Average Liquid Dairy Manure: 8.5 % Dry Matter liquid/solid separation to 90% DM 6,000 gal tanker 10 ton spreader lbs available N-P-K lbs available N-P-K 1 load covers ~1.5 acres 1 load covers ~ 6 acres Cost ~ $40/acre Cost ~$ 8.00/acre Low P, high K liquids can be summer applied to forages or corn fields close to storage

Organic Amendment Trial Grey, Dufferin, Wellington and South Simcoe 2015 5 fields 2016 4 fields 2017 4

LysteGro NPK equivalent commercial fertilizer blend Measurements: Soil pre application tissue analysis,

37 Organic Amendment Trial Grey, Dufferin, Wellington and South Simcoe fields fields fields (Lystegro, digestate & manure) 3 treatments: 3 replicates 4,500 gal/ac LysteGro 3,000 gal/ac LysteGro NPK equivalent commercial fertilizer blend Measurements: Soil pre application tissue analysis, soil samples, soil nitrate (silking) Yield, moisture, test weight Stalk nitrate, grain protein LysteGro Fertilizer Equivalent

3,000 gal/ac Finisher Hog gal/ac 4,500 3,000 Pit Fresh 3,000

38 Application Rates 160 bu/ac CORN CROP REMOVAL NITROGEN lbs/ac P lbs/acre K 2 0 lbs/acre LYSTEGRO gal/ac BioEn 3,000 gal/ac Finisher Hog gal/ac 4,500 3,000 Pit Fresh 3, * 189*

39 2017 In-Crop Application Moorefield Site

40 Nutrients Applied from Organic Amendments AS-APPLIED LysteGro BioEn (Pit) BioEn (Fresh) Finisher Hog Dry Matter % Total N lbs/1000 gal NH4-N lbs/1000 gal Available N lbs/1000 gal Avail P (80%) lbs/1000 gal Avail K lbs/1000 gal OM lbs/1000 gal ph C:N ratio 5:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 Sulphur (Elemental) lbs/1000 gal Bulk Density lbs/ft Total Salts (EC) ms/cm Sodium (Na) lbs/1000 gal Aluminum (Al) lbs/1000 gal Boron (B) lbs/1000 gal Calcium (Ca) lbs/1000 gal Copper (Cu) lbs/1000 gal Iron (Fe) lbs/1000 gal Magnesium (Mg) lbs/1000 gal Manganese (Mn) lbs/1000 gal Zinc lbs/1000 gal

41 OM DM basis: ,178 at typical rate 2, ,950 1,500-3,500

42 OM DM basis: at typical rate 3,840 2,100 3,730 2,445 1,000

bu/ac) 2016 dry growing season resulted in

43 What did we Learn? 2015 and 2017 wet growing season with significant denitrification resulted in yield increase from slow release organic N (~12-16 bu/ac) 2016 dry growing season resulted in less yield difference, yet much higher yields than expected given low rainfall (~1 bu/ac)

44 Melancthon Shelburne New Lowell Meaford Average Moorefield Dundalk New Lowell Meaford Average Lystegro 4,500 gal/ac Lystegro 3,000 gal/ac N-P-K Equivalent

45 What did we Learn? Strong relationship (2016) to yield and potash in fields with low K

46 4R Application of Organic Amendments Small Plot Study Don King, Ann Huber - SRG K (%) Corn leaf tissue %K Dni Bni D-0 B-0 0+N D+N B+N check D = Digestate ( BioEn - Elmira) B = Processed Biosolids (Lystegro) Critical Level = 1.20 % corn yield (bu/acre) K "total vs yield R² = Initial + added K (ppm in soil)

47 350.0 Moorefield Yield vs N Applied and Soil N at Silking Average yield bu/acre lbs/acre N LysteGro LysteGro BioEn Digestate (Fresh) Liquid Hog manure Check BioEn Digestate (Fresh) Liquid Hog manure BioEn Digestate (Pit) Check BioEn Digestate (Pit) Check Check 0 Yield (bu/ac) Soil N (lbs/ac) at silking Total N applied (lbs/ac)

48 120 Moorefield - Yield vs N applied and Soil N (silking) 100 NITROGEN (LBS/AC) Yield vs Soil N at silking (lbs/ac) R² = Highest Soil N = lowest yield YIELD (INDEXED (BU/AC)

49 BMPVD project Trinier Site D=Digestate B=Lystegro N= nitrogen ni= nitrogen inhibitor

50 What did we Learn? Organic nitrogen does continue to become available from organic amendments Too much nitrogen is an issue does it reduce yield potential? Lystegro had significantly higher organic nitrogen also higher amounts left at the end of the season Nitrogen inhibitor did appear to tie-up nitrogen Summary: Addition of Organic Amendments, including digestate and hog manure, especially on low fertility soils did increase soil fertility and yields. Lystegro at a cost of $35/1000 with over $75 N-P-K value and average 12 bu yield increase is an economic option

51 Corn Stalk Nitrate (ppm) Fall 2016 vs Soil N ppm (PSNT) June More N applied than required Stalk N ppm Deficient Soil N (ppm) Melancthon Shelburne New Lowell Meaford Average 2017 Crop: Canola Soybeans Soybeans Soybeans 4,500 gal/ac 3,000 gal/ac N-P-K equivalent

52 Opportunities with Organic Amendments Issues: municipal organics production - daily application o limited to growing season o no application when soils are frozen or snow covered. Storage of liquids is expensive Storage of solids (temporary field storage options) Solids have lower environmental risk Opportunities: Mixing materials to match needs Examples: carbon solid + N liquid = nutrient concentration = marketability to agriculture (e.g. digestate mixed with leaf-yard based compost) match nutrient needs vs organic matter match products to where they have greatest benefit

Change Improving logistics Shared transportation? Improved efficiency?

53 Opportunities with Organic Amendments Marketing to agriculture Example immature compost as a potential market Mixing products to match niche markets Government initiatives Soil Health (GLASI funding for adding OM) Lake Erie phosphorus reduction Climate Change Improving logistics Shared transportation? Improved efficiency? Working with fertilizer industry 4R initiative Storage/ marketing/application opportunities for August-October applications with cover crops Component of Neighbourhood nutrient plans?

54 Winter Spreading: Agronomic & Environmental Pitfalls

55 Liquid Loading frozen = no infiltration ALL soils have High runoff potential

56 Opportunities for New Technology? Strip Tillage Reduce soil disturbance increased residue between strips Incorporate nutrients (manure) in fall Plant into strips in spring Utilize GPS /GIS Utilize N-inhibitors?

The Goal Extending the Application Season Using

Instinct ll = entrench (Dow) Y i e l d # of

(2009-2015) > 7 bu/ac yield (ave) b u / a c ~$12/ac to

1 L/ac) Slows conversion from ammonium-n to nitrate-n

57 The Goal Extending the Application Season Using N-Inhibitors? Instinct ll = entrench (Dow) Y i e l d # of comparisons Yield advantage from N inhibitor US study ( ) > 7 bu/ac yield (ave) b u / a c ~$12/ac to apply with manure (~2.1 L/ac) Slows conversion from ammonium-n to nitrate-n Fall applied liquid manure less fall/winter loss? (more N in spring?) Less environmental loss (less GHG emissions?) Side-by-side comparisons needed!!

58 Manure Value Application to Fields with High v.s. Low Soil Fertility Manure Dry Matter Fall Applied Nitrogen Spring Applied P 2 O 5 1 K 2 O Net Value (after application) 3 High Fertility Field Low Fertility Field Rate 2 Liquid manure % lb/1000gal $/acre $/acre /acre Cattle ($ 33) $ 105 8,000 gal Swine (SEW ) ($ 58) $ 16 8,000 gal Swine (Finishers) $ 6 $ 127 5,000 gal Poultry (Layer) $ 30 $ 139 3,000 gal Solid Manure % lb/ton $/acre $/acre /acre Cattle (light bedding) Cattle (heavy bedding) Value of available nutrients minus cost of application It takes years to see payback on P & K on high fertility soils ($ 2) $ ton $ 15 $ ton Sheep/Goats Total available P35 2 O 5. At least 5.5 half 6.6 of the P 11.5 will be available 19 in $ the 6 year of $ application ton Horse 2 Applied for a corn 37 crop 3- rate could - 2 increase 5.5 soil test 9 P between ($ 16) 1-2 ppm $ ton Poultry (Broilers) $ 64 $ Net value doesn t account for distance between storage and neighbouring fields. 4 ton 1 Total available P 2 O 5 is shown in this table. At least half of the P will be available in the year of application 2 Values are based on application cost of $0.015/gal or $4/ton; incorporated within 24 hrs and based Applied on N-P-K for equivalent a corn crop where at a rate N is that $0.41/lb; will increase P soil test P between 1-2 ppm 3 2 O 5 is $0.57/lb and K2Ois $0.36/lb. OM & micronutrient Net values value not does included. not account for the distance between storage and neighbouring fields. Values are based on application cost of $0.015/gallon or $4/ton; manure incorporated within 24 hrs and based on N-P-

Neighbourhood Nutrient Management Planning Moves manure from areas of high fertility to areas of low fertility developed cooperatively with livestock and cash crop farms with third party 4R

59 Neighbourhood Nutrient Management Planning Moves manure from areas of high fertility to areas of low fertility developed cooperatively with livestock and cash crop farms with third party 4R consultant - paperwork, (maps, crop rotation schedules, manure analyses and soil tests) manure analyses would pre-determine value of available N, P205, K20 explore opportunities community storages, pipe-lines (manure from central location) decrease transportation costs / road issues

60 Neighbourhood Nutrient Planning Crop rotations in application plan - minimize compaction and maximize nutrient efficiency - manure to a growing crop or post wheat with cover crops

Neighbourhood nutrient management plan benefits Manure - nutrients and OM at times that maximize nutrient utilization Low value liquid manure applied to forages, standing corn Low value solid manure

61 Neighbourhood nutrient management plan benefits Manure - nutrients and OM at times that maximize nutrient utilization Low value liquid manure applied to forages, standing corn Low value solid manure could be transported to low OM soils Trade straw and/or pay for value of manure fertilizer equivalent The livestock operator receives financial benefit for nutrients that would take many years to provide a pay-back `+ Consultant does planning, record keeping, sampling, nutrient balancing with fertilizer, etc.,

62 Variable Rate Manure Site Specific Rates? Rates based on N or P usually P Opportunity to inject / co-apply commercial N Opportunity to skim un-agitated manure to apply low P- high NH4-N material to fields closest to storage and nutrient rich (high P) to fields further from storage

63 Manure Application onto Growing crops Spring application on winter wheat After planting up to side-dress in corn Forages /pastures After wheat harvest with cover crops (slurry seeded)

64 Application into standing crops

66 Machine Compaction Penalty Scott Shearer Ohio State University (presented Jan CCA conference) Trafficked Area (%) Trafficked yield Yield Reduction Prediction (200 bu/ac No-Till corn Base) Normal Field Ave Trafficked yield Wet Field Ave Grain Cart row Planter row Combine Manure Application bu/ac x 45% x $4.50/bu = > $50/ac Economics: Wheat in rotation opportunity for cover crops and manure plus $50 compaction reduction

67 Potential Yield Reduction from Compaction with Manure Application Normal Soil Moisture Wet Soil Moisture ~ Yield Impact /ac ($4.50/bu corn) Spread width Trafficked Area (%) Trafficked yield Field Average Trafficked yield Field Average Normal Soil Wet Soil 10 ft ft ft ft $ 11 $ 50 $ 7 $ 30 $ 4 $ 18 $ 2 $ 10 Adapted from Scott Shearer 2016 presentation to Ontario CCA

BMPs to Maximize Nutrient & OM Value Right rate Uniform application Frequent analysis - nutrient content (,OM, C:N, ph) Calibrate equipment - apply rate to meet crop needs Right

the nutrients Ensure field soil conditions maximize infiltration / minimize runoff Right placement Rapid incorporation/injection to minimize ammonium-n volatilization Avoid concentrated

68 BMPs to Maximize Nutrient & OM Value Right rate Uniform application Frequent analysis - nutrient content (,OM, C:N, ph) Calibrate equipment - apply rate to meet crop needs Right application timing Apply in spring or into growing crops After cereal harvest apply with cover crop Non growing season manure should be incorporated Right field Select crop that needs the nutrients Ensure field soil conditions maximize infiltration / minimize runoff Right placement Rapid incorporation/injection to minimize ammonium-n volatilization Avoid concentrated deep placement to minimize leaching /movement to tile Right storage management Permanent cover helps reduce storage N losses (high ph materials) Runoff management of temporary storages (fields)

69 Christine Brown Field Crop Sustainability Specialist OMAFRA - Woodstock christine.brown1@ontario.ca

From City to Farm: Greenbin-derived Compost Agricultural Trials. Compost Council of Canada Workshop January 22, 2013

From City to Farm: Greenbin-derived Compost Agricultural Trials Compost Council of Canada Workshop January 22, 2013 From City to Farm: Greenbin Derived Compost Agricultural Trials Fertilizer value Organic