Arkansas Discovery Farms in the Illinois River Watershed

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Arkansas Discovery Farms in the Illinois River Watershed"

Brook Sharp
5 years ago
Views:

1 Arkansas Discovery Farms in the Illinois River Watershed The Moore Discovery Farm Activity Report December 31, 2016 Walton Family Foundation Discovery Farm 1

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 The Moore Discovery Farm Operation... 4 The Moore Discovery Farm: A Virtual Tour... 5 Site Description... 5 Soil Descriptions and Distribution... 9 RCS Spillway Design Time Sequence of ew House Construction ad Construction at Front of ew Houses Installing the Sampling Equipment Original house cleanout Original houses and sampling location Water Quality Results Site Background Flow, utrient, and Sediment Runoff Data Conservation ractices to Minimize utrient Runoff otential from oultry Houses age 2

3 Executive Summary On the Moore Discovery Farm we are monitoring the potential for nutrient runoff from around poultry houses and evaluating the effectiveness and cost benefits of conservation practices that minimize nutrient runoff. There are four sites instrumented with flow meters and automated water samplers, which collect information and water samples from each rainfall runoff event occurring on the farm. One site monitors runoff from an adjacent row crop and pasture that has been fertilized with poultry litter and mineral fertilizer as needed by the crop and as determined by the required nutrient management plan for the farm. Another site monitors runoff from three original poultry houses. These sites came on line at the middle of On completion of four new poultry houses, two additional sites have monitored runoff from the front of the new and original houses, where the new houses are constructed with larger pads that minimize spillage of litter during bird harvest and litter cleanout. These sites became operation in May, The major findings to date are; 1. Amounts of nutrients running of from around the poultry houses are slightly greater than that from the pasture and row crop area. This is mainly attributed to an appreciably great volume and energy of water running from around the poultry houses, which have a greater proportion of impervious areas that limit rainwater infiltration. 2. During the period we have been sampling runoff at the Moore Farm, there has been a greater amount of rainfall during 2015 than This increase is partially reflected in the larger number of runoff events that occurred and amount of flow in 2015 as compared to 2014, translating to a general increase in nutrient loss from around the original houses in 2015 compared to utrient runoff from the front of the new houses with larger concrete pads at the front, was less than from the original houses. While it is too early to draw reliable conclusions, the lowers losses from the new houses, likely reflect the fact that there have been fewer bird harvests and litter cleanouts on the new compared to original houses. The appreciably greater sediment loss from the new than original houses, indicates that more work is needed to establish a complete vegetative cover around those houses as quickly as possible. 4. In the context of three other farms in northwest Arkansas where we have been monitoring nutrient runoff from around poultry houses for three to five years, losses were very similar to those from the original houses with no conservation practices at the Moore Farm. 5. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the larger concrete pads to eliminate spillage of litter during normal operation of the houses and expect their reduction efficiency to increase with time in place. 6. We plan to construct a retention spillway at the rear of the new poultry houses in early 2017, which will capture runoff from the rear of the new houses. The base spillway will be filled with slag waste by product from a new power generation plant. The slag has a large affinity to bind phosphorus (). We will monitor water entering and leaving the spillway area to determine the effectiveness of the structural measure as an additional conservation practice to minimize nutrient runoff from poultry production areas. age 3

The Moore Discovery Farm Operation The Moore WFF ADF was established to work with a poultry grower who was building new broiler houses, to determine if they could be constructed in a way that

4 The Moore Discovery Farm Operation The Moore WFF ADF was established to work with a poultry grower who was building new broiler houses, to determine if they could be constructed in a way that minimizes water and nutrient footprints. This is in response to recent inspections of poultry operations in the IRW by U.S. EA Region 6 over that last year. The focus of these inspections were concerns of nutrient loss in runoff generated around the immediate area surrounding the production facilities. These concerns and inspections have also occurred in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. On this WFF ADF we are proactively working with a farmer and integrator operating in the IRW to document the reduction and cost effectiveness of several production area conservation practices (Cs). More information on the farm operation can be obtained from We established Cs around newly constructed poultry houses, at minimal cost to the farmer, to demonstrate reducing the nutrient and water footprint and to monitor runoff onto and off the site to document water quality benefits. On the same farm, we will eventually retro fit poultry houses with Cs and assess their similar effectiveness. An advisory committee comprised of farmers, RCS, integrators, and research and extension specialists will oversee possible options, which will include, but not limited to: 1. A larger concrete pad at the front of the new houses, with a gutter around it. This would make it easier for a farmer to clean any unavoidable spillage of litter following bird or litter removal. The gutter might direct any water to a French drain, minimizing surface flows. 2. Use of an existing farm pond to collect any runoff and trap nutrients. 3. Establish forage cover around the new houses to minimize runoff and erosion. 4. Divert any concentrated flowing water away from the new houses where possible. age 4

The Moore Discovery Farm: A Virtual Tour Available at http://discoveryfarms.uark.edu/514.htm and below.

5 The Moore Discovery Farm: A Virtual Tour Available at and below. Site Description Source: USGS, ESRI Figure 1. Location of the Morrow Discovery Farm in the Illinois River Watershed. age 5

6 Figure 2. Original Moore Farm layout prior to becoming a Discovery Farm. Image taken age 6

7 Moore Discovery Farm Figure 3. Sub watershed delineations on the Moore Farm. age 7

8 Figure 4. lan of planned Conservation ractices around the new Moore poultry houses. age 8

9 Soil Descriptions and Distribution Figure 5. Soil type distribution on the Moore Farm. age 9

10 RCS Spillway Design We collaborated with RCS, who completed an on site drainage design for berms to divert upslope surface runoff away from the new poultry house. This is important to the long term reduction in nutrient runoff from poultry houses by minimizing the potential for any surface water to flow passed the houses and carry with it nutrients and sediment. This design follows. age 10

11 age 11

12 age 12

13 age 13

14 age 14

15 age 15

16 Time Sequence of ew House Construction age 16

17 age 17

18 age 18

19 ad Construction at Front of ew Houses age 19

20 age 20

21 Installing the Sampling Equipment age 21

22 age 22

23 age 23

24 Original house cleanout age 24

25 Original houses and sampling location age 25

26 Water Quality Results Site Background Collection of water at two sites collecting runoff from the original poultry houses and an adjacent fields in pasture and row crops (corn/soybeans) was initiated in August, 2014 (i.e., Sites Moore 1 and 2; Table 1). After construction of the new poultry houses was complete, runoff sampling at two new sites draining the front of the original and new houses was initiated in May, 2015 (Moore 3 and 4; Table 1). The areas draining the respective sampling sites are given in Table 1. Table 1. Watershed areas for the Moore Farm sites. Site Watershed Area Description Acres Hectares Moore Collects runoff from a steep pasture/row cropped drainage area Moore Collects runoff draining from the rear (near ventilation fans) of three of the original poultry houses Moore Collects runoff draining from the front of the four original houses Moore Collects runoff draining from the front of the four new houses Flow, utrient, and Sediment Runoff Data Mean flow weighted concentrations of nitrogen (), phosphorus (), sediment, and flow from the four sites on the Moore Farm are given in Table 2. The amount of runoff from the sites draining the pasture and crop land (Moore 1; Table 2) was appreciably less than that from around the poultry production areas (Moore 2, 3, and 4; Table 2), likely due to the impervious nature of much of the latter s drainage area with house, roof, and access roads. Data for each sampling event is given at the end of this report in Table 6. The greater runoff volumes were reflected in generally lower concentrations of and in runoff from the houses when compared with the adjacent pasture and crop land (Table 2). For sediment concentrations, concentrations at sites 1 and 2 in both years were similar, but extensive age 26

27 construction work at the front of both the original and new house resulted in elevated levels in As the grass around the houses and graveled areas becomes more established, we expect these concentrations to decrease, particularly for site 4, which averaged 2,363 mg/l sediment in This also suggests the need for stormwater management during construction, such as with sediment fences. Table 2. Mean flow weighted concentration of, and sediment at each sampling site in 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the Moore Discovery Farm. Site # runoff events Flow Dissolved itrate Solids L/ha mg/l 2014 asture , Rear of original houses 11 1,880, asture 26 4,188, Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 20 9,185, ,853, , ,034, , asture 7 219, Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 6 231, , , age 27

28 utrient concentrations of runoff from pastures and a row crop field that have received poultry litter according to the farm s nutrient management plan, are elevated compared with runoff from around the poultry houses (Table 2). These fields have traditionally received annual applications of poultry litter at a rate of 2 tons/acre. This rate is recommended to meet the nitrogen requirements of cool season grasses. Table 3. Flow and nutrient loss per unit area (metric units) at each sampling site in 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the Moore Discovery Farm. Site # runoff events Flow Dissolved itrate L/ha kg/ha 2014 asture , Rear of original houses 11 1,880, asture 26 4,188, Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 20 9,185, ,853, , ,034, , asture 7 1,535, Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 6 1,391, ,490, , ,991, ,598 age 28

29 The loss of nutrients and sediment from the Moore sites are given in Tables 3 (in metric units) and 4 (in English units). When represented on a per unit area basis, the runoff and loads of nutrients and sediment are seen in a different perspective that reflects the properties of the drainage area of each site, as well as land use and management. The amounts of water running off the adjacent pastures is much less than that from around the poultry houses, which has a greater proportion of impervious areas that limit infiltration of rainwater. Given that there is more water running off from around the houses, implies that this water will have a much greater energy of flow and will transport nutrients and sediments more easily than from pastures. This supports then need for appropriate conservation of the house production areas to minimize the potential for nutrient and sediment runoff. During the period we have been sampling runoff at the Moore Farm, there has clearly been a greater amount of rainfall during 2015 than This increase is partially reflected in the larger number of runoff events that occurred and amount of flow in 2015 as compared to 2014, translating to a general increase in nutrient loss from around the original houses (Moore 2) in 2015 compared to While it is too early to draw any conclusions from a comparison of runoff and nutrient loss from the new (Moore 4) compared to original houses (Moore 3), the sites are working and more information will be collected over the next four years. The lower nutrient runoff from the new houses as compared to that from the original houses, may reflect there have only been five bird harvests to date for the new houses. Additionally, residual and will have accumulated around the original house that started receiving birds about six years ago. The appreciably greater sediment loss from the new houses (3,359, compared to 1,930 lbs/acre/year for the new and original houses, respectively, averaged for 2015 and 2016, Table 5 and Figure 6), indicate that more work is needed to establish a complete vegetative cover around those houses as quickly as possible and as weather permits. For individual years, nutrient runoff reduction occurred for houses with concrete pads compared to those without (Figure 7). Table 4. Flow and nutrient loss per unit area (English units) at each sampling site in 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the Moore Discovery Farm. Site # runoff events Flow Dissolved itrate gals/acre lbs/acre 2014 asture 10 16, Rear of original houses , age 29

2015 asture 26 447,789 5.51 6.88 9.50 16.35 310 Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 20 981,994 3.82 4.89 11.91 22.

12 50 Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 6 148,723 1.19 1.65 2.86 6.77 219 9 159,396 2.17 3.21 2.10 7.

30 2015 asture , Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses , , , , , asture 7 164, Rear of original houses Front of original houses Front of new houses 6 148, , , , ,427 Figure 6. Mean annual percent change in annual runoff, nutrient and sediment loss between old and new houses (for 2015 and 2016). age 30

Figure 7. ercent change in annual runoff, nutrient and sediment loss between old and new houses for 2015 and 2016.

where we have been monitoring nutrient runoff from poultry production areas.

Once baseline data have been collected and reviewed, then potential conservation practices would be selected and installed, if needed, and monitored to determine

31 Figure 7. ercent change in annual runoff, nutrient and sediment loss between old and new houses for 2015 and To put sediment and nutrient losses into a broader context, Table 5 compares nutrient runoff data from the Moore WFF ADF with other sites across northwest Arkansas where we have been monitoring nutrient runoff from poultry production areas. This monitoring program was initially established to determine if and how much nutrients were moving in runoff from production areas. Once baseline data have been collected and reviewed, then potential conservation practices would be selected and installed, if needed, and monitored to determine effectiveness. While there are site specific differences among sites that influence nutrient runoff, loss was surprisingly similar, ranging from an average of 2.05 to 3.05 lbs/acre for all sites except Lincoln 2 (5.73 lbs total /acre) (Table 5). The loss of was more variable, ranging from 7.44 to lbs total /acre (Table 5). age 31

32 Table 5. Flow and nutrient loss per unit area (English units) at the Moore Discovery Farm and similar sites across northwest Arkansas where we are monitoring nutrient runoff from poultry production areas. Site Year Events # Flow Diss. itrate gals/ac/yr lbs/ac/yr Moore rear , , , Average 2015 & , Moore, front original houses , , , ,760 Average 2015 & , ,930 Moore, front new houses , , , ,427 Average 2015 & , ,359 Elkins 1, 17.4 acres , , , , , Elkins 1 average 444, age 32

33 Site Elkins 2, 3.6 acres Year Events # Flow Diss. itrate , , , , ,348, Elkins 2 average 219, Lincoln 1, 1.54 acres , , ,106, , , , Lincoln 1 average 445, Lincoln 2, 3.45 acres , , , , , , Lincoln 2 average 294, age 33

34 Site Year Events # Flow Diss. itrate Savoy , , , Savoy 1 average 191, Savoy , , , Savoy 2 average 189, age 34

Table 6. Flow, nutrient, and sediment data collected in runoff from each site on the Moore Discovery Farm during 2014 and 2015. Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss.

35 Table 6. Flow, nutrient, and sediment data collected in runoff from each site on the Moore Discovery Farm during 2014 and Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate cm gal gal/acre L/ha mg/l g/ha Moore /9/ , , ,037 9/2/ , , ,151 9/6/ , , ,208 10/10/ ,041 1,630 15, /12/ ,400 6,169 57, ,528 11/4/ , , /22/ , , /6/ ,351 1,640 15, /15/ ,938 2,734 25, ,212 12/18/ ,853 2,210 20, ,474 Moore /10/ ,665 24, ,255 3/14/ , , ,822 3/26/ ,355 96, ,503 5/8/ ,618 89, ,534 5/10/ , , ,914 35

36 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 5/17/ ,323 31, ,319 5/20/ ,633 15, /23/ , , ,626 5/24/ , , ,174 5/26/ ,385 41, ,449 5/28/ ,299 21, /30/ ,030 56, ,269 6/15/ ,964 55, ,210 6/18/ , , ,930 6/26/ , , ,744 7/2/ ,942 12, , ,958 7/7/ ,588,711 51, , ,260 7/8/ ,185 10, , ,048 7/9/ ,347 14, , ,477 7/21/ ,033 13, , ,375 8/19/ ,518 8,453 79, ,689 8/23/ ,142 8,604 80, ,623 11/5/ ,059 1,924 17, ,051 11/17/ ,430 20, , ,463 age 36

37 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 11/29/ ,718,157 55, , ,365 12/13/ ,013,908 65, , ,897 Moore /9/ ,395, ,604 1,034, ,416 4/29/ ,236 3,982 37, ,620 5/12/ ,539 2,558 23, ,989 5/25/ ,715 7,548 70, ,257 5/30/ ,194 6,912 64, ,172 7/25/ ,676 14, , ,735 7/30/ ,143 17, , ,817 Moore /10/ ,463 97, ,730 8/9/ ,625 80, ,396 9/3/ , , ,124 9/6/ , , ,494 10/10/ , , ,585 10/12/ , , ,273 11/4/ , , ,838 12/6/ , , ,333 age 37

38 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 12/15/ , , ,010 12/18/ , , ,840 7/10/ ,463 97, ,730 Moore /10/ ,887 73, ,537 3/14/ , , ,211 3/26/ , , ,590 5/8/ , , ,320 5/10/ ,958 83, /17/ ,691 71, /23/ , , ,839 5/24/ , , ,356 6/15/ , , ,037 6/18/ , , ,266 6/26/ ,668 2,391, ,242 7/7/ , ,723 1,035, , ,510 7/8/ ,968 15, , ,989 7/9/ ,411 17, , ,570 7/21/ ,032 25, , ,649 age 38

39 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 8/19/ ,043 43, , ,235 11/5/ ,350 16, , ,471 11/17/ ,967 87, , ,757 11/29/ ,089 59, , ,525 12/13/ , , , ,492 Moore /9/ , , ,521 5/12/ , , ,504 5/25/ , , ,144 5/30/ , , ,732 7/25/ , , ,707 7/30/ , , ,894 Moore /8/ , , , ,876 5/10/ , , ,953 5/17/ ,424 88, , ,351 5/20/ ,332 77, ,580 5/23/ , , , ,153 5/24/ , , ,038 age 39

40 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 5/26/ ,608 61, ,463 5/30/ ,302 58, ,931 6/15/ , , ,214 6/18/ ,172 1,086, ,935 6/26/ , , , ,452 7/7/ ,086 56, , , ,091 7/8/ ,067 19, , , ,962 7/21/ ,515 7,406 69, , ,682 8/19/ ,993 25, , , ,381 8/23/ ,604 5,042 47, , ,687 10/31/ ,563 6,225 58, ,557 11/5/ ,198 8,479 79, , ,351 11/17/ ,765 25, , ,801 11/29/ ,992 35, , ,030 Moore /9/ ,802 16, , ,794 4/29/ ,785 40, , ,990 5/12/ ,662 11, , , ,893 5/25/ ,617 17, , , ,963 age 40

41 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 5/30/ ,453 10,181 95, , ,185 7/4/ ,405 6,962 65, ,608 7/15/ ,373 14, , ,305 7/25/ ,628 28, , , ,229 7/30/ ,764 13, , , ,598 Moore /8/ , , , ,414,352 5/10/ , , , ,774 5/17/ ,122 94, , ,999 5/20/ ,874 54, , ,382 5/23/ , , , ,988 5/24/ , , , ,299 5/26/ ,965 65, , ,845 5/28/ ,483 51, , ,744 5/30/ ,360 78, , ,496 6/15/ , , , ,531 6/18/ , , ,063 6/26/ , , , ,386,882 7/2/ ,057 6,078 56, , ,073 age 41

42 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 7/7/ ,457 87, , ,169 7/8/ ,381 11, , , ,660 7/9/ ,716 15, , , ,653 7/21/ ,785 41, , , ,439 8/19/ ,163 35, , , ,853 8/23/ ,437 20, , , ,743 10/31/ ,867 6,626 61, , ,338 11/5/ ,261 17, , , ,818 11/17/ ,863 66, , ,363 11/29/ ,924 71, , ,856 12/13/ ,626 72, , ,336 Moore /9/ ,022 30, , ,287 4/29/ ,996 42, , ,037 5/12/ ,209 15, , ,552 5/25/ ,619 28, , , ,071 5/30/ ,171 16, , ,234 7/4/ ,815 11, , ,735 7/15/ ,141 13, , ,354 age 42

43 Date collected Rainfall runoff Diss. itrate Diss. itrate 7/25/ ,231 28, , ,668 7/30/ ,504 26, , ,295 age 43

44 Conservation ractices to Minimize utrient Runoff otential from oultry Houses Table 7. Best management practices to minimize nutrient runoff potential from poultry production facilities. Type Description Action Cost Reduction potential revent Movement with Runoff French grain under roof line Roof gutters over fans Capture clean water and directs from operational area Minimizes direct runoff potential of ground immediately below fans Medium Trays of residuals below fans Binds deposited in dust Medium Larger concrete pads outside house entrance rovides a larger area that can be scrapped clean of spillage after bird removal and house cleanout Low Medium High Medium Source still present High can be removed with residual High Control / Reduce Concentration in Runoff Maintain grassed (non grazed) waterways between houses and those directing runoff away from houses Aeration of land around houses Spread residual around houses May already exist and should be managed to maintain good grass cover Decreases potential for runoff and may improve grass growth and cover Binds that may be in runoff but does not remove from the system Low Low Medium Medium Reduces runoff energy and erosive power; uptakes and dilutes transported Medium Less runoff translates to less nutrient loss risk Medium Trap in Runoff Infiltration zone intercepting runoff Collects nutrient rich runoff. ond must be dredged and material handled and land applied in a manner to not cause risk to water quality 1 Costs are low if already exists otherwise medium or high. Low / high 1 High age 44

CONSERVATION PRACTICES INSTALLED IN THE ILLINOIS RIVER WATERSHED

CONSERVATION PRACTICES INSTALLED IN THE ILLINOIS RIVER WATERSHED Arkansas Discovery Farms in the Illinois River Watershed Activity Report October 1, 2012 to September 3, 2015 Andrew Sharpley, Distinguished