Land application of manure for water quality protection : A play in three acts

Transcription

1 Land application of manure for water quality protection : A play in three acts Peter Kleinman USDA-ARS University Park, Pennsylvania Mark Goodson USDA-NRCS Harrisburg, Pennsylvania With a little help from Doug Beegle, Penn State

2 Act I A balancing act long term vs. short term issues

3 Ches. Bay Model 2007 Nitrogen (262M lbs) Phosphorus (18M lbs) Washington, DC Baltimore Fertilizer Manure 18% Atm ag 7% Urban, sewage, septic Atmos other Fertilizer Manure 26% Forests Urban, sewage, septic Chesapeake Bay Nutrient enrichment

4 System driven nutrient accumulation Maguire et al., 2007 MAWQ Program Farm Crop Dairy Swine Poultry P remaining (lbs/ac/yr) Data from L. Lanyon Cordell et al., 2009 Figures courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

5 Farm balance field balance Soil P low optimum high very high Barn Dairy farm: 0.5 a.u./ac Barn

6 Today s soil nutrient losses are a function of yesterday s application decisions 2 Dissolved P in runoff (mg/l) Cl-Lo SaLo Mehlich-3 soil P, mg/kg

7 Even the best BMPs have their limits lbs N/ac 190 lbs N/ac N leaching (lbs/ac/yr) No cover crop Cover crop Adapted from Torstensson and Aronsson, 2000

8 Short term concerns Rapid incidental transfers, fugitive emissions, wash off Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009 Thousands of fish killed - Owner blames manure runoff from farm Centre Daily Times CDT/Nabil K. Mark

9 Largely a matter of when manure is applied and when runoff happens Data - Klausner et al., 1976 Regressions - Brookes et al., 2000 Dissolved P (mg/l) T/ha 100 T/ha 35 T/ha Days since Manure Application High concentrations of dissolved nutrients diminish with time

10 Short term land application forecasting? Currently rely upon prudent decisions by a well informed farmer Web based forecasts by 2014? We ll see Fusarium head blight tool courtesy of D. Miller and P. Knight, Penn State

11 Act I Recap (where we ve been) Long-term control where and how much manure is applied Short-term control when it applied

12 Act II Managing manure in reduced tillage systems a question of trade-offs

13 Continual adoption of reduced tillage No-till and grassed soils account for >54% of arable land in Chesapeake Bay Watershed

14 Advantages to No-till Reduced soil erosion Soil Loss Residue More biological activity Moisture Conservation Better soil quality Soil Loss (t/a) Residue (%) Residue on the surface Plow Chisel No-till Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

15 Advantages to No-till Reduced soil erosion More biological activity Moisture Conservation Better soil quality Residue on the surface Earthworms/Acre 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Plow No-till Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

16 Advantages to No-till Reduced soil erosion More biological activity Moisture Conservation Monthly Evaporation (in) Conv. No-till May June July Aug Sept Better soil quality 1.6 Residue on the surface Infiltration (in) Plowed bare No-till bare No-till 40% cover No-till 80% cover Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

17 Advantages to No-till Reduced soil erosion More biological activity Moisture Conservation Better soil quality Residue on the surface Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

18 Advantages to No-till Reduced soil erosion More biological activity Moisture Conservation Better soil quality Residue on the surface Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

19 What does this mean for nutrients? Volatilization Denitrification Crop Uptake Crop Uptake N Runoff Erosion P Runoff Leaching Leaching Erosion Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

20 Nutrient Management Incorporating manure Lowers ammonia volatilization Lowers risk of soluble P loss From: Table Agronomy Guide Planned Manure Application Management Nitrogen Availability Factor 1 Poultry Swine Other Increases risk of P loss with erosion Incorporation the same day May impact nitrate leaching Incorporation within 1 day Incorporation within 2-4 days Reduces Odor Incorporation within 5-7 days Incorporation after 7 days or no incorporation Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

21 Nutrient Management Incorporating manure Lowers ammonia volatilization 1.0 Lowers risk of dissolved P loss Increases risk of P loss with erosion Dissolved P, mg/l 0.5 Converted to no-till May impact nitrate leaching Reduces Odor Conventional till wheat Sharpley and Smith, 1994 Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

22 Nutrient Management Incorporating manure Lowers ammonia volatilization Lowers risk of soluble P loss Increases risk of P loss with erosion May impact nitrate leaching Reduces Odor 6 Total P 4 mg/l 2 0 Converted to no-till Conventional till wheat Erosion reduced 95% Sharpley and Smith, 1994 Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

23 Nutrient Management Incorporating manure Lowers ammonia volatilization Lowers risk of soluble P loss Increases risk of P loss with erosion May impact nitrate leaching Reduces Odor Nitrate, mg/l Infiltration increased 33% Converted to no-till 0 Conventional till wheat Sharpley and Smith, 1994 Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

24 Nutrient Management Incorporating manure Lowers ammonia volatilization Lowers risk of soluble P loss Increases risk of P loss with erosion May impact nitrate leaching Reduces Odor Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

25 Act II Recapitulated TRADE-OFFS Tillage reduces N volatilization No till increases N volatilization Tillage increases erosion P loss No-till reduces erosion P loss Tillage reduces soluble P loss No-till increases soluble P loss manure incorporation benefits of no-till Tillage reduces odor No-till does not reduce odor Tillage can reduce leaching No-till can increase leaching Can we get the benefits of manure incorporation and retain the benefits of no-till? Slide courtesy of D. Beegle, Penn State

26 Act III Technologies to incorporate manure in reduced tillage systems

27 Liquid manure injection Aerator Broadcaster Chesapeake Bay Watershed State College, PA Shallow disk High pressure Princess Anne, MD Chisel Kleinman, Beegle, Allen PDA, USDA-CIG, PA Pork Producers grants Anti-leaching sweeps Broadcast

28 Broadcast application 6000 gal/ac Surface

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

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

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

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

33 The more manure on the surface, the more ammonia is lost Dairy manure (6,000 gal/ac) total NH 3 -N emission (kg NH 3 -N ha -1 ) r 2 = 0.76 Broadcast/ incorporation Disk injector Banded with aeration Broadcast Pressure injector Manure mass on soil surface (kg m -2 ) Data courtesy C. Dell, USDA-ARS

34 Odor similar (but not identical) to ammonia Oh that dairy air 100 After chisel plowing Penn State odor panel R. Brandt, Penn State

35 The more manure on the surface, the more dissolved phosphorus in runoff Dissolved P (mg/l) y = 0.09e 0.42x r 2 = Water extractable P on surface (mg)

36 Effects of manure application equipment on runoff quite variable Runoff Volume Row cropland Pasture/ grassland Row cropland Erosion (Mg/ha) Pasture/ grassland Total phosphorus load (kg/ha) Row cropland Pasture/ grassland Method Chisel Injection Chisel with sweep Spike/knife % less * -- Disk Injection Shallow disk % less 0% 68% less 0-91% less 84% less Tandem disk Aerator 0-81% less 28% more to 69% less 94% less 0-88% less Tillage by moldboard plow 9-56% lower % less -- by chisel plow 14-66% lower % more -- 90% more to 81% less by double disk 20% lower Literature review

37 Rock Springs Trials (Jan 1, 2006-May 5, 2007) Nitrate-N Loss (lbs/ac) No manure Chisel Plow Disk Aeration Surface Data courtesy J. Schmidt, USDA-ARS

38 Anti-leaching sweeps Flow splitter Tillage wings 8,000 gal/ac 30 in (adjustable) Chisel injector w/sweeps 4 in

39 Princess Anne, MD (2008) 3 Total P Loss in leachate (lbs/ac) Nitrate N No manure Chisel Plow Disk Anti-leach sweeps Surface

40 Subsurface application of dry manure Upper Susquehanna Upper Potomac Mahantango Conewago Delmarva Watersheds New Project ( ) Initiated with grant from NOAA. Awaiting outcome of Chesapeake Stewardship Grant Proposal ARS subsurface applicator v.1 developed by Tom Way USDA-ARS Auburn, AL v.2 developed by Dan Pote USDA-ARS Booneville, AR

41 Subsurface application of dry manure in no-till and grass soils P runoff (lbs/ac) PA PA sod, sodone event Subsurfer Surface 4 trench with closing wheels raised Yield (bu/ac) MD corn, 2008 No manure Disk Subsurfer Surface

42 Summary Improved application of manure can increase nutrient use efficiency and lower environmental losses New technologies are emerging Need to account for site-specific concerns Manure application involves trade-offs

43 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