2-Whole Farm Nutrient Planning; Rick Koelsch-LPES Curriculum

Transcription

1 2-Whole Farm Nutrient Planning; Rick Koelsch-LPES Curriculum These lessons are optimized for web viewing and therefore may not have adequate resolution for quality printing. The LPES Curriculum CD available from MWPS contains all lessons at print quality resolution, is searchable, and includes an index and PowerPoint presentations for each lesson. A full, printed version is available as is a 2-CD set of the lessons in PageMaker format. For more information or to purchase LPES materials, contact MWPS by phone at , by fax at , or by at mwps@iastate.edu For prices and to order on line just click on the Order LPES Materials button. Lesson 2: Whole Farm Nutrient Planning -Rick Koelsch Intended Outcomes The participants will Recognize the importance of balancing nutrient inputs and managed outputs for a livestock operation. Identify potential indicators of a "whole farm" nutrient imbalance within the producer's own operation. Be aware of fundamental strategies for addressing a whole farm nutrient imbalance. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Nutrient Concentration and Distribution 3. Whole Farm Nutrient Balance 4. Typical Nutrient Balances 5. Sources of Nutrient Inputs 6. Is My Livestock/Poultry Operation in Balance? 7. Strategies to Improve Nutrient Balance 8. Regulatory Compliance 9. Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning 10. Appendix A. Estimating a Whole Farm Nutrient Balance Activities The participants will complete Environmental Stewardship Assessment: Indicators of a possible (1 of 2) [1/6/2003 1:29:41 PM]

2 2-Whole Farm Nutrient Planning; Rick Koelsch-LPES Curriculum imbalance that may exist on your farm. Regulatory Compliance Assessment: Regulatory compliance issues related to nutrient management that may be applicable to your livestock or poultry operation. Estimating a whole farm nutrient balance. (2 of 2) [1/6/2003 1:29:41 PM]

3 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Introduction For most of the U.S. livestock industry, nutrients in manure represent the single largest threat to water quality. Thus, choices made relative to the management of nutrients within a livestock operation are absolutely critical to protecting water quality. If managed correctly, manure is an excellent plant nutrient source and soil builder, resulting in many important environmental benefits. Soils regularly receiving manure require less commercial fertilizer (conserving energy and limited phosphorus reserves), are higher in organic matter contributing to greater soil productivity, and may experience less runoff and erosion and better conservation of moisture. However, an increased risk to water quality will result from excess application of manure nutrients to a cropping system. 5

4 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Nutrient Concentration and Distribution The fundamental question, Is my livestock or poultry operation concentrating nutrients?, must be the premise for any successful nutrient management plan. Most nutrient-related issues associated with animal production result from poor nutrient distribution, leading to concentrationrelated problems. This distribution issue can be a local or a regional issue. Single-field nutrient concentration issues. An integrated crop and livestock farm commonly experiences this distribution problem within its own boundaries. Some fields, often those closest to the livestock facility, receive excessive manure applications while commercial fertilizer is purchased to meet the needs of fields more distant from the livestock. Spreading manure based upon convenience and not the crop s nutrient requirements causes water quality problems. Individual farm nutrient concentration issues. Farms focused primarily on livestock production import significant quantities of nutrients as animal feeds. Livestock utilize only 10% to 30% of these nutrients, excreting the remaining as manure. This results in a concentration of nutrients on the livestock farm and a shortage of nutrients (typically replaced by purchased commercial fertilizers) on neighboring crop farms. The separation of ownership of crop and livestock production typically drives this problem. Such problems are commonly observed in regions where sufficient crop land is available but separation of livestock and crop ownership creates nutrient distribution problems (e.g., Corn Belt states). Regional nutrient distribution issues have developed in the last 30 years as livestock/poultry production and feed grain production has concentrated in specific, but separate, regions of the country (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Examples of these regional nutrient distribution problems include the concentration of pork production in the Carolinas, poultry concentration in southern and mid-atlantic states, beef cattle production in the High Plains, and dairy in western, north central, and northeastern states. Many of these regions import significant quantities of nutrients primarily as feed grains from the Corn Belt. The nutrients excreted by these animals can overwhelm the ability of locally grown crops to recycle these nutrients. These regional distribution problems (shaded areas in Figures 2-1 and -2) represent the animal feeding industry s most difficult nutrient challenges. To determine if these nutrient concentration concerns affect your livestock operation requires an appreciation of the total nutrient picture for your livestock operation. A discussion of a Whole Farm Nutrient Balance follows. The fundamental question, Is my livestock or poultry operation concentrating nutrients?, must be the premise for any successful nutrient management plan. For your operation, is nutrient concentration a Single-field issue? Individual farm issue? Regional issue? 5

5 MODULE AIntroduction 6 Figure 2-1. Potential for N available in animal manure to meet or exceed plant uptake and removal for harvested crop and hay land. Source: Kellogg et al

6 7 Figure 2-2. Potential for P available in animal manure to meet or exceed plant uptake and removal for harvested crop and hay land. Source: Kellogg et al LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning

7 MODULE A Introduction The balance between nutrient inputs and managed outputs defines the quantity of nutrients lost to the environment or added to soil storage. Whole Farm Nutrient Balance Nutrients are transported along multiple pathways and in a variety of forms on a livestock operation. Our tendency is to focus on a small part of the total picture, such as the nutrients in manure and their losses into the environment. However, an understanding of the big picture is necessary to identifying the underlying cause of nutrient concentration concerns as well as the solutions. A picture of the flow of nutrients is presented in Figure 2-3. Nutrients arrive on a livestock operation as purchased products (fertilizer, animal feed, and purchased animals), nitrogen (N) fixed by legume crops, and nitrates in rain and irrigation water. These Inputs are the origin of all nutrients required for crop and livestock production as well as those nutrients that escape into the environment. Within the boundaries of the farm, there is a Recycling of nutrients between the livestock and crop components. Manure nutrients are recycled, at least in part, for crop production. Feed crop nutrients are in turn recycled as animal feed for livestock or poultry production. Nutrients exit a livestock operation preferably as Managed Outputs including animals and crops sold and possibly other products moved off farm (e.g., manure sold or given to a neighboring crop producer). Some nutrients exit the farm as losses to the environment (nitrates in groundwater, ammonia volatilized into the atmosphere, and N and phosphorus into surface water). Nutrients (especially phosphorus) also accumulate in large quantities in the soil. Although not a direct loss to the environment, a growing accumulation of nutrients in the soil adds to the risk of future environmental losses. The Imbalance is the difference between the Inputs and the Managed Outputs. This Imbalance accounts for both the direct environmental loss and the accumulation of nutrients in the soil. Livestock operations with a significant imbalance are concentrating nutrients, resulting in increased risk to water quality (Lanyon and Beegle 1993 and Klausner 1995). In contrast, livestock operations that have achieved a balance represent a potentially sustainable production system. An analogy can be drawn between the whole farm nutrient balance for a Inputs Feed Animals Fertilizer Managed outputs Animals Crops Legumes Irrigation Imbalance Manure (Losses to environment or additions to soil storage) 8 Figure 2-3. A whole farm nutrient balance considers all nutrient inputs and managed outputs. The difference or imbalance drives a farm s nutrient-related water quality risks.

8 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning livestock operation and water flow in a farm pond. The farm pond is the equivalent of a livestock and cropping operation (whole farm). The Water In and Water Out (of the pipe) are, respectively, comparable to nutrient Inputs and Managed Outputs. If the flow of water into the pond exceeds the outflow, the pond level rises. Similarly, if the nutrients entering a livestock operation exceed the nutrients leaving as managed products, the nutrients concentrate within the farm (e.g., rising soil P levels). Water In In 2 gal. Farm pond The imbalance between Water In and Water Out causes the water level to rise Water Out 1 gal. If that imbalance is sustained, water eventually flows over the top of the dam with potentially catastrophic results. Similarly with nutrients, the imbalance is eventually corrected by losses to the environment (e.g., nitrates leaching to groundwater or P exiting with runoff and erosion) of similar magnitude as the imbalance. A sustained nutrient imbalance drives the nutrientrelated contamination of water. Water In In 2 gal. and overflow the dam. 1 gal. Water Out A sustained whole farm nutrient imbalance has undesirable environmental consequences. Farm pond 1 gal. Sandbags provide a temporary solution to this problem. If the water imbalance is not corrected, however, the water level eventually exceeds what the sandbags can hold back. Many current best management practices (BMPs) for manure handling focus on plugging leaks without correcting the origin of the imbalance. BMPs such as grass filter strips, no applications on frozen soil, or soil erosion control do not correct the imbalance and provide only short-term benefits. 9

9 MODULE A Introduction Water In In 2 gal. Farm pond Plugging the leaks provides a temporary solution. Water Out 1 gal. The imbalance of water flows must first be corrected to save the dam and the property downstream. To achieve a relative balance, the quantity of water entering the pond needs to be reduced and/or the water exiting the outlet pipe must be increased. Similarly, any nutrient management planning process must first achieve a whole farm nutrient balance. The nutrients arriving on farm must roughly balance those exiting the farm in managed products. After a balance is achieved, then BMPs designed to plug the leaks will provide additional long-term benefits. Water In In 1.5 gal. Farm pond The imbalance between Water In and Water Out must first be corrected. Water Out 1.5 gal. For the purpose of this discussion, nutrient imbalance will be expressed as a ratio of inputs to managed outputs. A ratio of 3:1 suggests that for every three pounds of nutrient entering a farm, one pound leaves as a managed product and the remaining two pounds are lost to the environment or added to soil storage reserves. 10

10 MODULE A Introduction Whole farm nutrient imbalances are common for modern livestock operations. To be environmentally sustainable, a livestock or poultry operation should attempt to achieve a whole farm phosphorus balance of 1:1. Typical Nutrient Balances The nutrient balance is illustrated for a feedlot, dairy, and swine operation in Figure 2-4. For this feedlot, the input to output ratio was 2.5:1 for N (imbalance of 650 tons/year) and 2:1 for phosphorus (P) (imbalance of 120 tons/year). The magnitude of the imbalance is smaller for the dairy and swine operation. However, the ratio of inputs to outputs ranges from 2.5:1 to more than 4:1. Inputs to outputs ratios of 2:1 up to 4:1 are common for many livestock operations. Size is generally a poor indicator of the nutrient imbalance experienced by livestock operations. A review of the whole farm nutrient balance for 33 Nebraska swine confinements and beef feedlots did not observe a trend between an increasing imbalance and larger livestock operations (Figure 2-5). Many of the operations involved in this study experienced a P balance near the ideal 1:1 ratio while some exceeded ratios of 4:1. Several of the worst imbalances were observed for livestock operations with less than 1,000 animal units. A P balance provides a preferred indicator of the risk to water quality. An imbalance in N does not distinguish between the relatively benign losses (e.g., denitrification of nitrate to N 2 gas) and the relatively harmful environmental losses (e.g., nitrate loss to water). In contrast, P losses impact only water quality through increased soil P levels and greater concentration of P moving with surface runoff water. Farms with a P input to output ratio near 1:1 ( Low Risk group in Figure 2-5) have the potential to be environmentally sustainable. Since soil storage is the primary reservoir for P, average soil P level should not be increasing for an input:output ratio near 1:1. If manure is managed appropriately within the available land base, the nutrient-related water quality risk should not be increasing. Livestock and poultry operations with a large imbalance (1.5:1 and greater) would expect steadily increasing soil P levels. Runoff and erosion from land application sites will carry an increasing P load as soil P levels increase. Measures to reduce runoff and erosion will partially reduce this risk and provide temporary solutions. The P imbalance must be corrected before this growing pollution potential will stabilize. These High Risk operations are not environmentally sustainable. 10

11 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning 11,500-head feedlot 120-cow dairy Inputs Managed outputs Inputs Managed outputs 1,080 ton N/yr 240 ton P/yr 430 ton N/yr 120 ton P/yr 29.2 ton N/yr 2.6 ton P/yr 6.9 ton N/yr 0.8 ton P/yr Imbalance 650 ton N/yr or 2.5:1 120 ton P/yr or 2:1 Imbalance 22.3 ton N/yr or 4.2:1 1.8 ton P/yr or 3.3:1 190-sow farrow to finish Inputs Managed outputs 58 ton N/yr 7.4 ton P/yr 15 ton N/yr 3.0 ton P/yr Imbalance 43 ton N/yr or 3.9:1 4.4 ton P/yr or 2.5:1 Figure 2-4. Typical nutrient imbalance observed for different livestock systems (Koelsch and Lesoing 1999 and Klausner 1995). 5:1 Phosphorus (Ratio of Inputs to Outputs) 4:1 3:1 2:1 High Risk 1:1 Low Risk ,000 10,000 Livestock Capacity, Animal Units Figure 2-5. Phosphorus balance vs. size for 33 Nebraska livestock operations (Koelsch and Lesoing 1999). 11

12 MODULE A Introduction The primary source of nutrients for most animal feeding operations is purchased feed or fertilizer. Sources of Nutrient Inputs The source of nutrient inputs to livestock operations is important to understanding preferred management strategies for reducing water quality risk (Figure 2-6). Commercial fertilizer can be a common source of nutrient inputs for many livestock operations, especially those with large cropping programs. The previously discussed Nebraska study observed that commercial fertilizer was the most significant N input and an important P input for livestock operations with less than 2,500 animal units. However, commercial fertilizer was an insignificant nutrient input for the livestock operations with more than 2,500 animal units (2% of N inputs and 1% of P inputs). Purchased animal feeds are often the most significant source of the N and P inputs. In the Nebraska study, N inputs as feed varied from 33% to 77% of total N inputs for farms with less than 250 animal units and more than 2,500 animal units, respectively. Phosphorus inputs as feed was the largest nutrient source for most farms. With the growing concentration of livestock and poultry, purchased animal feed is often the most significant source of nutrients even in regions that grow most animal feeds locally. Efforts to correct nutrient imbalances must focus on options for utilizing feed nutrients more efficiently and reducing purchased feed inputs. Other potential sources of nutrient inputs include purchased animals, legume-fixed N, and nitrates in irrigation water. These sources are typically insignificant or offer few options for input reduction. The one exception may be legume-fixed N grown on dairy operations. 100% Legume fixed N Nitrogen inputs Phosphorus inputs 80% Fertilizer Nutrient inputs % of total 60% 40% Fertilizer Feeds 20% 0% Feeds Animals Animals < >2,500 < >2,500 2,500 2,500 Average one-time animal capacity, animal units 12 Figure 2-6. Relative sources of N and P inputs with different-sized Nebraska livestock operations (Koelsch and Lesoing 1999).

13 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Is My Livestock/Poultry Operation in Balance? An understanding of nutrient balance and primary source of purchased nutrients is key to operating a livestock operation in an environmentally sustainable manner. Three methods are provided for estimating if a nutrient imbalance may be an issue on your farm. Those methods include (1) A checklist of potential indicators of nutrient imbalance (Table 2-1). (2) Whole Farm Nutrient Balance (see Appendix A) provides the bottom line answer to this issue. It also provides a measurement of progress made toward environmental sustainability following the implementation of changes. You, the producer, must be willing to assemble information for animal purchases and sales, feed and grain purchases and sales, fertilizer purchases, manure sales, and possibly other contributors defined in Figure 2-3 for a one-year period. (3) Manure nutrient production vs. crop nutrient utilization (see Lesson 31, Manure Utilization Plans). This method checks the ability of your land base to utilize the nutrients in manure. An excess of manure nutrients for crop production suggests a likely whole farm nutrient imbalance. The indicators found in Table 2-1 may help you identify if nutrient concentration might be an issue on your farm. Increasing soil P levels is a good indicator of a potential imbalance. Most of the P accumulation on a livestock and crop farm is likely to be stored in the soil (with the exception of livestock operations with an anaerobic lagoon). In addition, a livestock operation s reliance on purchased feed for the majority of feed nutrients is also an excellent indicator of a nutrient imbalance (assuming that manure is not transferred to off-farm customers). Is whole farm nutrient balance a concern for your livestock operation? Answering this question is the first step toward achieving environmental sustainability. Table 2-1. Environmental Stewardship Assessment: Indicators of a possible imbalance that may exist on your farm. Check those that apply. Yes response indicates that potential for nutrient imbalance is high. Don t Yes No Know Soil P levels for the majority of fields are increasing with time. Soil P levels for the majority of fields are identified as High or Very High on the soil test. The majority (more than 50%) of the protein and P in the ration originates from off-farm sources. Livestock feed programs routinely contain higher levels of protein and/or P than National Research Council or land-grant university recommendations. A manure nutrient management plan is not currently used to determine appropriate manure application rates to crops. Less than 1 acre of crop land is available per animal (1,000 lbs of live weight), and no manure is transported to off-farm users. 13

14 MODULE A Introduction Strategies to Improve Nutrient Balance Evaluating a livestock system s nutrient balance from a whole farm perspective provides a more complete picture of the driving forces behind nutrient-related environmental issues. The original sources of these nutrient inputs are clearly identified, which in turn suggest management strategies for reducing excess nutrient accumulations. The following four management strategies (Figure 2-7) should reduce nutrient imbalances: (1) Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop production (2) Alternative livestock feeding programs (3) Marketing of manure nutrients (4) Manure treatment Fertilizer Feeds Manure Crops Feed and forages Feed Manure Meat and Milk Losses or soil storage Strategy 1: Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop production offsets fertilizer inputs. Losses or soil storage Strategy 2: Alternative feed rations and efficient utilization of on-farm feeds offsets nutrient inputs as purchased feeds and forages. Low impact losses Manure Manure Manure Manure Losses or soil storage Strategy 3: Exporting of manure nutrients to off-farm users increases managed nutrient outputs. Losses or soil storage Strategy 4: Manure treatment allows disposal of manure nutrients. Some treatment options enhance the value of manure nutrients and complement manure marketing efforts. Figure 2-7. Four strategies are fundamental to addressing nutrient imbalances on modern livestock operations and achieving a sustainable nutrient balance between nutrient inputs and managed outputs. 14

15 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop production By accurately crediting manure nutrients in a cropping program, the purchases of commercial fertilizer can be reduced or eliminated and the risk to the environment reduced (Figure 2-7). This practice is especially important to livestock operations with significant crop production and substantial nutrient inputs as commercial fertilizers. It may offer greater benefit for N- related issues due to common use of commercial N fertilizers as insurance on manure applied fields. Lessons 30 through 36 will provide an in-depth discussion of the planning and management practices for efficiently using manure nutrients in crop production. Alternative livestock feeding programs Opportunities are available for reducing both N and P inputs by alternative livestock feeding programs (Figure 2-7). Specific management practices for reducing nutrient inputs as feeds will be discussed for ruminant (Lessons 12 and 13) and nonruminant (Lessons 10 and 11) animals. The Nebraska study observed a greater P imbalance when high P rations were used in feedlot feeding programs. Ethanol and corn processing byproducts, attractive feed alternatives for some cattlemen, are typically high in P concentrations, resulting in finished cattle rations with excess P levels. Participating operations that were users of these byproducts experienced substantially greater P imbalance as compared to those operations not utilizing these byproducts (Table 2-2). Both groups had very similar N balance. Feeding program choices are likely to impact whole farm nutrient balance, especially for farms purchasing significant quantities of feed from off-farm sources. In addition to changes in feed rations, some additional options that may reduce purchased feed nutrient inputs include (1) alternative crops or crop rotations that result in a greater on-farm production of livestock protein and P requirements and (2) harvesting and storage practices that improve the quality of animal feed and reduce losses. Marketing of manure nutrients Marketing of manure creates an additional managed output, similar to the sale of crops or livestock products. For two Nebraska feedlots summarized in Table 2-3, marketing of manure moved sufficient P to off-farm uses to eliminate a P imbalance (-1% and +6% imbalance on Farms #1 and #2, respectively). Farm #2 s nutrient balance was illustrated earlier (Figure 2-3) without crediting marketed manure nutrients. By actively marketing manure, this feedlot has achieved a relative level of nutrient sustainability that should prevent future buildup of soil P. Farm #3 also exhibits significant improvements in P balance due to the exporting of manure. Improved whole farm nutrient balance can be achieved by (1) Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop production. (2) Alternative feeding programs. (3) Marketing manure nutrients to off-farm users. Table 2-2. Nutrient imbalance for cattle operations as influenced by their use of byproducts of ethanol production and corn processing.* Input:Output Ratio N P Feedlots using byproducts (7 operations) 2.6:1 2.0:1 Feedlots not using byproducts (9 cattle operations) 2.5:1 1.1:1 *The high P content of these feed supplements increased the P imbalance. 15

16 MODULE A Introduction Table 2-3. Phosphorus imbalance for three feedlots actively marketing manure to off-farm users. Is Manure Marketed Farm #1 Farm #2 Farm #3 to Off-Farm 4,300 animal units 11,500 animal units 20,600 animal units Customers? No 1 Yes 2 No 1 Yes 2 No 1 Yes 2 Phosphorus 51 ton/yr -1 ton/yr 123 ton/yr 13 ton/yr 280 ton/yr 156 ton/yr Imbalance 4.2:1 1.0:1 2.0: :1 2.6:1 1.5:1 1 Phosphorus imbalance if manure was not marketed to off-farm sources. 2 Current P imbalance including manure marketed to off-farm sources. Improved whole farm nutrient balance can be achieved by (4) Manure treatment technologies. Manure treatment In some situations, it may be necessary for animal production systems to consider manure treatment technologies similar to municipal and industrial waste treatment systems. Some manure treatment systems focus on disposal of nutrients with modest environmental impact. For example, treatment systems commonly dispose of wastewater N as N gas (no environmental impact) or ammonia (some environmental impact). This is a preferable alternative to N losses to surface or groundwater. Other treatment systems enhance the value of manure (e.g., solids separation or composting) to allow alternative uses of the nutrients. Complementary manure treatment and manure marketing strategies can contribute to improved nutrient balance. For example, some producers are successfully combining composting (for odor control and volume reduction) with marketing of manure to crop farms and urban clients. Lesson 25, Manure Treatment Options, introduces the principles of manure treatment. A single strategy will probably not fit all situations. For systems with sufficient land base for utilization of manure nutrients, a strategy that utilizes manure nutrients effectively may be most appropriate. This strategy should focus on preventing manure nutrient losses and reducing commercial fertilizer inputs as a means of achieving a nutrient balance and gaining the greatest benefit from manure. Little incentive exists for animal production facilities with sufficient land to reduce nutrient excretion by changing diets or marketing manure to off-farm customers. Alternative feeding programs to reduce P in manure may better match the ratio of manure N to P with crop needs. When the land base becomes insufficient for utilizing the nutrients in manure, livestock dietary options for reducing manure nutrients may be an important strategy for attaining a nutrient balance. If neighboring crop farms or other nutrient users are in the vicinity of concentrated livestock operations, manure treatment and marketing of manure nutrients to off-farm customers may also be an important alternative. If nutrient uses do not exist, manure treatment options that benignly dispose of nutrients may be an important option. These alternatives will be discussed in greater detail in later lessons. 16

17 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Regulatory Compliance The USDA and EPA recently published a Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. The primary focus of this strategy is the implementation of comprehensive nutrient management planning. Although this strategy is not regulatory policy, it provides a framework for potential future federal regulation of nutrient-related issues. In addition, EPA has proposed significant changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process to be more encompassing of livestock and poultry operations, require Permit Nutrient Plans for all permitted facilities, and base all planning processes on P. The final rules will be announced in December Prior to these proposals, federal policy included only vague reference to regulation of livestock nutrient issues. However, it is likely that nutrient issues will be the focus of future federal regulations. Many states have established requirements for nutrient management planning. To date, most states have focused on nutrient management as it relates to crop production as opposed to comprehensive or whole farm nutrient management. It is likely, however, that nutrient-related issues will also be the focal point of greater state and local regulation. Your operation s compliance with nutrient planning regulations can be reviewed using Table 2-4. Table 2-4. Regulatory compliance assessment: Regulatory compliance issues related to nutrient management that may be applicable to your livestock or poultry operation. Is my livestock/ Is this issue addressed by regulations? poultry operation Regulatory Issue If Yes, summarize those regulations in compliance? What agencies are US EPA State Local List Name, Address, Phone No.: involved in administrating regulations related to nutrient management? Is comprehensive Yes No Yes No nutrient management Not applicable planning required? Don t Know Is manure nutrient Yes No Yes No management planning Not applicable as it relates to crop Don t Know production required? Is documentation of Yes No Yes No available land base for Not applicable managing manure Don t Know nutrients required? Are current rules focused Nitrogen Phosphorus Yes No on N or P? Both Neither Not applicable Don t Know Other: Yes No Yes No Not applicable Don t Know Are potential changes in Yes No Yes No public policy related Not applicable to nutrient management Don t Know currently under discussion? 17

18 MODULE A Introduction Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) will serve as the cornerstone of environmental plans assembled by animal feeding operations. CNMP serves as the environmental operating plan for a livestock or poultry operation. 18 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning Recently, the concept of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) was introduced by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture s (USDA s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It is anticipated that the CNMP will serve as the cornerstone of environmental plans assembled by animal feeding operations to address federal and state regulations. At the time this lesson was written, the issues addressed by a CNMP were only broadly defined. EPA and NRCS guidelines for CNMP provide an indication of the key issues to be addressed (Table 2-5) by this planning process (USDA 2000 and USDA and U.S. EPA 1999). The basic functions of a CNMP are expected to be as follows: A CNMP should serve as the environmental operating plan for a livestock or poultry operation. It should detail the management practices for minimizing the impact of nutrients and manure on soil, water, and air resources. The producer should be intimately familiar with this operating plan and use it to guide management decisions and convey desired outcomes to all participants in an animal operation (owner, manager, employees, and advisors). This same plan should also convey the management strategies employed to appropriate regulatory agencies. A CNMP should carefully analyze nutrient issues from a (1) whole farm perspective, assessing concentration of nutrients within the farm (comparison of sources and quantities arriving onfarm and exported from the farm), as well as (2) the individual component perspective such as a crop nutrient balance or animal feeding program analysis. Historically, only the crop nutrient management component was considered in most environmental plans. A CNMP should integrate nutrient management planning with other environmental considerations such as soil conservation and odor Table 2-5. Summary of issues addressed by a CNMP as initially defined by EPA s Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 1. Planning components of CNMP Issues addressed A manure handling and (1) Diversion of clean water storage plan (2) Prevention of leakage storage plan (3) Adequate storage (4) Manure treatment (5) Management of mortality Land application plan (1) Proper nutrient application rates to achieve a crop nutrient balance (2) Selection of timing and application methods to limit risk of runoff Site management plan Soil conservation practices that minimize movement of soil and manure components to surface and groundwater Recordkeeping Manure production, utilization, and export to off-farm users Other utilization options plan Alternative safe manure utilization strategies such as sale of manure, treatment technologies, or energy generation Feed management plan Alternative feed programs to minimize the nutrients in manure 1 Reference is available from

19 LESSON 2Whole Farm Nutrient Planning management. Many proposed BMPs can positively affect some resources (e.g., manure incorporation can reduce odor concerns) while damaging other resources (e.g., manure incorporation can increase soil erosion). Balancing the protection of water, soil, and air resources should be the objective of a successful CNMP. A CNMP should establish a record-keeping system that will document the degree of implementation and success of the proposed management practices and identify future changes to improve the plan. The form that a CNMP is likely to take will evolve over the next several years. One state s CNMP framework is illustrated in Figure 2-8. However, the fundamental principles addressed by a CNMP will remain relatively unchanged. Those principles are introduced in the following lessons: Whole farm nutrient balance: Lesson 2 Managing manure nutrients in crop production: Lessons Managing nutrients in animal feeding programs: Lessons Managing manure and other byproducts in a manure storage: Lessons Managing odors: Lessons Alternative treatment technologies for nutrient disposal: Lesson 25 CNMP should Analyze nutrients from a whole farm and an individual component perspective. Balance water, soil, and air quality issues. Include recordkeeping to document CNMP implementation. Inventory 1. Livestock and poultry inventory 2. Manure storage system description 3. Land application site inventory 4. Environmental risk assessment Strategic (long-term) Plan 1. Whole farm nutrient balance 2. Land requirements for nutrient utilization 3. Animal feeding program review 4. Odor management plan 5. Emergency action plan Review as necessary Annual Plan 1. Crop nitrogen management plan 2. Crop phosphorus management plan 3. Action plan Documentation and Records 1. Manure analysis records 2. Soil phosphorus test levels 3. Manure application field logs 4. Manure storage inspection reports Annual Review Review and Plan Modification 1. Post season summary of actual nutrient balance 2. Review of past year s plan and modifications to next year s plan Figure 2-8. A framework and several example tools are illustrated for a CNMP in Nebraska. This CNMP organizes components according to a chronological order that a producer would follow in the CNMP s development and implementation. 19

20 MODULE A Introduction APPENDIX A Estimating a Whole Farm Nutrient Balance Concept Nutrients arrive on the livestock farm (Inputs) in the form of purchased feed, fertilizer, and animals or as N fixed by legumes or transported with irrigation water. It is desirable that these nutrients leave the farm as marketed products (Managed Outputs) such as animals or crops. Any imbalance between Input and Managed Outputs will either (1) be added to soil reserves (adding to future environmental risks) or (2) lost directly to the environment. Excess N will be lost to the air as ammonia gas or to surface and groundwater as nitrate or ammonium. Excess P is commonly stored in the soil, contributing to soil P levels in excess of agronomic requirements. A high soil P level increases the potential for P movement to surface waters, contributing to eutrophication issues (see Lesson 1, Principles of Environmental Stewardship). Understanding the whole farm s nutrient balance as well as the sources of nutrient inputs is critical to identifying a nutrient management strategy for reducing an imbalance and achieving an environmentally sustainable operation. Whole Farm Nutrient Balance Inputs Feed Animals Fertilizer Farm Boundary Managed outputs Animals Crops Legumes Manure Irrigation Imbalance (Losses to environment or additions to soil storage) Instructions This balance is interested only in the nutrients that cross the border of the farm. It is not concerned with nutrients recycled within the farm. For example, homegrown crops fed to animals raised on your farm will not be considered because they do not cross the farm s boundary. Purchased feed products will be included because this nutrient input crosses the farm s boundary. The boundary of the farm includes all owned or rented land that you farm (do not include land that is rented to others) and all livestock production facilities. This nutrient balance is to be estimated for a one-year period. For estimating Nutrient Inputs and Outputs, information is required on the total commodity weight and nutrient content (feeds, forages, crops, and fertilizers). If a nutrient concentration is unknown, please select a representative feed, forage, or fertilizer value from the reference tables at the end of this appendix. To assist with these calculations, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is available that can be downloaded at no cost from the following website: 20

21 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning I. Livestock and Poultry A. Animal Inputs: For a one-year period, enter the number of animals purchased (including custom fed animals), their average live purchase weight, and the appropriate nutrient factor (Table 2A-1, page 26). b. Average Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Number Purchased c. Table 2A-1 Total= d. Table 2A-1 Total= Animal Group of Animals Weight, lbs Fraction a x b x c Fraction a x b x d Example: Calves 3, ,600 lbs ,100 lbs TOTAL B. Animal Outputs: For a one-year period, enter the number of animals sold or shipped off-farm, average live sell weight (include custom fed animals, culls, and mortality shipped off-farm). b. Average Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Number Sell c. Table 2A-1 Total= d. Table 2A-1 Total= Animal Group of Animals Weight, lbs Fraction a x b x c Fraction a x b x d Example: Finish Cattle 2,800 1, ,600 lbs ,800 lbs TOTAL C. Animal Products Outputs: For a one-year period, enter the quantity of animals sold and nutrient concentration if you have an analysis for your own animal products. Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Pounds of Animal b. N c. P Animal products Products Sold Factor = a x b Factor = a x c Milk Eggs Wool TOTAL 1 Assumes 3.2% protein in milk. The nitrogen factor can be estimated as follows: Nitrogen Factor = % Crude Protein/638 D. Change in Animal Inventory: (beginning vs. end of year). For those livestock groups that have changed in numbers fed from the beginning to the end of the year, indicate that change in inventory below. January 1 December 31 Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Number b. Average c. Number d. Average e. Table Total= f. Table Total= of Weight, of weight, 2A-1 (c x d x e)- 2A-1 (c x d x f)- Animals lbs Animals lbs Fraction (a x b x e) Fraction (a x b x f) Example 1, , ,000 lbs , TOTAL 21

22 MODULE A Introduction II. Feeds, Forages, Grains, and Other Crops E. Inputs: (include grain, supplement, forages, bedding, and minerals purchased). For a one-year period, list all feed purchases, quantity purchased, fraction dry matter, nutrient concentrations if known (use Table 2A-3 if unknown). All Purchased Feeds Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Pounds Sold, b. Fraction DM c. Fraction CP Total= d. Fraction P Total= List Feed Wet Weight (% DM/100) 1 (% CP/100) a x b x c/6.25 (% P/100) a x b x d Example: Hay 200, ,100 lbs lbs TOTAL Example: CP and P concentrations were reported on a wet weight or as-fed basis. Fraction DM is entered as 1 (see footnote) for calculation purposes. F. Outputs: (include grain, forages, and straw sold). Follow same directions as Inputs. Crops and Feeds Sold Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Pounds Sold, b. Fraction DM c. Fraction CP Total= d. Fraction P Total= List Feed Wet Weight (% DM/100) 1 (% CP/100) a x b x c/6.25 (% P/100) a x b x d Example: Soybeans 240, ,900 lbs ,400 lbs TOTAL Example: CP and P concentration were reported on a dry weight basis. Actual Fraction DM is entered (0.90) for calculation purposes. G. Change in Inventory: (beginning vs. end of year). If the inventory of any previously mentioned crop or animal feed stored on farm has changed from the beginning to the end of the year, indicate that change in inventory below. Crops and Feeds Stored on Farm Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Inventory on b. Inventory on c. Fraction DM d. Fraction CPTotal= e. Fraction P Total= List Jan. 1, lbs Dec. 31, lbs (% DM/100) 1 (% CP/100) (b - a) x c x (% P/100) (b - a) x c x e Crop/Feed Wet Weight Wet Weight d/6.25 Example: Corn 560, , lbs. 3,300 lbs lbs TOTAL 1 If Fraction CP and Fraction P are reported on a dry matter basis, enter fraction DM. If Fraction CP and Fraction P are reported on a wet basis (as fed basis), enter 1 for fraction DM. DM Dry Matter CP Crude Protein P Phosphorus 22

23 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning III. Fertilizer, Manure, and Miscellaneous Products H. Fertilizer Inputs: (Dry, liquid, anhydrous, compost, etc.). For a one-year period, enter all fertilizer purchases from off-farm suppliers, quantity purchased, and nitrogen and phosphorus content. If nutrient contents are unknown, refer to Table 2A-2. Phosphorus should be entered as elemental P, not P Convert to elemental P by dividing P 2 O 5 by Nitrogen Phosphorus a. Amount b. N Total= c. PTotal= Fertilizer Inputs Purchased, pounds Fraction a x b Fraction a x c Example: Conc. Super-phosphate 48, lbs 0.2 9,600 lbs TOTAL 1 Assumes 3.2% protein in milk. The nitrogen factor can be estimated as follows: Nitrogen Factor = % Crude Protein/638 I. Outputs: (Manure, compost etc.). For a one-year period, list all fertilizers, manures, or other miscellaneous products sold, traded or given away and your best estimate of quantity involved. If nutrient content is known, enter those concentrations. Manure quantity and nutrient concentrations should be reported on a wet weight basis. Phosphorus should be entered as elemental P, not P Convert to elemental P by dividing P 2 O 5 by Nitrogen Phosphorus Fertilizer, manure, and a. Amount b. N Total= c. PTotal= compost outputs Purchased, pounds Fraction a x b Fraction a x c Example: Compost 100, ,200 lbs lbs TOTAL J. Change in Inventory: (beginning vs. end of year). If the inventory of any previously mentioned product has changed from the beginning to the end of the year, indicate that change in inventory below. Inventory on Nitrogen Phosphorus Fertilizer, manure, a. b. c. N Total= d. PTotal= and compost January 1 December 31 Fraction (b - a) x (b-a) x c Fraction (b - a) x d TOTAL 23

24 MODULE A Introduction IV. Miscellaneous Nitrogen Sources K. Inputs as Legume Fixed Nitrogen: For all legumes not manured within the past two years, indicate acres grown, yield, and crude protein (CP) content (as fed or wet basis). Assumptions a. Acres not c. CP Fraction Legume Fixation Crop Manured b. Yield (as fed) Total= Factor Factor Example: Older legume hay crop ton/ac 0.18 a x b x c x 192= ,300 lbs N 1. 1st year hay crop ( 90% legume) tons/ac a x b c x 96= nd year or older hay crop ( 90% legume) tons/ac a x b x c x 192= st year hay crop (grass & legume mix: 25%-90% legume) tons/ac a x b x c x 58= nd year or older hay crop (grass & legume mix: 25%-90% legume) tons/ac a x b x c x 115= Soybeans bu/ac a x b x c x 3.8= Dry edible beans bu/ac a x b x c x 3.8= Other TOTAL Legume Factor: Portion of harvested crop crude protein from legumes. Fixation Factor: Portion of fixed nitrogen that originates from atmosphere. L. Inputs as Nitrogen in Irrigation Water: List all irrigation wells, quantity of fresh water pumped, and nitrate-n concentration, if known. Do not include effluent from lagoon or feedlot runoff control pond. Well a. PPM Nitrate-N b/ Acre-inches pumped Total = a x b x Example: Home well 15 1,700 5,800 lbs N TOTAL 24

25 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Calculation of Balance Instructions: To complete Nitrogen Balance and Phosphorus Balance, enter input and output values from previous four pages. For example, A refers to Animal Inputs total from page 21. Nitrogen Balance Inputs Input Inventory Correction (if inventory increases) Managed Outputs Output Inventory Correction (if inventory decreases) Animals A - D B+C - D Animals Feed E - G F - G Crops Fertilizer G - J H - J Manure Legumes K Irrigation L TOTALS: Total Inputs lbs to lbs Total Managed Outputs Or RATIO of Inputs/ Outputs to 1 Imbalance (environmental losses and additions to soil storage) lbs Inputs - Managed Outputs Phosphorus Balance Inputs Input Inventory Correction (if inventory increases) Managed Outputs Output Inventory Correction (if inventory decreases) Animals A - D B + C - D Animals Feed E - G F - G Crops Fertilizer G - J H - J Manure TOTALS: Total Inputs lbs to lbs Total Managed Outputs Or RATIO of Inputs/ Outputs to 1 Imbalance (environmental losses and additions to soil storage) lbs Inputs - Managed Outputs 25

26 MODULE A Introduction Table 2A-1. Nutrient concentration in meat animals. Species Nitrogen Fraction Phosphorus Fraction Beef cattle < 1,000 lbs Beef cattle > 1,000 lbs Dairy cattle (replacement herd) Dairy cattle (milking herd) Swine < 100 lbs Swine 100 to 300 lbs Swine > 300 lbs Poultry Goat Sheep Nitrogen and phosphorus fractions represent the fraction (elemental N or P) of live weight divided by 100. Table 2A-2. Fertilizer nutrient concentration. Product Nitrogen Fraction Phosphorus Fraction Anhydrous ammonia 0.82 Aqua ammonia 0.20 Ammonium nitrate 0.34 Ammonium sulfate 0.21 Ammonium nitrate-sulfate 0.30 Urea 0.46 Urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) 0.28 Phosphoric acid 0.24 Superphosphoric acid 0.35 Ordinary superphosphate Concentrated superphosphate 0.20 Ammonium phosphate-sulfate Ammonium phosphate-nitrate Monoammonium phosphate Diammonium phosphate Ammonium polyphosphate-liquid Ammonium polyphosphate-dry Nitrogen and phosphorus fractions represent the fraction (elemental N or P) of total commodity weight divided by 100. To convert from P 2 O 5 to P, divide P 2 O 5 by

27 LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Table 2A-3. NRC Feed Code Listing. Fraction 1 Fraction 1 NCR Common Dry Crude Fraction 2 Feed Name Matter Protein Phosphorus 101 Bahiagrass 30% Dry Matter Bahiagrass Hay Bermudagrass Late Vegetative Brome Hay Pre-bloom Brome Hay Mid Bloom Brome Hay late Bloom Brome Hay Mature Fescue Meadow Hay Fescue Alta Hay Fescue K31 Hay Fescue K31 Hay Full Bloom Fescue K31 Mature Napiergrass Fresh 30 day DM Napiergrass Fresh 60 day DM Orchardgrass Hay, Early Bloom Orchardgrass Hay, Late Bloom Pangoliagrass Fresh Red Top Fresh Reed Canarygrass Hay Ryegrass Hay Sorghum Sudan Hay Sorghum-Sudan Pasture Sorghum-Sudan Silage Timothy Hay Late Vegetative Timothy Hay Early Bloom Timothy Hay Mid Bloom Timothy Hay Full Bloom Timothy Hay Seed Stage Wheatgrass Crest., Hay Grass Pasture Spring Grass Pasture Summer Grass Pasture Fall Mix Pasture Spring Mix Pasture Summer Range June Diet Range July Diet Range August Diet Range September Diet Range Winter Meadow Spring Meadow Fall Meadow Hay Prairie Hay Alfalfa Hay Early Vegetative Alfalfa Hay Early Vegetative Alfalfa Hay Late Vegetative Alfalfa Hay Late Vegetative Alfalfa Hay Early Bloom Alfalfa Hay Early Bloom Alfalfa Hay Mid Bloom Alfalfa Hay Mid Bloom Alfalfa Hay Full Bloom Alfalfa Hay Full Bloom Alfalfa Hay Late Bloom Fraction Dry Matter is the percentage dry matter of total commodity weight divided by 100. Fraction Crude Protein and Fraction Phosphorus is indicated on a dry weight basis. 2 Fraction Phosphorus is indicated as elemental phosphorus. Source: National Research Council Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle