demonstration of integrated conservation tillage and

Demonstration of Integrated Conservation Tillage and Manure Management Systems for Corn in Corn-Soybean Rotations

Hub and Spokes

03IFLM001 and 04IFLM002

2004 Crop Year Report January 15, 2005

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Objective 1 Demonstration Sites and Locations 1 Demonstration Description 2 Data Collection 2 Results and Discussion 3 Educational Outreach 6 Impact Statement 7 Additional Partners 9 Report Prepared By 9 Tables 10 Figures 15

i

Demonstration of Integrated Conservation Tillage and Manure Management Systems for Corn in Corn-Soybeans Rotation

Hub and Spokes

03IFLM001and 04IFLM002

2004 Crop Year Report January 15, 2005

Introduction: Tillage, nutrient, and manure management have a significant impact on surface and ground water quality, especially surface water runoff. A tillage survey sponsored by the Iowa Resource Management Partnership (IRMP) committee in 1999 (IRMP, 2000), indicated the need for improvement in adopting conservation practices. An integrated approach in development and adoption of best management practices for manure, nutrient, tillage and crop residue is essential. Practitioner involvement, throughout the process of planning and implementing educational programs, enhances adoption of recommended practices. The major goal of this project is to demonstrate tillage and manure best management strategies on large field-scale demonstrations. The strategy for this project is to conduct on-farm demonstrations in several counties in northeast Iowa in cooperation with the Northeast Iowa Agricultural Experimental Association (NEIAEA). A “Hub and Spoke” participatory education model will be used as a foundation for education and outreach programming. Objectives: The major goal of this project is to demonstrate an integrated approach of tillage and manure management strategies on field-scale demonstrations utilizing the concept of the “Hub and Spokes” model. A network of livestock producers, commercial manure applicators and crop producers have been developed to conduct replicated trials on cooperator farms in conjunction with research efforts conducted at the Northeast Research Farm (NERF). The “Hub and Spokes” participatory education model will be used as a foundation for education and outreach programming. This project report includes the plan of work for the extended contract of 2003 and the current 2004 contract. Demonstration Sites and Locations: The current 2004 project consists of fourteen on-farm demonstration sites (Spokes) along with the research site on the Northeast Research Farm (Hub), at Nashua (Fig. 1). The spokes were located within the counties that make up the Northeast Iowa Agricultural Experimental Association (NEIAEA). Thirteen cooperators (Table 1) have established the 14 on-farm demonstration sites, one cooperator has two sites. Since 2002, we have had a total of 38 on-farm demonstration sites with 16 cooperators.

1

Demonstration Description: At the Northeast Research Farm (Hub), evaluations of liquid swine manure and commercial fertilizer have been established over three tillage systems consisting of no-tillage, conventional tillage (fall chisel and field cultivation), and fall strip-tillage (narrow strips 6-inches wide). There is a wide range of equipment that can be used to conduct strip-tillage. The option used in our study consists of two cover disks with a shank in the center. Four manure and commercial nitrogen fertilizer rates were applied over each tillage system and replicated three times. For both the manure and commercial nitrogen fertilizer treatments the rates were applied to all tillage systems in each replication. The applied nitrogen rates targeted for both sources are: 0, 75, 150, and 225 lb N/acre. Liquid swine manure and anhydrous ammonia nitrogen were injected 4 to 6 inches below the soil surface. The no-tillage plots utilized tine row coverers to put back the residue disrupted by the knives or injectors. Thirteen cooperators established 14 on-farm demonstration sites (Spokes) to evaluate the effects of different liquid swine manure rates on corn production. For each demonstration site manure applicators were calibrated to determine the application rates. Four manure nitrogen rates were applied at each demonstration site in three replications. Rates varied due to crop rotation, yield goal, manure analysis, and application equipment. The targeted rates of nitrogen were 0, ½, 1, and 1½ times the agronomic nitrogen rate per acre. Each on-farm demonstration site was large enough to utilize existing cooperator and/or custom manure applicator equipment. Each site contains twelve randomized strips representing four nitrogen rates and three replications (Fig. 2). The practices demonstrated have provided farmers and custom manure applicators information and resources (i.e. nutrient analysis, crop removal rates, calibration notes, etc.) to accurately determine manure application rates. Evaluation of techniques to monitor soil nutrient analysis enables more precise determination of nutrient needs to improve input management for profitability and environmental protection. Establishing demonstration sites where manure rates are repeated in a random fashion provides an evaluation method to accurately determine production and economics of different manure application rates. A soil nutrient analysis in each strip or treatment area provides producers information on the variability encountered when collecting and analyzing soil samples. Understanding the existence and cause of this variability can aid in developing manure management plans. Calibration of manure application equipment provides producers and custom manure applicators accurate information on application rates for applicators without flow control equipment. For equipment with flow control technology, calibration provides the opportunity to check previous applicator calibrations. Data Collection: At the Hub detailed soil, plant, and water samples were collected to gain an understanding of the relationship of tillage, manure, and nitrogen management. Soil samples were taken to a depth of four feet and analyzed for nitrate-nitrogen. The top 12 inches were also analyzed for pH, electrical conductivity, total carbon, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Bulk densities, late spring soil nitrate sampling, soil moisture, and soil water samples was also collected. In addition to surface residue estimation, grain yield determination, and fall stalk nitrate sampling, plant samples were collected at the V6, V12, VT, and R6 growth stages to determine nitrogen uptake.

2

The measurements used for evaluation of the on-farm demonstration were a subset of the measurements used at the Hub. Measurements collected for the on-farm sites included, initial soil samples, manure samples, residue estimation, late spring soil nitrate sampling, fall stalk nitrate sampling, and grain yield determination. Results and Discussion: Initial Background Soil Samples The initial soil samples from the on-farm demonstrations were highly variable between sites (Table 2 and 3). For all nutrients the 0-6 inch soil depth was more variable than the 6-12 inch soil depth. Nitrate concentrations in the top foot were approximately 3-20 ppm. Phosphorus and potassium were stratified with concentrations being higher in the 0-6 inch soil depth. Additional phosphorus would be recommended for three of the on-farm demonstration while eight on-farm sites would require additional potassium for optimum plant growth and development. Manure Analysis and Value Manure sample analysis is imperative to accurately apply manure based on crop needs. Book values for total nitrogen in manure are 50 lb/1,000 gal. Our manure analysis shows that approximately 50% of the on-farm sites would over or under apply manure nitrogen if they were relying on book values (Table 4). Book values for phosphorus and potassium are 42 and 30 lb/1,000 gal, respectively. Therefore, an approximately 86% and 79% of the time an over or under application of phosphorous and potassium may occur, respectively. Manure can accurately be sampled several days prior to manure application. Late Spring Soil Nitrate Concentration as Affected by Manure Nitrogen Rates The relationship between the late spring soil nitrate concentrations and manure nitrogen rates was variable and site specific (Fig. 3, Table 5). The degree of response varied slightly due to site specific weather conditions, soil variability, and past manure history. Furthermore, grouping all sites the late spring soil nitrate concentration shows a non-linear relationship with manure nitrogen rates (Fig. 4). This relationship explains 44% of the variability in late spring soil nitrate concentration due to nitrogen application. This means there are other factors contributing to the late spring soil nitrate concentration variability besides the nitrogen rate. These factors are site specific such as weather conditions, manure history, tillage system, fertility program, crop rotation, etc. Fall Stalk Nitrate Concentration as Affected by Manure Nitrogen Rates Fall stalk nitrate concentrations that exceed 2000 ppm indicate low nitrogen utilization for grain production (luxury nitrogen use) with adequate nitrogen recovery from the soil. None of the sites showed an excess of nitrate in the stalk greater than 2000 ppm except sites 3 (Fig. 5, Table 6). This site had extremely excessive levels of nitrate in the stalk at all nitrogen rates. Low stalk nitrate concentrations at low nitrogen rates are a sign that additional nitrogen can increase grain

3

production, while low levels of stalk nitrate concentrations at high nitrogen rates are an indicator of nitrogen loss into the environment (i.e. nitrate leaching). The ideal range for stalk nitrate concentration is between 1000 and 2000 ppm. If nitrogen rates are above 200 lbs N/acre and stalk nitrate concentrations are lower than 2000 ppm, then there is nitrogen loss in the system. The fall stalk nitrate concentration for all of the on-farm demonstration responded poorly to addition nitrogen as manure (Fig. 6). The zone of excessive nitrogen uptake started to occur at manure nitrogen rates above 200 lb N/ac. Corn Yield Response as Affected by Manure Nitrogen Rates For most locations yield responded positively to the addition of manure nitrogen compared to the control or zero nitrogen rate of manure with all sites averaging 200 bu/acre for all nitrogen rates. Sites 1 and 6 showed no considerable response to additional increases in nitrogen rates (Fig. 7, Table 7). However, yield increases beyond 75 lb N/acre were not significantly higher for most sites (Fig. 7). Sites 1 and 6 likely show no yield response to applied nitrogen rates due to improperly calibrated manure application, an over application of nitrogen, and/or an extensive manure use history. The best utilization of nitrogen would be at approximately 100 lbs N/acre (Fig. 8). Late Spring Soil Nitrate, Fall Stalk Nitrate, and Yield Response Relationships The relationship between late spring soil nitrate concentrations and relative yield can be used to determine the yield response to available soil nitrogen (Figs. 9 and 10). Maximum yields were realized with a late spring soil nitrate concentration as low as 6 ppm. Managing manure nitrogen by monitoring the soil nitrate concentrations in the spring and applying additional nitrogen as needed is an efficient tool and could result in significant nitrogen savings. However, a lack of yield response to the late spring soil nitrate test raises questions about the complexity of soil nitrogen management and the factors affecting soil nitrogen availability. Soil nitrogen availability can be drastically affected by soil conditions and by seasonal weather conditions. The relationship between fall stalk nitrate concentrations and yield are another way to evaluate yield response to available soil nitrogen by determining the amount of nitrate in the stalk at maturity. On-farm demonstration sites 2, 7, 8, 10, and 12 show responses with some low fall stalk nitrate concentration resulting in yields less than 150 bu/acre (Fig. 11). The relationship between overall yield and fall stalk nitrate concentration indicated that stalk nitrate concentrations from 0 to 1000 ppm are in the low range for nitrogen utilization and yield response (Fig. 12). Therefore, there is a high probability additional nitrogen may lead to yield increases. On the other hand, stalk nitrate concentrations above 1000 ppm of nitrate resulted in maximum yields and the probability of a yield increase will be much lower due to additional nitrogen application. Tillage and Nitrogen Management Relationships Corn yields show no significant difference due to different nitrogen sources (manure vs. commercial nitrogen) (Fig. 13). Corn yields also show no significant differences due to different tillage systems for all nitrogen rates of manure. Alternatively, the commercial nitrogen treatment

4

yields showed that strip-tillage at the zero nitrogen rates had an advantage over chisel plow and no-tillage. For both the commercial and manure nitrogen treatments yields responded positively to nitrogen application, but increases in nitrogen rates above 75 lb N/acre did not result in a significant yield increases except under manure nitrogen were the and strip-tillage and no-tillage system show a yield response with each increasing nitrogen rate. Optimum corn yields were obtained consistently for the spokes as well as the hub at a low rate of applied nitrogen (Fig.14). The addition of nitrogen over 100 lbs/acre was excessive and possibly contributed to harmful environmental effects. Surface Residue Estimation Surface residue estimations were significantly higher for slot injected manure application compared to disc-covered and shovel incorporated application (Fig 15). The rate of manure application did not affect the amount of surface residue disturbance under the shovel or slot injected manure applications. However, under disc-covered application lower application rates resulted in less surface residue. This is due to the increased speeds needed to apply at lower application rates. The type of surface residue manure is applied into makes a significant difference on the amount of residue disturbed (Fig. 16). Disc-covered manure application under corn residue left approximately 55% more surface residue on the soil surface than under soybean residue. Summary The results from both the on-farm demonstrations and the research farm, at Nashua, show similar trends. Yield response to additional nitrogen and nitrogen source was affected by the specific history of each site. Late spring soil nitrate tests and fall stalk nitrate tests show high dependence on site history, manure management, and weather conditions. Soil and manure analysis reports show significant variability within each site and between all sites. Based on the findings from both on-farm demonstrations and the research farm the following need to be considered:

• Soil variability: Understanding field areas that are more prone to leaching and runoff are critical to utilize manure more efficiently.

• Manure analysis: Prior to applying manure, it is important to have manure analyzed in order to apply accurate and precise manure rates. Relying on book values for manure nutrient contents may be a starting point, but up to 75 percent of the time nutrient levels are significantly higher or lower.

• Equipment calibration: It is important to calibrate equipment before hauling manure. A simple calibration of equipment can improve the application rate significantly (i.e. rpm, speed, hydraulic flow controls, gate positions, etc.). Also, proper applicator calibration can result in spreading manure application over a much larger area resulting in a decrease in expenses for commercial fertilizer.

• Late spring nitrate test: Plant nitrogen needs can best be determined by conducting late spring nitrate tests. Although, over the last three years this test has explained between 40% and 60% of the variability.

• Fall stalk nitrate tests: Fall stalk nitrate tests can provide a tool to evaluate how efficiently the crop utilized the applied nitrogen during the growing season, which means the difference between a profit or loss. Remember this is a test that can explain yield variability due to nitrogen applied.

5

• Applying less manure in the fall and side dressing additional nitrogen after a late spring nitrate test allows for manure nitrogen or commercial nitrogen to be utilized more efficiently with less harm to the environment.

• Injected manure can be utilized as an alternative tillage system (strip-tillage), which can lead to a reduction of traffic on the field and to less soil compaction. Manure injection generally reduces the amount of residue disturbed and can be utilized to meet conservation plan compliance.

By addressing tillage and manure management using an integrated approach, nitrogen utilization can be more efficient. An integrated approach that utilizes large scale field demonstrations and research size plots is essential in addressing manure and tillage management challenges. The ability to obtain results from on-farm trials and research plots that are consistent, will enable us to couple both concepts together to provide quality educational programs to producers and the agribusiness industry. Education and Outreach Activities: Over 911 individuals have had the opportunity to learn about integrated manure and tillage management through invited or initiated presentations (Table 8). Several visual and oral presentations have been developed to relay the project description, information, and results from both the hub and spokes for use at five field days, CCA training, Crop Diagnostic Clinics, Soil Management Clinic, and several local, regional, and national conferences. Field signs were placed by the research plots and at five on-farm demonstrations to indicate the project name, funding sources, collaborators, and project information. Interim project updates were given to the cooperators in throughout the growing season as part of the Hub and Spokes newsletter. The newsletter also contained educational articles relevant to the time of year. The week following the winter project meeting in December a year-end summary was given to the cooperators. The year-end summary included information regarding the fall stalk nitrate sampling, yield checks, relationships between yield and late spring nitrate samples, and relationships between yield and fall stalk nitrate concentrations. The winter project meeting not only provided the cooperators the opportunity to evaluate the project, but for the project to determine its impact through a question and answer session. Applicator calibration is crucial to applying the correct manure rates to meet crop nutrient needs. Over the course of the last year we have worked with five cooperators in calibrating their equipment. Eight cooperators used flow control equipment or hired custom applicators with flow control equipment. For applicators with flow controls a calibration check was done. Also, two field days were conducted at “Farm and Field Fest” near Boone, Iowa and at the “Manure Nutrient Management Clinic” near Ames, Iowa to demonstration manure application technology and to stress manure applicator calibration (Fig. 15-19). Interactions with cooperators are essential for this project to function properly and to succeed. The ability to demonstrate manure and tillage management concepts allows producers to gain knowledge first hand. Teaming up with cooperators and custom applicators enabled us to achieve the designed manure rates and the ability to utilize equipment, land, and other farm

6

resources (Fig. 20). Many cooperators show a willingness to use more precise equipment that enables them the ability to apply accurate manure rates. However, due to the high cost of precision manure applicator equipment most livestock producers find it more economical to have their manure custom applied. Impact Statement: Tillage and manure management is a significant issue in Iowa. The interactions between tillage and manure management, and their impacts on soil erosion, have a significant impact on surface water quality due to sediment, phosphorous, and other chemical transport to our lakes and rivers. Soil erosion is highly influenced by soil and residue management. In order to meet the designated criteria set by the TMDL rules for over 187 impaired water bodies in the state of Iowa, tillage and manure management must play a significant role in soil erosion control and residue management. A tillage survey sponsored by the Iowa Resource Management Partnership (IRMP) committee in 1999, and published in 2000, indicated the need for improvement in adopting conservation practices. The concept of the Hub and Spokes is unique in its approach in addressing issues related to manure and tillage management. The concept focuses on implementing best management practices in manure and tillage management that would minimize surface runoff, increase the efficiency of manure utilization, and reduce the use of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. The concept of this program started in 2001 by conducting detailed research of integrated manure and tillage management systems on the Northeast Research Farm in Nashua, Iowa along with similar treatments on replicated on-farm demonstration sites. The Hub at the research farm works as an education laboratory by conducting field days and workshops for area producers to be trained and informed about the proper way of manure application, estimation of nutrient needs for their crops, manure equipment calibration, and other educational opportunities that are stemmed from information generated from the Hub and Spokes sites. The Hub and Spokes project is making an impact on how cooperators are managing manure and understanding what kind of effect poor manure management has on the environment. Cooperators participating in this project realize the value of manure as a nutrient source for their crops and are now determined not to waste manure nutrients by over applying. This project has provided training on applying manure application rates accurately with calibration. The benefits of applying manure over as many acres as possible are being realized. Cooperating producers are realizing that manure has more value than just nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. They are seeing the benefits of the additional organic matter and nutrients in their farming operations and believe that in the past the value of manure has been underestimated. Additionally, there is tremendous economic saving that come from manure over the use of commercial fertilizers. Many producers indicated that if they had enough manure they would no longer rely on commercial fertilizer. They estimated that the use of manure saves them about $30 per acre on their fertility program. The outcome of this approach is very encouraging, over 911 producers and agriculture professionals participated in the educational programs of five field days, ten workshops, and one winter meeting in 2004. The cooperators believe this project is a worthwhile investment into

7

manure management. Additionally, area producers were noticing plot flags, field demonstration signs, field days, and plot activity throughout the growing season. These activities spurred discussion about the plots leading to more interest and wanting to see results. The field days caught the attention of crop and livestock producers as well as agribusiness professionals from across northeast Iowa. The good turnout out at the 3 on-farm field days (86 attendees) indicates that there is an interest in manure management for what is being done and what can be done to apply manure more efficiently. Due to these changes and outcomes, the cooperators involved in this project feel that manure management in the state needs to be improved and this project is meeting their expectations in providing such information.

8

9

Additional Partners: Crop and Livestock Producers Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Manure Management Action Group Iowa Pork Producers Association Iowa State University Extension Natural Resources Conservation Service Northeast Iowa Agricultural Experimental Association Report Prepared by: Mahdi Al-Kaisi, Assistant Professor Soil Management/Environment Extension Specialist Email: [email protected] Phone: (515) 294-8304

Table 1. Cooperators participating in the on-farm demonstrations in 2004. County Cooperator1

Buchanan Jim Frye (1) John Muench (1)

Butler Rick Juchems (1) Chickasaw Dale Reicks (1) Fayette Jamie Fettkether (1) Daryl Ruff (1) Floyd Schmitt Brothers (1) Glen Zubrod (1) Franklin Wendall Boehlje (1) Howard Max Schmidt (2) Winnebago Mike Branstad (1)

Wayne Johnson (1) Worth Dwayne Christiansen (1) 1 The number in parenthesis indicates the number of sites for that cooperator. Table 2. Initial soil samples for the 0-6 inch depth increment for the on-farm demonstrations in 2004. NO3-N P K pH OM C:N Site # Ave. 1 Std. Dev. 1 Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ppm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - % - - - - Site 1 22.3 1.5 88.7 15.5 210.7 37.3 6.5 0.3 4.7 0.3 15.5 0.4 Site 2 9.3 2.1 27.0 21.3 116.0 21.6 7.4 0.4 5.7 1.8 22.6 4.1 Site 3 18.0 1.4 130.0 28.3 270.0 19.8 5.8 0.0 4.6 0.1 16.1 0.4 Site 4 3.7 0.6 138.7 72.0 307.0 66.8 7.2 0.2 5.2 0.4 14.8 0.6 Site 5 14.3 2.9 48.0 11.4 172.3 12.5 7.0 0.3 6.8 3.0 15.9 2.5 Site 6 8.3 2.1 24.3 7.6 167.3 21.1 7.0 0.4 7.1 2.0 18.5 1.6 Site 7 8.3 0.6 94.3 13.6 264.0 39.4 6.5 0.1 3.7 0.4 18.5 1.0 Site 8 8.3 2.9 66.3 11.0 223.3 39.6 6.3 0.4 9.9 8.9 14.1 0.9 Site 9 17.7 9.0 28.7 2.1 95.0 23.4 6.7 0.2 5.0 1.4 18.4 2.4 Site 10 8.3 1.5 94.3 13.8 124.3 25.9 6.7 0.2 7.4 0.4 16.7 0.4 Site 11 9.0 0.0 15.3 1.5 102.3 5.8 7.0 0.4 3.3 0.2 18.3 0.4 Site 12 6.7 0.6 10.0 3.0 94.0 13.1 6.2 0.1 3.5 0.2 27.7 2.5 Site 13 12.3 0.6 39.7 9.9 121.0 5.6 6.8 0.3 5.7 0.9 17.6 1.5 Site 14 7.0 1.0 28.3 4.5 153.3 20.2 6.5 0.3 3.5 0.8 23.3 3.7 1 Ave. is average and Std. Dev. is standard deviation.

10

11

Table 3. Initial soil samples for the 6-12 inch depth increment for the on-farm demonstrations in 2004. NO3-N P K pH OM C:N Site # Ave. 1 Std. Dev. 1 Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ppm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - % - - - - Site 1 6.3 0.6 47.0 25.2 105.0 14.0 6.4 0.3 4.2 0.7 18.8 1.2 Site 2 11.3 0.6 9.3 11.8 77.3 9.5 7.5 0.5 5.5 1.7 21.8 5.8 Site 3 9.0 1.4 140.0 28.3 250.0 83.4 5.8 0.1 4.5 0.4 16.7 0.1 Site 4 3.7 1.2 45.0 30.1 198.7 101.2 7.1 0.2 3.3 0.6 19.4 1.3 Site 5 6.3 0.6 14.3 5.1 73.3 9.7 6.6 0.3 4.2 1.5 21.5 2.8 Site 6 9.3 2.1 4.3 2.1 93.3 10.2 6.6 0.6 5.9 2.2 24.5 1.5 Site 7 9.7 0.6 20.0 9.6 104.7 21.4 6.3 0.2 2.6 0.3 28.6 5.4 Site 8 6.3 3.2 15.0 7.2 62.3 8.6 6.1 0.4 5.7 5.2 14.5 9.3 Site 9 5.0 2.6 5.3 1.2 64.7 4.0 6.1 0.3 3.6 1.6 24.6 6.6 Site 10 6.0 1.0 18.0 3.6 57.7 9.3 6.9 0.2 4.7 0.9 29.7 8.5 Site 11 4.0 1.0 6.7 0.6 79.7 3.1 5.7 0.7 1.4 0.3 30.8 16.5 Site 12 7.0 0.0 4.3 1.5 63.3 3.8 5.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 -- -- Site 13 5.0 1.0 10.7 5.7 113.7 16.0 6.6 0.5 3.9 0.3 23.1 2.9 Site 14 2.7 0.6 6.7 2.1 84.7 13.6 6.3 0.4 2.7 0.5 33.2 10.1 1 Ave. is average and Std. Dev. is standard deviation.

Table 4. Manure nutrient analysis for the on-farm demonstrations sites in 2004. Site Facility Type Solids Total N P K - - % - - - - - - lbs/1000 gal - - - - Site 1 Swine 8.9 44 33 18 Site 2 Swine 10.3 54 76 40 Site 3 Swine 4.7 55 34 37 Site 4 Mixed 3.2 42 37 25 Site 5 Swine 7.5 62 42 38 Site 6 Swine 4.9 48 31 38 Site 7 Swine 7.5 40 28 26 Site 8 Swine 3.4 46 20 31 Site 9 Swine 4.8 56 32 37 Site 10 Swine 4.2 59 31 32 Site 11 Swine 6.0 56 49 38 Site 12 Swine 4.5 55 41 29 Site 13 Swine 4.1 48 30 34 Site 14 Swine 5.7 54 36 46 Ave. 5.7 51 37 34 Table 5. Late spring soil nitrate concentrations for the 0-12 inch soil depth for on-farm demonstration sites in 2004. Nitrogen Rate1

Zero Low Agronomic High Location Ave. 2 Std. Dev. 2 Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO3-N (ppm) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site 1 13.3 2.5 13.7 3.2 24.0 5.7 22.0 3.5 Site 2 5.0 0.0 9.0 5.0 15.3 3.2 17.3 6.4 Site 3 10.3 1.5 19.3 13.7 43.3 32.7 76.7 37.5 Site 4 8.7 3.2 12.0 1.0 14.7 9.9 13.0 3.6 Site 5 11.7 10.8 11.3 4.0 11.3 8.4 9.3 4.0 Site 6 7.7 3.1 17.0 4.4 23.7 7.1 31.3 7.8 Site 7 8.3 2.5 12.7 3.5 11.7 4.0 14.3 4.2 Site 8 6.7 4.0 11.3 1.2 11.0 7.1 21.0 2.6 Site 9 4.0 0.0 6.7 2.5 6.3 1.5 9.7 2.5 Site 10 10.7 2.3 17.7 3.2 18.3 4.9 27.3 3.8 Site 11 3.3 2.3 6.3 1.5 4.0 1.0 4.7 0.6 Site 12 8.7 1.5 7.3 2.5 5.3 3.1 8.7 5.7 Site 13 3.7 0.6 7.7 2.9 12.3 2.1 10.0 2.6 Site 14 2.7 0.6 7.3 2.5 5.3 3.1 8.7 5.7 1 Nitrogen rates are: zero, no manure; low, ½ agronomic; agronomic, crop nutrient requirement; high,

1 ½ agronomic. 2 Ave. is average and Std. Dev. is standard deviation.

12

Table 6. Fall stalk nitrate concentrations for the on-farm demonstrations in 2004. Nitrogen Rate1

Zero Low Agronomic High Location Ave. 2 Std. Dev. 2 Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO3-N (ppm) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Site 2 6 3 186 305 662 129 1442 843 Site 3 261 133 8347 3257 9163 589 9210 2005 Site 4 2 1 12 1 5 4 496 604 Site 5 10 10 10 6 32 19 44 13 Site 6 9 9 40 35 953 652 1603 761 Site 7 88 71 469 426 347 550 1510 1600 Site 8 7 9 3 1 5 1 500 609 Site 9 6 7 11 8 12 11 95 108 Site 10 42 38 6 4 251 246 473 459 Site 11 3 3 105 179 3 4 19 23 Site 12 2 2 466 336 619 669 85 138 Site 13 2 2 11 7 26 15 183 233 Site 14 0 0 3 0 6 7 49 78 1 Nitrogen rates are: zero, no manure; low, ½ agronomic; agronomic, crop nutrient requirement; high,

1 ½ agronomic. 2 Ave. is average and Std. Dev. is standard deviation. Table 7. Corn yields for the on-farm demonstration sites in 2004. Nitrogen Rate1

Zero Low Agronomic High Location Ave. 2 Std. Dev. 2 Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. Ave. Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site 1 126.9 13.8 134.2 10.6 156.3 1.1 153.1 7.2 Site 2 116.1 57.1 163.5 33.2 207.0 5.9 204.5 21.5 Site 3 207.6 13.4 280.2 5.9 290.4 3.8 284.6 17.0 Site 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Site 5 102.8 13.4 182.1 8.6 188.7 37.2 169.4 14.0 Site 6 172.5 10.9 171.6 2.4 197.8 12.0 203.1 14.8 Site 7 198.0 23.7 229.3 10.7 223.2 11.3 235.1 8.1 Site 8 149.1 4.7 172.3 5.4 172.6 2.1 186.2 10.9 Site 9 65.2 17.6 151.2 25.9 116.0 58.2 167.2 22.1 Site 10 132.3 6.3 177.3 12.0 191.1 1.7 194.9 8.1 Site 11 150.1 10.1 178.1 13.1 180.2 12.8 188.5 16.1 Site 12 149.9 11.3 205.6 8.4 194.3 10.7 202.7 1.9 Site 13 98.7 4.8 157.0 6.3 180.7 20.6 208.5 2.8 Site 14 75.1 4.5 156.6 14.2 179.3 10.4 197.7 0.7 1 Nitrogen rates are: zero, no manure; low, ½ agronomic; agronomic, crop nutrient requirement; high,

1 ½ agronomic. 2 Ave. is average and Std. Dev. is standard deviation.

13

Table 8. Educational and outreach programs pertaining to the Integrated Conservation Tillage and Manure Management Demonstration project. Program Date # in Attendance Target Audience Field Days On-Farm Field Day at Rick Juchems’, Butler County

6/2004 42 Area producers and agribusinesses

On-Farm Field Day at John Muench’s, Buchanan County


Strip-Tillage and Manure Applicators Field Day, Hardin County


On-Farm Field Day at Dwayne Christiansen’s, Worth County


Iowa Farm and Field Fest Manure Application Demonstrations, Boone County

8/2004 138 Iowa producers and agribusinesses

Workshops and Conferences

North Central Iowa Crop and Land Stewardship Clinic, Iowa Falls


Soil and Water Management Short Course, Iowa State University


Agriculture and the Environment Conference, Iowa State University


Crop Management Workshop, Butler County 3/2004 7 Area producers Heartland Water Quality Conference, Hardin County


Crop Diagnostic Clinics, Ames, IA 7/2003 288 Producers and agribusinesses Manure Nutrient Management Clinic, Ames, IA 8/2004 70 Agribusinesses Soil Management Clinic, Ames, IA 8/2003 25 Producers and agribusinesses American Society of Agronomy, Seattle, WA 11/2004 35 National society members Winter Project Meeting, Nashua, IA 12/2004 21 Project cooperators Print Media

“Integrated Tillage and Manure Mangement Under Corn Soybean Rotation Using the Hub and Spokes Concept,” poster at the Agriculture and Environment Conference

2/2004

“’Hub and Spokes’ Guides Tillage and Manure Management,” Ag In Action news release 3/2004 “Managing Corn and Soybean Residue with Manure Application,” Iowa Manure Matters: Odor and Nutrient Management Newsletter

3/2004

Hub and Spokes Newsletter 3/2004 “Preserve Precious Residue”, Wallaces Farmer 5/2004 “Hub and Spokes Guides Tillage and Manure Management”, Wallaces Farmer web edition 5/2004 Hub and Spokes Newsletter 6/2004 Juchems On-Farm Field Day press release 6/2004 Muench On-Farm Field Day press release 6/2004 Muench On-Farm Field Day announcement, Des Moines Register 6/2004 Christiansen On-Farm Field Day press release 7/2004 Christiansen On-Farm Field Day announcement, Des Moines Register 8/2004 “Integrating Manure Application and Tillage Management.” Iowa Manure Matters: Odor and Nutrient Management Newsletter

8/2004

14

Figure 1. Map of Northeast Iowa with red circles indicating on-farm demonstration sites for 2004, green circles indicating on-farm demonstration site with field plot signs, and a blue star indicating the Northeast Research Farm.

Figure 2. An aerial photograph of an on-farm demonstration site. The photograph is overlaid with a plot design.

15

Figure 3. Late spring soil nitrate concentrations at different manure nitrogen rates for each on-farm site of 2004.

16

Figure 4. Late spring soil nitrate concentrations at different manure nitrogen rates for all on-farm sites of 2004.

17

Figure 5. Fall stalk nitrate concentrations at different manure nitrogen rates for each on-farm site of 2004.

18

Figure 6. Fall stalk nitrate concentrations at different manure nitrogen rates for all on-farm sites of 2004.

19

Figure 7. Corn yields at different manure nitrogen rates for each on-farm site of 2004.

20

Figure 8. Corn yields at different manure nitrogen rates for all on-farm sites of 2004.

21

Figure 9. Corn yields versus late spring soil nitrate concentrations for each on-farm site of 2004.

22

Figure 10. Corn yields versus late spring soil nitrate concentrations for all on-farm sites of 2004.

23

Figure 11. Corn yields versus fall stalk nitrate concentration for each on-farm site of 2004.

24

Figure 12. Corn yields versus fall stalk nitrate concentration for all on-farm sites of 2004.

Figure 13. Corn yields at different nitrogen rates at the Northeast research farm for manure nitrogen and commercial nitrogen of 2004.

25

Figure 14. Corn yields at different nitrogen rates for the Northeast research farm of manure nitrogen and commercial nitrogen and on-farm demonstrations for 2004.

26

27

Figure 15. Residue estimation from different manure applicators under soybean residue for selected on-farm demonstration sites during the fall of 2003.

Figure 16. Residue estimation from disc-covered manure applicators under corn and soybean residue for selected on-farm demonstration sites during the fall of 2003.

Figure 17. Manure field demonstration at Rick Juchems’ on-farm demonstration near Plainfield, Iowa. The manure field demonstration spotlighted the residue management, nutrient sampling, manure application, and on-farm demonstration results.

Figure 18. Manure field demonstration at John Muench’s on-farm demonstration near Aurora, Iowa. The manure field demonstration spotlighted the residue management, nutrient sampling, manure application, and on-farm demonstration results.

28

Figure 19. Manure field demonstration at Dwayne Christiansen’s on-farm demonstration near Plymouth, Iowa. The manure field demonstration spotlighted the residue management, nutrient sampling, manure application, and on-farm demonstration results.

Figure 20. Presentation given at the Manure Nutrient Management Clinic near Ames, Iowa. The presentation discussed integrated tillage and manure management.

29

Figure 21. Manure field demonstration at Iowa Farm and Field Fest near Boone, Iowa. The manure field demonstration spotlighted the residue management, manure application regulations, applicator calibration, and equipment demonstration.

Figure 22. On-farm demonstration plot prior to harvesting at Dwayne Christiansen’s in the fall of 2004 showing different nitrogen rate effects.

30

demonstration of integrated conservation tillage and

Documents