yahara pride farms 2015 phosphorus reduction …...headland stacking of manure / composting each of...

Yahara Pride Farms

2015 PhosphorusReduction Report

Yahara Pride Board of Directors

July 8, 16July 8, 2016

2

During 2015 the Yahara Pride Farms (YPF’s) board of directors continued operating and implementinga number of agricultural conservation programs designed to reduce the loss of phosphorus within theYahara Watershed. There were four major incentive programs offered within the watershed in 2015including:

1. Cover Crop Assistance,2. Low Disturbance Manure Injection,3. Strip tillage, and4. Headland Stacking of Manure / Composting

Each of these programs offers some unique benefits both from a phosphorus reduction standpoint aswell as educational and confidence/trust building within the watershed. This report provides anupdate on the number of acres and farms involved in these programs as well as an estimate of thenumber of pounds of phosphorus prevented from entering the Madison lakes.

A. Strip Tillage:Strip-tillage is a conservation system that offers an alternative to no-till, full-till and minimum tillage.It combines the soil drying and warming benefits of conventional tillage with the soil-protectingadvantages of no-till by disturbing only the portion of the soil that is to contain the seed row (similarto zone tillage). Each row that has been strip-tilled is usually about eight to ten inches wide. Thesystem still allows for some soil water contact that could cause erosion, however, the amount oferosion on a strip-tilled field would be light compared to the amount of erosion on an intensivelytilled field. Compared to intensive tillage, strip tillage saves considerable time and money. Strip-tillconserves more soil moisture compared to intensive tillage systems. However, compared to no-till,strip-till may in some cases reduce soil moisture and increase the potential for soil loss.

Strip-till is performed with a special piece of equipment and the YPF’s strip till program assisted withthe rent of a strip till machine to determine if this farming system fit with their overall farming goalsand management. In the first two years of the Yahara cost share program a unique partnershipformed between the Yahara Pride Farms Inc. and Kalscheur Implement. For the 2015, KalscheurImplement was no longer able to provide a strip tillage machine, so the YPF’s board approved agrower payment of $20/acre for up to 20 acres (maximum payment of $400 per farm).

The data contained in the table on page 4 is a combination of fields that were tilled using a strip tillmachine. There were four farms that cooperated in the strip tillage program and these operationswere spread out around a wide area in the Yahara watershed. As can be seen in the table, striptillage was conducted on 20 different fields with a large variation of soil types, soil test and slopes.This year the number of acres planted using a strip tillage system was about 1,489. Running the SNAPcalculations for each field is important because as demonstrated in the table, assuming thatphosphorus reductions directly correspond to slope is not an accurate assumption. Based on theinformation gathered over the three years of this project, the factors that influence phosphorus loss(or reductions in phosphorus loss) include slope, tillage prior and after strip tillage, soil test levels,

3

manure management program and the crop rotation. All of these factors play a large role inpredicted phosphorus loss.

The 2015 strip tillage program was conducted on 1,488.6 acres in the Yahara Watershed. However,the vast majority of these acres were not cost shared by the Yahara Pride Farms program.

Total acres stripped tilled 1,488.6o YPF cost share acres 60.0

Acres of strip tillage done without financial assistance = 1,428.6 acres

A study of the estimated phosphorus savings by changing farming systems from what the farm wascurrently using to strip tillage shows a wide range of data. Switching from whatever the currenttillage system was to strip tillage had a range from 0.1 to 5.6 lbs phosphorus per acre. For 2015 thedata shows that in all cases, switching from the old farming system to strip tillage reduce phosphorusloss.

As demonstrated in the table, there are times when switching to strip-tillage had a very minor affecton phosphorus loss. On other fields and conditions the change to strip tillage had a dramatic affect.A closer evaluation indicates that there are times when changing tillage systems can reduceparticulate loss while increasing soluble losses. The challenge is to determine when a change in thetillage system has the greatest positive impact on water quality.

In summary, the 2015 strip tillage program had an estimated reduction of phosphorus loss of 990.4pounds in 2015 (this is the one year estimated change phosphorus loss. The average reduction inphosphorus loss was 0.8 pounds/acre for the 20 fields in the program.

The cost share program for strip tillage was $20 / acre for less than are equal to 20 acres. All threecooperators had more than 20 acres, so their payment was $400. Based on the averagephosphorus reduction of 0.8 lbs / acre the cost for this phosphorus reduction strategy was:

$20 / acre divided by 0.80 lbs of phosphorus reduced per acre = $25/pound of P

4

AcresSoilType

SoilSym

bolSlope

SoilTestP

PPMRotat.

PIAnnual

PIPart.PI

SolublePI

Rotat.PI

AnnualPI

Part.PISoluble

PI

AnnualPchange

peracre

AnnualPchange

forfield

90.0Plano

PlA1%

481

10.5

0.31

00.1

0.20.5

45.028.0

PlanoPm

A1%

651

10.8

0.61

10.6

0.60.2

5.6111.0

PlanoPm

A1%

451

10.7

0.21

10.4

0.20.3

33.318.0

PlanoPlA

1%18

11

0.60.2

11

0.50.2

0.11.8

117.0Plano

PlA1%

401

10.7

0.21

10.4

0.20.3

35.1121.0

PlanoPlA

1%40

11

0.40.2

11

0.30.2

0.112.1

83.0Plano

PlA1%

451

10.4

0.31

10.3

0.30.1

8.323.5

KegonsaKeB

2%109

22

10.6

21

0.41

0.24.7

16.0Elburn

EoA2%

642

21.4

0.91

20.9

0.90.5

8.057.0

KidderKeB2

4%46

22

1.40.3

21

0.90.3

0.528.5

114.0StCharles

SaB4%

271

11.1

0.21

10.7

0.20.4

45.687.0

Dresden

DsB

4%47

11

0.40.3

11

0.30.3

0.18.7

153.0D

resdenD

sB4%

331

22.1

0.21

11.3

0.20.8

122.453.0

PlanoPlB

4%119

24

3.20.8

22

1.60.8

1.684.8

34.0StCharles

SaB4%

492

32.2

0.42

21.6

0.30.7

23.895.0

TroxelTrA

5%50

34

3.90.6

22

1.80.6

2.1199.5

110.0Batavia

BbA9%

161

10.7

0.11

10.6

0.10.1

11.039.1

Dresden

DsC2

9%118

67

5.41.3

55

3.81.5

1.454.7

30.0W

halanW

xC29%

4011

1110.2

0.65

54.4

0.85.6

168.0109.0

No

SNAP

89.5

0.80.4

0.1-5.6

1488.6Acres

990.4Lbs

P-Total

2015Phosphorus

Report-StripTillage

WithoutStrip

TillageW

ithStrip

Tillage

AverageM

edianRange

5

Comparing the 20 fields (1,489 acres) in the program offers great insight into when and wherephosphorus reductions because of the adoption of strip-tillage have the greatest potential to occur.Switching from no-till to strip-till increases the potential for particulate loss while having minimalimpact on soluble losses. Considering that strip tillage normally replaces more aggressive tillage(chisel plowing, cultivation, etc.), it seems reasonable that most of the advantage to changing to thistillage system will be in the reduction of soil loss.

However, there is a potential that with high surface manure applications, strip-tillage could reducesoluble losses, but there were no fields within this dataset to test this theory. The greatest reductionin loss occurs with particulate (soil particle bound) phosphorus. Therefore, strip-tillage offerssignificant potential to reduce losses of particulate bound phosphorus when adopted by farmingsystems using intensive tillage (chiseled - either spring or fall with or without disking) or on farmssurface applying manure without incorporation.

This year's phosphorus reduction = 990.4 lbs

Cost per pound of P reduced this year = $ 25.00 / lb.

Total investment by Yahara WINS in Strip Tillage Program = $1,200

Total acres planted with the strip tillage system = 1,489

Total acres cost shared = 60 acres

Acres planted without cost share in watershed = 1,429

6

B. Low Disturbance Manure Injection:The northern portion of the Yahara Watershed is an area with high concentrations of livestock andtherefore a great deal of manure. Manure is either incorporated into the soil using a number ofdifferent tillage implements (chisel plow, disk, or field cultivator) or it is applied to the soil’s surfaceand not incorporated. Surface applications of manure have been shown to increase nitrogen andphosphorus runoff to rivers and streams, while injection/incorporation places manure below thesurface where it doesn’t interact with runoff water during storms. However, on steep slopes tilling inmanure can make the soil more susceptible to erosion.

For many livestock operations in the Yahara, manure incorporation is a standard practice. Traditionalincorporation methods move a great deal of soil and increase the potential for soil erosion. Fieldevaluations conducted by the Yahara Pride Certification Program during the spring of 2013 and 2014identified reducing soil erosion as a high priority. Since much of the tillage was conducted toincorporate manure, a system of incorporating manure with minimal soil disturbance needs to beimplemented in the watershed. Minimum disturbance equipment also works well with no-tillplanting farming systems and allows farmers to experiment with new methods of preserving nitrogenand phosphorus to save on fertilizer costs. In addition to the economic benefits, improved manureutilization benefits the environment by ensuring efficient nutrient use and improving soil and waterquality.

In 2013 the Yahara Pride Farms was one of the first groups in Wisconsin to experiment with verticalmanure injection (VMI). VMI is a relatively new farming system that incorporates manure into thesoil with minimal soil disturbance. This system uses a single large fluted coulter to cut crop residueand open a channel in the soil surface for manure placement. Significantly less soil disturbanceoccurs with this process than with either chisel or chisel/disk incorporation. To encourage farmers totry this new incorporation system, the Yahara Pride Farmers Board worked with VTI of WashingtonIowa and a local equipment dealer to outfit a manure tanker with the VTI injection system. During2015 there were some challenges with renting a tractor and manure tanker in the watershed andYPF’s and the equipment supplier were forced to modify the program.

In 2015 the manure application program was modified to include any manure application equipmentthat was defined as low disturbance (Low Disturbance Manure Injection – LDMI). Participants in theprogram were either farmers who had purchased LDMI equipment, or were hiring a custom operatorwho had LDMI equipment. For 2015 YPF’s had four farms cooperated in the LDMI program. The costshare program was modified to provide $15 per acre with a 50-acre maximum payment ($750maximum). The four farms used the equipment in 32 separate fields, which totaled 566 tillable acres.There was additional manure applied using this equipment, but some of that land was out of theYahara Watershed. The data contained in the tables on pages 8 and 9 are from the fields within theYahara Watershed.

7

Estimates for reductions in phosphorus loss were conducted using crop rotation, tillage practices andmanure application data provided by farmers in the watershed. The tables on pages 8 and 9 are asummary of the SNAP data collected from these operations and contains the information for all of thecooperating farms. Four farmers worked with the low disturbance manure incorporation equipmenton approximately 566 acres. This is a significant decrease in acres over what was done in 2014 (848acres). There still is a significant interest in using this equipment and over the past few years a fewfarmers and custom operators have purchased the equipment for use within the watershed.

As seen in the tables on pages 8 and 9, Yahara Pride was able to obtain comparable SNAP data on allof the 32 fields where manure was injected. In 2013 VMI was the only program where every fieldshowed a reduction in potential phosphorus loss. This was not true for the 2014-cropping seasonwhere we had one field that showed an increase in the risk of phosphorus loss with VMI. When weevaluate the 32 fields in the program in 2015, the range in phosphorus reduction was from -0.6 to 5.9lbs/acre. This is a field with a fairly high estimated annual phosphorus loss with most of those lossescoming in the form of particulate phosphorus.

The greatest potential for reducing losses occurs in intensive tillage farming systems with high ratesof manure applied. These types of farming systems typically use either fall or spring chisel/disktillage. LDMI has minimal impact on soluble loss and in most cases the risk for loss increases. Thismay have more to do with the calibration and operation of the model than in the field, because thosewho have used LDMI notice that the manure is well injected into the soil. The estimated annualphosphorus loss was reduced by (-0.6) to 5.9 lbs/acre through this manure application system, withthe 2015 average reduction of 1.7 lbs per acre.

Based on the 2015 field data, the LDMI cost share program reduced phosphorus loss by 1,080 lbs.The average reduction in phosphorus was calculated to be 1.7 lbs/acre, and efforts should bedirected on farms/fields with high potential for soil loss (based on slope and tillage).

This year's phosphorus reduction = 1,080 lbs

Cost per pound of P reduced this year = $15 / acres divided by 1.7 lbs /acre average phosphorus reduction = $ 8.82 / lb.

Total investment by Yahara WINS in LDMI Program = $ 2,100

Total acres planted with the LDMI system = 566 acresTotal acres cost shared = 140 acres

Acres planted without cost share in watershed = 426 acres

8B.

AcresSoil*Type

Soil*Sym

bolSlope*

Soil*Test*P*PPM

Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*

Annual*P*change*per*acre

Annual*P*change*for*

field21.0

*********1

20

11.0

21.012.0

*********2

31

12.0

24.024.0

*********2

31

12.0

48.024.0

*********4

41

13.0

72.06.3

************Batavia

BbA1%

1011

20.8

11

00

0.31.5

9.58.6

************Troxel

TrB2%

903

32.2

0.83

21.7

0.60.7

6.020.0

*********St*Charles

ScB3%

493

21.9

0.63

21.6

0.20.7

14.013.5

*********Dresden

DsC24%

711

21.5

0.31

21.5

0.30.0

0.038.8

*********Plano

PnB4%

844

43.6

0.74

32.8

0.51.0

38.826.5

*********Plano

PoB4%

1296

98.1

1.34

86.9

1.11.4

37.119.2

*********St*Charles

ScB4%

1084

97.6

1.34

65.3

0.72.9

55.710.2

*********Batavia

BbB4%

975

65.1

1.12

00

0.35.9

60.28.7

************Batavia

BbB4%

621

32.1

0.41

22

0.30.2

1.724.4

*********Batavia

BbB5%

1195

86.3

1.44

64.7

0.92.1

51.29.0

************Kidder

KdC27%

615

32.4

0.53

32.2

0.30.4

3.613.1

*********Kidder

KdD27%

411

90.2

0.11

00.1

0.10.1

1.315.5

*********Kidder

KdC28%

1096

97.4

1.35

75.7

0.82.2

34.1

2015*Phosphorus*Report*N*LDMI

Without*LDM

IW

ith*LDMI

9

AcresSoil*Type

Soil*Sym

bolSlope*

Soil*Test*P*PPM

Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*

Annual*P*change*per*acre


field16.0

*********Dresden

DrD29%

704

32.3

0.64

32.1

0.50.3

4.813.5

*********Kidder

KdC29%

844

1210.6

1.14

87.4

0.53.8

51.311.0

*********Kidder

KdC29%

963

32.4

0.53

22

0.50.4

4.480.0

*********Ringw

oodRnB

9%14

45

4.41

43

2.40.1

2.9232.0

7.4************

Warsaw

WrC2

9%71

49

81

46

5.70.6

2.720.0

9.8************

Ringwood

RnC29%

1084

75.6

14

76.4

0.8N0.6

N5.912.2

*********Dodge

DnC29%

624

1110.8

0.64

98.9

0.42.1

25.618.0

*********Kidder

KdC29%

823

43.3

0.62

11

0.32.6

46.814.5

*********Dodge

DnC210%

705

1312.2

0.65

109.2

0.43.2

46.411.5

*********St*Charles

ScB16%

535

44.1

0.45

44

0.40.1

1.229.9

*********Dodge

DnC216%

765

1413.4

0.74

99

0.44.7

140.510.3

*********Plano

PnB16%

1066

76.4

0.86

75.9

0.60.7

7.212.0

*********144

21.2

0.31

0.60.7

0.22.4

8.0************

1092

1.50.3

10.5

0.50.8

6.417.1

*********Dodge

DnC228%

985

76.5

0.85

65.5

0.71.1

18.8

1.732*fields

1.1(N.6)*N*5.9*

566.0Acres

1,080.1*****

Lbs*P*N*Total

AverageM

edianRange

2015*Phosphorus*Report*N*LDMI

Without*LDM

IW

ith*LDMI

10

C. Cover Crop Assistance Program:Cover crops are grasses, legumes, small grains or other crops grown between regular grain cropproduction periods for the purpose of protecting and improving the soil. The most common covercrops are fall-seeded cereals, such as rye, barley or wheat, and fall-seeded annual ryegrass. Latesummer-seeded spring oats are sometimes used, even though they winterkill. One of the two majorreasons for growing winter cover crops is to reduce soil erosion. In the Yahara Watershed asignificant amount of the tillable acres has sufficient slope to be at risk for erosion if not adequatelyprotected. Eroding soil particles not only fill in wetlands and streams, but they also carry particulatebound phosphorus to surface water.

Based on the data collected by the Yahara Pride Farms during the spring of 2013 and 2014, the use ofcover crops need to be targeted to specific fields and farming systems. Cover crops have a highpotential to reduce phosphorus loss on fields being harvested as corn silage with manureincorporated in the late summer or fall. Research has shown that fields with winter coverincorporated in the spring have 55 percent less water runoff and 50 percent less soil loss annuallythan do fields with no winter cover. More recent studies show soil losses from corn or soybeans no-tilled into a vigorous growth of rye or wheat to be 90-95 percent less than soil losses from corn andsoybeans conventionally tilled.

The Yahara Pride Farms began working with cover crops as a demonstration program in 2012. Theprogram got a fair amount of publicity and recognition and other farmers within the watershedbecame interested in cooperating because of the ease of getting into the program. The table belowshows the changes in participation over the past three years:

2013 2014 201520 farms 37 farms 35 farms80 fields 53 fields (in SNAP) 160 fields (in SNAP)

2,382 acres 4,732 acres 4,908 acresRange - P reduction (-3.1 to 6.2) Range – P reduction (-0.6 to 6.2) Range P reduction (-1.0 to 13.4)

Average 1.0 lbs / acre Average 0.8 lbs / acre Average 1.8 lbs / acreTotal P reduction 1,957 lbs Total P reduction 3,786 lbs Total P reduction 6,572 lbs

While not all the fields in the watershed planted into cover crops can be attributed to the YaharaPride Farms program, it is clear that cover crops are becoming a recognized and accepted practice inthe watershed. There are still a number of important considerations that need to be evaluated andaddressed in regards to cover crops in this region of the state. Some of these include the cropsplanted, the timing of planting, targeting fields that have the greatest potential for nutrient andsediment loss and targeting farming systems that have the greatest potential for nutrient andsediment loss.

In 2015 YPF’s worked with local crop consultants to get the information required to calculate thepotential environmental benefits of all three cost shared practices. The information on the following

11

pages for the cover crop program shows that this year there were 160 fields with crop rotations andfarming systems in the SNAP format. This represented about 75% of the total acres planted withcover crops, though most of these acres were not cost shared. For the final calculation of phosphorusreductions the average reduction in phosphorus loss (1.8 lbs/acre) was multiplied by the acres ofcover crops where we did not have SNAP data (about 25% of the land). Of the 35 farms participatingin the program, SNAP data was collected from 29 farms. This wide range of farms and farmingsystems improves our understanding of the potential for cover crops to reduce phosphorus loss.

Based on the 160 fields with data, the estimated annual phosphorus loss was reduced in the rangeof -1.0 to 13.4 lbs/acre by the adoption of planting cover crops, with an average reduction of 1.8 lbsper acre. This is significantly higher than past years, which maybe because of the size and the widevariation in farming systems contained in the data set. The 2015 data had 75% of the cover cropacres and 83% of the farms provided a current SNAP plan.

Based on the field data collected during the 2015 seasons, the cover crop incentive demonstrationprogram reduced phosphorus loss by 6,572 pounds in 2015. This reduction in the potentialphosphorus delivery to surface water was a 73.6% increase over the 2014 cover crop program. Theaverage reduction in phosphorus was calculated to be 1.8 lbs/acre, and efforts should be directedon farms/fields with high potential for soil loss (based on slope and tillage).

This year's phosphorus reduction = 6,572 lbs

Cost per pound of P reduced this year = $40 / acres divided by 1.8 lbs /acre average phosphorus reduction = $ 22.22 / lb.

Cost share program sponsored at $40 / acre for a maximum of 50 acres

Total acres planted using a cover crop system = 4,908 acresTotal estimated acres cost shared = 1,390 acres

Acres planted without cost share in watershed = 3,518 acres

28.3% of the acres planted to cover crops on YPF’s land were cost shared

12

AcresSoil*Type

Soil*Sym

bolSlope*

Soil*Test*P*PPM

Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*

Annual*P*change*per*

acre


field8.7

SableSaA

1%431

59

4.24.9

58

3.64.5

18.7

*******************1.4

Sable*SaA

1%500

610

4.65.7

69

3.85.2

1.31.8

*******************15.0

GraysGsB

1%68

33

1.11.7

22

0.81.5

0.57.5

*******************12.0

1441

0.60.7

10.5

0.60.2

2.4*******************

6.0119

21.1

0.61

0.90.6

0.21.2

*******************5.0

911

0.50.4

10.3

0.20.4

2.0*******************

9.069

10.7

0.31

0.90.3

J0.21.8

J*******************90.0

PlanoPlA

1%48

11

0.30.3

10

0.10.2

0.327.0

*****************83.0

PlanoPlA

1%45

11

0.40.2

11

0.30.3

0J

*******************117.0

PlanoPlA

1%40

01

0.40.2

11

0.40.2

0J

*******************16.1

PlanoPoA

1%50

11

0.40.7

11

0.30.6

0.23.2

*******************7.5

HoughtonHo

1%68

11

0.21

11

0.21

0J

*******************34.0

PlanoPnA

1%156

33

21.4

32

0.80.8

1.861.2

*****************121.0

PlanoPlA

1%40

11

0.40.2

11

0.30.2

0.112.1

*****************111.0

PlanoPm

A1%

451

10.4

0.21

10.4

0.20

J*******************

18.0Plano

PlA1%

181

10.4

0.21

10.5

0.2J0.1

1.8J*******************

31.1O

rion*VariantO

s1%

773

42.3

1.23

21

0.91.6

49.8*****************

28.0Plano

PmA

1%65

11

0.50.6

11

0.60.6

J0.12.8

J*******************64.0

HayfieldHaA

1.50%44

11

0.30.3

11

0.30.3

0J

*******************16.0

ElburnEoA

1.50%64

12

11

12

0.90.9

0.23.2

*******************23.5

KegonsaKeB

2%109

22

10.6

21

0.41

0.24.7

*******************23.5

KegonsaKeB

2%109

22

0.81.3

21

0.31

0.818.8

*****************27.2

TroxelTrB

2%120

66

5.50.9

65

4.70.8

0.924.5

*****************8.4

KegonsaKeB

2%38

31.3

0.41

0.90.1

0.75.9

*******************8.6

TroxelTrB

2%90

33

2.10.7

32

1.70.6

0.54.3

*******************18.6

TroxelTrB

2%44

54.9

0.53

2.21.1

2.139.1

*****************16.1

RadfordRaA

2%94

44

2.71.3

33

2.20.9

0.914.5

*****************10.0

PlanoPnB

2%92

55

3.61

44

3.90.5

0.22.0

*******************

Without*Cover*Crop

With*Cover*Crop

2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*Crops

13

AcresSoil*Type

Soil*Sym

bolSlope*

Soil*Test*P*PPM

Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*


acre


field14.0

ElburnEfB

2.50%69

85

4.60.9

63

20.6

2.940.6

*****************22.6

ElburnEfB

2.50%83

25

4.21.3

23

2.20.6

2.761.0

*****************6.6

VirgilVrB

2.50%49

11

0.11.4

11

0.11.2

0.21.3

*******************4.0

ElburnEfB

2.5%126

33

1.71

33

1.60.9

0.20.8

*******************34.4

ElburnEfB

2.50%41

39

4.74.8

26

2.53.5

3.5120.4

***************39.6

PlanoPnA

4%124

68

71

67

5.32.1

0.623.8

*****************6.0

BoyerBoB

4%48

11

0.40.2

11

0.40.2

0J

*******************12.5

DodgeDnB

4%18

23

1.91

23

1.61

0.33.8

*******************5.9

Ringwood

RnB4%

531

11.2

0.21

11.2

0.20

J*******************

9.0M

chenryM

dC24%

382

0.81

10.1

1.30.4

3.6*******************

13.0Batavia

BbB4%

383.7

1.21.2

1.50.8

0.80.8

10.4*****************

8.4St*Charles

ScB4%

135

3.71.1

31.3

1.42.1

17.6*****************

7.9St*Charles

ScB4%

141

0.70.1

10.8

0.1J0.1

0.8J*******************

3.5Kidder

KrD24%

401

21.8

0.11

10.9

0.10.9

3.2*******************

5.6Ringw

oodRnB

4%86

22

1.40.2

22

1.40.2

0J

*******************4.0

Ringwood

RnB4%

892

43.9

0.32

43.8

0.30.1

0.4*******************

1.9Ringw

oodRnB

4%88

22

1.90.5

22

1.80.5

0.10.2

*******************1.8

BataviaBbB

4%216

920

181.5

817

15.51.4

2.64.7

*******************3.0

DresdenDsB

4%71

56

5.20.4

55

4.60.4

0.61.8

*******************8.2

DodgeDnB

4%40

36

4.91

33

2.50.8

2.621.3

*****************24.4

BataviaBbB

4%95

33

2.40.5

32

1.10.4

1.434.2

*****************14.2

PlanoPnB

4%48

34

2.21.4

33

2.11.4

0.11.4

*******************22.0

Ringwood

RnB4%

221

21.4

0.21

10.7

0.20.7

15.4*****************

24.0Plano

PnB4%

883

65.2

0.52

21.5

0.53.7

88.8*****************

26.5Plano

PoB4%

1296

86.3

1.44

42.8

1.13.8

100.7***************

22.7Plano

PnB4%

1152

32.5

0.52

32.6

0.5J0.1

2.3J*******************

12.4Batavia*

BbB4%

351

32.5

0.11

21.5

0.11

12.4*****************

153.0Dresden

DsB4%

331

11.1

0.21

11.3

0.2J0.2

30.6J*****************

153.0Plano

PlB4%

462

10.8

0.32

10.9

0.3J0.1

15.3J*****************

8.0Plano

PmB

4%36

32

20.4

32

20.3

0.10.8

*******************

2015*Phosphorus*Report*J*Cover*CropsW

ithout*Cover*CropW

ith*Cover*Crop

14

Soil*TypeSoil*

Symbol

Slope*Soil*Test*P*PPM

Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*


acre


field87.0

DresdenDsB

4%47

11

0.30.3

11

0.30.3

0J

*******************9.9

PlanoPnB

4%56

78

71.1

54

30.6

4.544.6

*****************10.9

Wacousta

Wa

4%255

1116

12.73.4

1013

9.82.8

3.538.2

*****************8.8

Wacousta

Wa

4%144

1116

13.81.9

1012

10.21.4

4.136.1

*****************11.5

Wacousta

Wa

4%97

89

7.91.2

77

6.30.8

223.0

*****************14.0

ElburnEgA

4%105

713

11.22.1

56

4.81.3

7.2100.8

***************23.5

PlanoPoB

4%146

63

20.7

62

1.80.6

0.37.1

*******************10.0

PlanoPoB

4%94

35

40.5

34

3.40.5

0.66.0

*******************17.3

BataviaBbB

4%139

34

3.20.6

33

1.80.7

1.322.5

*****************34.3

BataviaBbB

4%94

22

1.90.4

22

1.70.4

0.26.9

*******************34.0

St*CharlesSaB

4%49

22

1.30.4

22

1.60.3

J0.26.8

J*******************2.2

BataviaBbB

4%136

22

0.90.7

12

10.6

0J

*******************10.2

BataviaBbB

4%97

53

2.60.5

20

00.3

2.828.6

*****************57.0

KidderKeB2

4%46

22

1.30.3

21

0.90.3

0.422.8

*****************114.0

St*CharlesSaB

4%27

11

0.70.2

11

0.70.2

0J

*******************53.0

PlanoPlB

4%119

22

1.60.8

22

1.60.8

0J

*******************95.0

TroxelTrA

5%50

22

1.60.7

22

1.80.6

J0.19.5

J*******************24.4

BataviaBbB

5%119

57

5.91

46

4.70.9

1.331.7

*****************6.8

St*CharlesScB

5%15

64.5

1.33

1.31.4

3.121.1

*****************29.3

Mchenry

MdD2

6%29

34

3.60.2

22

1.40.2

2.264.5

*****************25.3

BataviaBbB

7%114

55

4.60.6

55

4.70.6

J0.12.5

J*******************25.3

BataviaBbB

7%114

55

4.70.6

35

4.10.6

0.615.2

*****************15.5

KidderKdC2

8%109

68

70.9

57

5.70.8

1.421.7

*****************14.2

KidderKdC2

8%119

33

2.60.5

33

2.50.6

0.0J

*******************16.0

DodgeDnC2

8%35

24

3.70.3

21

0.60.4

348.0

*****************21.1

DresdenDsC2

8%106

511

101

44

3.80.7

6.5137.2

***************14.1

St*CharlesScC2

9%41

611

9.80.9

49

7.71

228.2

*****************12.7

PlanoPnB

9%15

35

2.51

22

1.50.3

1.721.6

*****************20.6

St*CharlesScB

9%38

46

60.3

46

5.50.3

0.510.3

*****************21.0

SableSaA

9%137

511

100.7

410

9.70.7

0.36.3

*******************


ithout*Cover*CropW

ith*Cover*Crop

15

Soil*TypeSoil*

Symbol


Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*


acre


field14.6

DresdenDsC2

9%21

32

2.20.3

30

0.20.3

229.2

*****************7.4

Warsaw

WrC2

9%71

511

10.20.5

46

5.70.7

4.331.8

*****************9.8

Ringwood

RnC29%

1084

21.1

0.44

10.4

0.40.7

6.9*******************

11.0Kidder

KdC29%

963

1110.7

0.53

65.7

0.45.1

56.1*****************

82.0Ringw

oodRnB

9%38

54

3.60.2

54

3.50.2

0.18.2

*******************18.0

Mchenry

MdC2

9%71

65.3

1.12

0.21.9

4.377.4

*****************10.6

DresdenDsC2

9%128

1022

20.51.1

918

17.41

3.233.9

*****************39.1

DresdenDsC2

9%118

55

41.5

45

3.91.5

0.13.9

*******************27.5

DresdenDsC2

9%113

33

1.91.1

33

1.71

0.38.3

*******************30.0

Whalan

WxC2

9%40

55

4.40.8

33

2.60.7

1.957.0

*****************11.3

DresdenDsC2

9%94

814

13.80.6

813

120.5

1.921.5

*****************14.3

Mchenry

MdC2

9%74

57

5.90.8

45

2.91.7

2.130.0

*****************10.0

DodgeDnC2

9%48

919

15.63.6

612

8.43.9

6.969.0

*****************8.7

Mchenry

MdC2

9%61

810

9.20.7

64

3.60.7

5.648.7

*****************3.0

PlanoPnC2

9%26

14

3.80.2

13

2.50.2

1.33.9

*******************10.1

DodgeDnC2

9%38

24

3.40.3

23

2.90.3

0.55.1

*******************36.7

PlanoPnC2

9%75

35

4.40.4

35

4.50.4

J0.13.7

J*******************9.7

PlanoPnC2

9%28

12

20.2

12

1.60.1

0.54.9

*******************77.2

RocktonRoC2

9%42

1111

10.80.5

33

2.90.4

8617.6

***************110.0

BataviaBbA

9%16

11

0.60.1

11

0.60.1

0J

*******************18.1

St*CharlesScB

9%30

44

3.80.4

44

3.50.3

0.47.2

*******************65.0

Ringwood

RnC29%

391

10.7

0.11

10.6

1J0.8

52.0J*****************

22.4St*Charles

ScB9%

803

32.8

0.43

32.6

0.40.2

4.5*******************

28.1Elburn

EgA9%

781

10.9

0.41

10.5

0.30.5

14.1*****************

39.0Ringw

oodRnC2

9%83

612

10.11.5

55

41.2

6.4249.6

***************14.0

PlanoPnC2

9%82

69

8.30.7

43

2.80.5

5.779.8

*****************5.7

DodgeDnC2

9%80

711

10.30.5

45

4.20.7

5.933.6

*****************13.3

Griswold

GwC

9%16

11

10.3

21

0.90.3

0.11.3

*******************38.6

Edmund

EdC29%

584

86.8

1.34

86.6

1.30.2

7.7*******************

21.2M

chenryM

dD29%

192

00.3

01

00.4

0J0.1

2.1J*******************


ithout*Cover*CropW

ith*Cover*Crop

16

Soil*TypeSoil*

Symbol


Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*


acre


field9.5

Ringwood

RnC29%

933

43.1

0.51

11

0.42.2

20.9*****************

14.3M

chenryM

dC29%

264

1210.9

0.74

87.7

0.73.2

45.8*****************

15.8Ringw

oodRnC2

9%116

56

4.91

44

3.30.9

1.726.9

*****************21.3

DresdenDsC2

9%20

56

5.30.2

55

4.80.2

0.510.7

*****************12.2

DodgeDnC2

9%62

513

12.40.6

411

10.80.6

1.619.5

*****************18.0

KidderKdC2

9%82

35

4.70.3

23

3.20.3

1.527.0

*****************14.5

DodgeDnC2

10%70

614

13.30.6

511

10.30.5

3.145.0

*****************3.8

KidderKdC2

13%130

610

8.71

55

4.20.7

4.818.2

*****************4.9

KidderKrD2

15%45

32

2.20.1

20

0.20.1

29.8

*******************4.1

KidderKrD2

15%36

36

5.50

33

2.60

2.911.9

*****************13.0

KidderKrD2

15%30

33

2.30.4

22

1.60.6

0.56.5

*******************4.2

Griswold

GWD2

16%64

67

6.50.7

22

1.90.4

4.920.6

*****************8.1

Griswold

GWD2

16%39

11

0.70.1

00

0.20.1

0.54.1

*******************7.9

Griswold

GWD2

16%81

11

0.90.3

00

0.20.3

0.75.5

*******************7.0

DresdenDsB

16%67

33

2.20.5

32

1.90.4

0.42.8

*******************12.0

St*CharlesScC2

16%36

24

3.60.2

11

0.60.2

336.0

*****************14.0

Ringwood

RnB16%

552

43.4

0.31

10.9

0.32.5

35.0*****************

4.8St*Charles

ScB16%

402

54.5

0.31

00.2

0.34.3

20.6*****************

6.0Dresden

DsB16%

1231

10.9

0.51

21.2

0.5J0.3

1.8J*******************

16.0Dunbarton

DuD216%

472

32.3

0.72

43.3

0.7J1

16.0J*****************

18.4Boyer

BoD216%

715

1211.9

0.54

66

0.46

110.4***************

11.7M

chenryM

dD216%

1135

98.1

1.14

43.4

1.14.7

55.0*****************

10.0M

chenryM

dD216%

203

76.5

0.43

66.1

0.30.5

5.0*******************

2.9Kidder

KrE216%

131

10.9

00

00.3

00.6

1.7*******************

3.0Kidder

KrE216%

151

11.1

01

00.3

00.8

2.4*******************

3.2Kidder

KrE216%

251

11.1

0.11

00.3

0.10.8

2.6*******************

4.5Kidder

KrE216%

181

10.8

00

00.3

00.5

2.3*******************

2.7Kidder

KrE216%

202

88.4

00

00.3

08.1

21.9*****************

8.4W

halanW

xD216%

902

20.8

0.82

10.5

0.70.4

3.4*******************

7.8W

halanW

xD216%

565

76.7

0.84

54.4

0.72.4

18.7*****************

With*Cover*Crop


ithout*Cover*Crop

17

Soil*TypeSoil*

Symbol


Rotat.***PI

Annual*PI

Part.*PISoluble*

PI*Rotat.***

PIAnnual*

PIPart.*PI

Soluble*PI*


acre


field27.2

Mchenry

MdD2

16%29

59

9.20.2

58

8.20.2

127.2

*****************10.6

Mchenry*

MdD2

16%39

517

16.30.5

48

7.40.5

8.994.3

*****************9.5

Mchenry*

MdD2

16%36

22

20.1

21

1.20.1

0.87.6

*******************12.7

Mchenry

MdD2

16%87

47

6.70.4

35

4.50.4

2.227.9

*****************11.5

St*CharlesScB

16%53

610

9.50.2

56

60.1

3.641.4

*****************29.9

DodgeDnC2

16%76

615

14.10.7

44

3.90.5

10.4311.0

***************10.3

PlanoPnB

16%106

1019

18.20.8

66

5.10.5

13.4138.0

***************13.0

Mchenry

MdD2

16%22

31.6

1.31

0.90.4

1.620.8

*****************4.1

DresdenDrD2

16%129

45

4.60.6

33

2.10.7

2.49.8

*******************9.5

Whalan

WxD2

16%49

21

0.30.7

21

0.30.7

0J

*******************1.6

KidderKrE2

27.50%27

23

2.70

11

1.20.1

1.42.2

*******************17.1

DodgeDnC2

28%98

719

18.31

58

7.50.7

11.1189.8

***************641.0

1,127.8************

109.0191.8

***************155

272.7***************

113198.8

***************120

211.1***************

3052.8

*****************52.0

91.5*****************

1.8Average

4,908.1*****

Total*Acres0.75

Median

(J1)*J*13.4*lbsRange

3,688.1*****

SNAP*Acres

75%6,572.2

************Lbs*P*J*Total


ithout*Cover*CropW

ith*Cover*Crop

No*SN

AP*N

o*SNAP*

No*SN

AP*N

o*SNAP*

No*SN

AP*N

o*SNAP*

No*SN

AP*

18

D. Combined Practices

The assistance of the local crop advisors provided use with an adequate data set so that we couldevaluate “How does stacking different best management practices impact the potential forphosphorus loss”? This question could have been evaluated on many fields, but it was only aftersome of the initial calculations were completed that the author thought about running thosecomparisons. Therefore, the data contained on pages 19 and 20 are a sampling of how stackingdifferent best management practices can potentially reduce phosphorus loss.

For the purposes of the discussion, the three cost shared practices (cover crops, low disturbancemanure injection and strip tillage) were evaluated on fields that had multiple practices applied. The2015 data set did not contain any fields that had all three practices, but this data set contains a totalof 34 fields that had two of the three practices. The tables on pages 19 and 20 contain all the data forthese fields. The 34 fields totaled 1,606.5 tillable acres. The range in estimated phosphorusreduction for these fields was -0.3 to 8.7 lbs per acres. Of the 34 fields only one showed a negativepotential phosphorus reduction. The average for these fields was 2.14 lbs per acre.

The summary table showing the 2015 critical data for the three practices, the combined practices andthe use of practices for multiple years are on page 21. However, it is important to note here thatcombining practices yields had a higher average (2.14 lbs per acre) than any one of the practices (striptillage = 0.8; LDMI = 1.7; and cover crops = 1.8 lbs per acre). This information is exactly what theYPF’s board had expected but had never calculated.

To determine the impact of more than one best management practices, the author first ran the SNAPcalculation with all the practices in place. Then one practice was removed from the field and thenumbers were entered into the table for that practice. Then that practice was added back to the fieldand the second practice was removed. Those numbers were entered into the spreadsheet for thatpractice. Finally both best management practices were removed from the field and the impact on thepotential phosphorus loss was recorded.

The data contained in the tables on pages 19 and 20 are from only one year with both practices. Thepotential impact of continuing a practice for several years was calculated in section E. However, it isimportant to note that if a farm plants a cover crop on a field coming out of corn silage and continuesto do this year after year, there is a tremendous potential to reduce phosphorus loss.

21

E. Multiple Years of Best Management Practices

One last question that needs further evaluation is “How important are multiple years of practiceimplementation”? In other words, instead of thinking about cost sharing a practice for several years,what happens if the practice becomes an integral part of the farming system? That’s what happenedon many farms that experimented with no-till. The first few years were often challenging, but thefarmers determined that the benefits to this farming system out-weighed the negatives and theyworked to perfect the system on their farms.

This question didn’t occur to the author until late in the study, so most of the cooperators were notevaluated for multiple years of BMP’s. There is no doubt that there were many more fields and acresthat should have been part of this paper, but by the time this occurred to the author most of thefarms and fields were completed. Therefore, this data set contains only 10 fields with a total of 176.8acres. To show the impact of both multiple years and combining practices, the following table wasconstructed:

LDMI Strip Tillage Cover Crops CombinedPractices

MultipleYears ofPractice

Fields 32 20 160 34 10Acres 566 1,488.6 4,908 1,606.5 176.8

Range in Preduction/acre

-0.6 to 5.9 0.1 to 5.6 -1.0 to 13.4 -0.3 to 8.7 0 – 9.3

Average Preduction/acre

1.7 0.8 1.8 2.14 4.68

Total PReduction

1,080 990.4 6,572 1,693.2 738.7

Each of the three cost shared practices does a good job or reducing the potential for phosphorus lossin any given year. However, when you combine practices, there is an increase in the potential toreduce phosphorus loss from most fields. This increase is even greater when a farmer continues touse a practice for several years in a row. The ten fields in this group were all corn silage that had acover crop planted on it for either 5 or 6 years in a row. The cover crop and the change in tillagebecause of the cover crop had a dramatic impact on the potential for phosphorus loss. None of the10 fields in this year’s data had an increased potential for phosphorus loss.

22

AcresSoilType

SoilSym

bolSlope

SoilTestP

PPMRotat.

PIAnnual

PIPart.PI

SolublePI

Rotat.PI

AnnualPI

Part.PISoluble

PI

AnnualPchangeperacre

AnnualPchangeforfield

YearsUsed

inCalculation

7.5Houghton

Ho1%

681

10.2

0.61

10.2

0.60.0

0.05

23.5Kegonsa

KeB2%

1673

20.6

0.82

20.3

0.70.4

9.46

16.1Radford

RaA2%

944

42.8

13

32.2

0.90.7

11.36

10.9W

acoustaW

a4%

25514

1512

2.810

85.2

2.67.0

76.36

8.8W

acoustaW

a4%

14414

1614.3

1.510

108.8

0.96.1

53.76

11.5W

acoustaW

a4%

979

1210.7

0.97

76.6

0.64.4

50.66

17.3Batavia

BbB4%

1393

64.9

0.63

31.8

0.73.0

51.96

14Elburn

EgA4%

8210

118.9

1.96

43

1.36.5

91.05

28.1Elburn

EgA9%

782

21.4

0.51

10.5

0.31.1

30.95

39.1Dresden

DsC29%

11814

1311.8

1.34

42.9

0.99.3

363.65

4.68333310

fields5.25

0-9.3

176.8Acres

738.7LbsP

Total

2015PhosphorusReport-M

ultipleYears

WithoutBM

PW

ithseveralyearsofBM

P

AverageM

edianRange

yahara pride farms 2015 phosphorus reduction …...headland stacking of manure / composting each of...

Documents