Post on 22-Jul-2020
transcript
Managing manure in no-till
Peter KleinmanUSDA ARS
Douglas BeeglePenn State
Joel MyersUSDA-NRCS (retired)
Advantages to No-till
�� Reduced soil erosionReduced soil erosion
� More biological activity
� Moisture Conservation
� Better soil quality
� Residue on the surface
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Plow Chisel No-till
So
il L
oss
(t/
A)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Re
sid
ue
(%
)
Soil Loss Residue
Advantages to No-till
� Reduced soil erosion
�� More biological activityMore biological activity
� Moisture Conservation
� Better soil quality
� Residue on the surface
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Plow No-till
Ea
rth
wo
rms
/Ac
re
Advantages to No-till
� Reduced soil erosion
� More biological activity
�� Moisture ConservationMoisture Conservation
� Better soil quality
� Residue on the surface0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Plowed
bare
No-till
bare
No-till
40% cover
No-till
80% cover
Infi
ltra
tio
n (
in)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
May June July Aug SeptMo
nth
ly E
vap
ora
tio
n (
in) Conv. No-till
Advantages to No-till
� Reduced soil erosion
� More biological activity
� Moisture conservation
�� Better soil qualityBetter soil quality
� Residue on the surface
Advantages to No-till
� Reduced soil erosion
� More biological activity
� Moisture conservation
� Better soil quality
�� Residue on the surfaceResidue on the surface
What does this mean for nutrients?
N
Leaching
Volatilization Denitrification
Crop
Uptake
Runoff
Erosion
Runoff
Crop Uptake
LeachingErosion
P
Nutrient Management
� Not Incorporating manure
�� Increases ammonia Increases ammonia
volatilizationvolatilization
� Decreases the risk of P
loss with erosion
� Increases the risk of
dissolved P loss
� May impact nitrate
leaching
� More odor issues
0.50
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.75
0.50
0.45
0.30
0.15
Incorporation the same day
Incorporation within 1 day
Incorporation within 2-4 days
Incorporation within 5-7 days
Incorporation after 7 days
or no incorporation
Other
Manure
Swine
Manure
Poultry
Manure
Nitrogen Availability Factor
Planned Manure Application
Management
From Penn State Agronomy Guide
Nutrient Management� Not Incorporating
manure
� Increases ammonia
volatilization
�� Decreases the risk of P Decreases the risk of P
loss with erosionloss with erosion
� Increases the risk of
dissolved P loss
� May impact nitrate
leaching
� More odor issues
1980 1985 1990 1995
Conventional
till wheat
Converted
to no-till
Total P
mg/L
6
4
2
0
Erosion reduced 95%
Nutrient Management
� Not Incorporating manure
� Increases ammonia
volatilization
� Decreases the risk of P loss
with erosion
�� Increases the risk of Increases the risk of
dissolved P lossdissolved P loss
� May impact nitrate leaching
� More odor issues
Conventional
till wheat
1980 1985 19951990
Dis
solv
ed P
, m
g/L
0.5
1.0
0
Converted
to no-till
Nutrient Management
� Not Incorporating manure
� Increases ammonia
volatilization
� Decreases the risk of P loss
with erosion
� Increases the risk of
dissolved P loss
�� May impact nitrate May impact nitrate
leachingleaching
� More odor issues
Conventional
till wheat
1980 1985 19951990N
itra
te, m
g/L
30
20
10
0
Infiltration increased 33%
Converted
to no-till
Nutrient Management
� Not Incorporating manure
� Increases ammonia
volatilization
� Decreases the risk of P
loss with erosion
� Increases the risk of
dissolved P loss
� May impact nitrate
leaching
�� More odor issuesMore odor issues
� Tillage reduces N volatilization
� No till increases N volatilization
� Tillage increases erosion P loss
� No-till reduces erosion P loss
� Tillage reduces dissolved P loss
� No-till increases dissolved P loss
� Tillage reduces odor
� No-till does not reduce odor
� Tillage can reduce leaching
� No-till can increase leaching
To till or not to till,
that is the question . . .”
Research Questions:
� Is there a way to get the benefits of manure incorporation and retain the benefits of no-till?
� What are the tradeoffs?
Manure Application
� No-till & Injection
� Mutually exclusive?
6000 gal/A Dairy Manure
Liquid manure injection
Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay
WatershedWatershed
State College, PA
Princess Anne, MD
Shallow disk
Aeration
infiltrationHigh pressure
Chisel Broadcast
After Application
Shallow Disk Surface
High Pressure Aerator
After Application
Shallow
Disk
High Pressure Aerator
Surface
Impacts of alternative manure
application methods in no-till
� Nutrient availability to crops
� N Volatilization
� N Leaching
� P Runoff
� P Erosion
� Odor
� Economics
Ammonia Volatilization Measurements
No
man
ure
Plo
wed
inPre
ssur
e in
j.D
isk
inj.
Aer
atio
nBro
adca
st
Am
monia
-N L
oss
Most
Least
Evidence from existing studies –
NH3 loss� Aerway SSD vs. Broadcast
~50% decrease (Bittman et al., 2003)
� Norwegian Pressure Injector (DGI) vs. Broadcast
~60% decrease (Morken and Sakshaug, 1995)
� Shallow disk vs. Broadcast
~70% decrease (Misselbrook et al., 2002)
� Knife Injector vs. Broadcast
No difference, low emissions (Hanna, 2000)
Nitrate Leaching Measurements
Nitra
te-N
Loss
No
man
ure
Plo
wed
inPre
ssur
e in
j. D
isk
inj.
Aer
atio
n
Bro
adca
st
Most
Least Not
availa
ble
Evidence from existing studies –
NO3 leaching� Knife Injector vs. Broadcast
~20% increase in leaching due to deep injection (Weslien et al., 1998)
Rainfall simulations to measure P and
Sediment runoff
National P Project Protocol
Plot Scale Issues?
Rainfall simulations to measure P and
Sediment runoff
Field runoff plots with natural rainfall
Sunken runoff collection house
Earthen berm perimeter
To
tal P
ho
spho
rus R
un
off
No
man
ure
Plo
wed
inPre
ssur
e in
j.D
isk
inj.
Aer
atio
nBro
adca
st
Most
Least
To
tal P
ho
spho
rus R
un
off
No
man
ure
Plo
wed
inPre
ssur
e in
j.D
isk
inj.
Aer
atio
nBro
adca
st
Most
Least
A lot of runoff, “clean” Low
runoff, turbid
Moderate runoff, some
dissolved
and part. P
Almost no runoff, high
dissolved
P
Low runoff, high
dissolved
P
High runoff, some
diss. P
Odor intensity
Oh that “dairy air”
After chisel plowing
Penn State odor panel
100’
Most intense
Least intense
Brandt, R.C. and H.A. Elliott. Dept. Agr. & Bio. Engin., Penn State Univ.
No
man
ure
Plo
wed
inPre
ssur
e in
j.D
isk
inj.
Aer
atio
nBro
adca
st
Od
or
inte
nsity
1 hour after application
Evidence from existing studies –
Odor� Aerway SSD vs. Broadcast
~75% decrease (Bittman et al., 2003)
� Knife Injector vs. Broadcast
~40% decrease (Hanna, 2000)
� Unknown Injector vs. Broadcast
~75% decrease (Lorimor, 1998)
Indexing for site specific concerns
Least
Most
Aerator
Pressure
injection
Least
Most
Nitrate NH3
N losses P losses
Odor
Shallow
disk
Least
Most
Integrated Farming Systems Model (IFSM)
� Evaluation of different manure application technologies.
� Economics
� Time and labor
� Constraints to adoption
Modeling feasibility of adoption
� Adoption Costs vs. Environmental Benefits
Costs of
adopting
technology
$$$$$$$
Time
Competing objectives
Benefits of technology
Lower ammonia loss
Erosion control
Decreased runoff
Less Odor
Integrated Farming System Model
(IFSM)
Expected outcome
� Site specific recommendations for manure application equipment
� Optimizing environmental benefits while addressing local needs/constraints
� Transfer of new technologies for manure injection
� Improve P Index
� No-till
� Manure application methods
� Standardized approach to testing field BMPs
Acknowledgements
� USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants
� PDA Ag Research Grants
� USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit
� Penn State Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
� Project Personnel� Pete Kleinman
� Doug Beegle
� John Schmidt
� Curt Dell
� Andrew Sharpley
� Keisha Johnson
� Randy Bowersox
� Lou Saporito
� Bart Moyer
� Sarah Marshal
� Mike Reiner
� David Otto
Summary
� Conflicts exist between manure management and no-till
� Compromise is usually required
� Prioritize concerns
� New technologies may improve the tradeoffs