implementation of a progressive manure application risk management (arm) system to protect...

Implementation of a

Progressive Manure

Application Management

(ARM) System to Protect

Watersheds from Agricultural

Runoff and Leaching Events

Nichole Embertson, Ph.D.

Whatcom Conservation District

Waste to Worth, Seattle, WA

April 2, 2015

Protecting Puget Sound Watersheds from Agricultural Pollution Using a

Progressive Manure Application Risk Management (ARM) System

A method of assessing and

mitigating the runoff and leaching

risk associated with manure

application on a temporal (timing)

and spatial (location) scale year-

round.N. Embertson, S. Cox, C. Clark, and G.

Boggs

4 R’s of Nutrient Management

4 R’s Nutrient Management

(NRCS)

Right Time

Right Rate

Right Source

Right Placement

Application Risk Management

You want to apply, so what should you do?

1. Determine agronomic rate

2. Identify optimal fields (field risk map)

3. Determine current conditions:

o Manure Spreading Advisory (MSA)

o Seasonal Manure Setbacks

4. Assess field and fill out ARM Worksheet

5. Apply and monitor fields

Do this assessment year round!

Identify Low Risk Fields

Runoff Risk Rating

(October-June)

Leaching Risk Rating

(June-October)

Manure

Spreading

Advisory Real-time

Auto-update from

NOAA

Runoff risk

Soil leaching risk

layer May 2015

~100 pageviews per

month

www.whatcomcd.org/M

SA

Runoff Risk Ratings (Jan-May)

ARM

WorksheetFill out

Worksheet

Forecast

Field Conditions

Protective Measures

Send to WCD

Runoff Risk by

field and day

Recordkeeping &

accountability

ARM Worksheet Parameters

Precipitation 24 h

Precipitation 72 h

Soil type

Soil moisture

Water table depth

Forage density

Forage height

Field surface

condition

Manure application

equipment

Waterbody adjacent

Application setback

Buffer width

Risk Rating

Nutrient Management Plan

Guidance

https://sites.google.com/site/wadairypla

n

ARM Field Measurements

Provide field data to:

Better understand nutrient cycling

Determine risk level of fields

Tune risk values/thresholds in

Worksheet

Validate MSA

Data collection to be completed: April

2015

Final report: August 2015

Site Characteristic

6 paired 5 acre plots

All plots in grass/forage production

2 treatments:

CON = Conventional application

timing

ARM = Application Risk

Management

2 Soil types:

Silt Sandy loam (4 plots) – Deep,

well drained, low runoff, not

saturated

Silt loam (2 plots) – Deep, poorly

Field Testing Parameters

Surface Water: FC, NO3, NH4, P, Temp,

pH

Soil Water: NO3, NH4, TN, TP, pH

Groundwater: NO3, NH4, TN, TP, Cl

Soil: NO3, NH4, TN, TP, pH, OM, Cond,

temp, moisture

Forage: NO3, N, P, K, yield, height, density

Manure: NO3, NH4, TN, TP, pH, rate

Meteorological: Precip, temp

Management: Application, irrigation,

Field Evaluation Setup

Forage Yield

- Yield was 10-40% greater when early season (Jan) application was made (sand).

- Yield increase was due to forage density (25%↑), not height.

- Silt had delayed response in yield.

- Late fall application on silt lead to greater spring yield.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Spring - Sand Spring - Silt Summer -Sand

Summer - Silt Fall - Sand Fall Silt

Yie

ld (

ton

.acre

)

p<0.05

CON

ARM

Soil Phosphorous

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

10

/6/2

011

11

/6/2

011

12

/6/2

011

1/6

/20

12

2/6

/20

12

3/6

/20

12

4/6

/20

12

5/6

/20

12

6/6

/20

12

7/6

/20

12

8/6

/20

12

9/6

/20

12

10

/6/2

012

11

/6/2

012

12

/6/2

012

1/6

/20

13

2/6

/20

13

3/6

/20

13

4/6

/20

13

5/6

/20

13

6/6

/20

13

7/6

/20

13

8/6

/20

13

9/6

/20

13

10

/6/2

013

11

/6/2

013

12

/6/2

013

1/6

/20

14

2/6

/20

14

3/6

/20

14

4/6

/20

14

5/6

/20

14

6/6

/20

14

7/6

/20

14

8/6

/20

14

9/6

/20

14

10

/6/2

014

11

/6/2

014

12

/6/2

014

1/6

/20

15

2/6

/20

15

P1 (

Bra

y)

(mg

/kg

)

CON12

CON24

CON36

ARM12

ARM24

ARM36

Soil Nitrate

Nitrate trended with soil temperature (dashed

line)

Late application (October) on sandy soil

yielded higher fall/winter nitrate levels

Groundwater Nitrate

Surface Runoff

- Surface

grab

samples

- Manure

application

setbacks

prevented

manure

runoff into

stream

- No

correlation

between FC

and NH4-N,

NO3, P, or

TN

Manure Application

Event

General Conclusions

Nitrate leaching in the fall/winter is determined by nitrogen application in the fall (Sept-Oct)

Irrigation can push N/nitrate in soil profile in summer

Runoff is a factor for rain events on limiting (saturated) soils in spring

Soil type has big influence on runoff and leaching potential/magnitude

Manure N conversion/availability varies throughout the year and challenges 4Rs

ARM Outcomes

Develop customized manure application

strategies for farms

Optimize manure application timing by soil

type to minimize losses

Create real-time management tools to help

make nutrient management decisions

Number of dairies in Whatcom with full ARM

plan : 35% (~12,200 acres)

Questions?

Nichole M. Embertson, Ph.D.Nutrient Management and Air Quality Specialist

Whatcom Conservation DistrictO: (360) 526-2381 x 126

E: NEmbertson@WhatcomCD.orgwww.WhatcomCD.org

Disclaimer: The reproduction or use of any of the images or content within this document is not allowed without prior approval from the creator.