![Page 1: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model
Presentation to Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
September 14, 2016
Matt JohnstonUniversity of Maryland
CBPO Non-Point Source Data Analyst
![Page 2: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
+ *
Section 1:Overview
Section 3:Inputs
Section 4:Sensitivity
Section 5: Land Use
Section 6: BMPs
Section 7: Land to Water
Section 9: Stream Delivery
Section 10: River Delivery
Section 11:Applications
*
*
*
*
*
Phase 6 Model DocumentationSection 2:Average
Loads
![Page 3: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Phase 6 Inputs Conceptual Model
Image Creditshttps://utextension.tennessee.edu/lincoln/4-H/Pages/Livestock-Skillathons-%28Beef,-Sheep-and-Swine%29.aspxRebelwoodsranch.comSeaburst.comhttp://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442/442-308/442-308.htmlhttp://nh.water.usgs.gov/project/champlain_bmp/ag.htm
Livestock Manure (and Biosolids)
Pasture
Fertilizer
Access Area
Barnyard
Nutrient Application Prescription
CropsRiver
![Page 4: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1) Given the state of available manure and fertilizer data, please comment on the overall appropriateness of the methods used to estimate total manure and fertilizer available for application to agricultural lands.
Livestock Manure (and Biosolids)
Pasture Access Area
Barnyard
![Page 5: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Manure Generated
Direct Deposition on Pasture
Direct Deposition to Riparian Pasture Areas
Deposited within Barnyard
Storage and Handling Loss
Stored Manure
ManureTransport
Feed Additive BMPs
Volatilization
Available for Application
Barnyard BMPs
Ammonia Reduction BMPs
Available for Transport
Mineralization
Applied to Crop Need
![Page 6: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Estimating Manure Generation
6•Poultry litter estimates vary by year and are explained in detail in the PLS report.
Animal Type Manure Source
Lbs Dry
Manure/Animal/Yr
Lbs TN/Lb Dry
Manure
LbsTP/Lb Dry
Manure
Beef
Use Beef - Cow (confinement) from
ASAE 2005 for manure values5,475.00 0.028788 0.006467
Dairy
Use Lactating Cow, Dry Cow and
Heifer from ASAE 2005 for manure
values
4,404.33 0.042221 0.006764
Other Cattle
Use average of Beef and Dairy from
above to estimate manure values4,939.67 0.035504 0.006616
Horses
Use average of Horse- Sedentary
and Horse - Intense Exercise from
ASAE 2005 for manure values
3,102.50 0.031672 0.005941
Hogs for
Breeding
Use Gestating Sow and Lactating
Sow ASAE 2005 for manure values657 0.070273 0.019417
Hogs for
Slaughter
Use Grow-Finish from ASAE 2005
for manure values120 0.083333 0.014167
Sheep and
Lambs Use ASAE 2003 for manure values240.9 0.038182 0.007909
Goats Use ASAE 2003 for manure values 680.91 0.034615 0.008462
![Page 7: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Fertilizer
1) Given the state of available manure and fertilizer data, please comment on the overall appropriateness of the methods used to estimate total manure and fertilizer available for application to agricultural lands.
![Page 8: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Inorganic: Going from Sales to Use
8
• Begin with regional-level sales, break those down to watershed-level sales, and break those down to county-level use.
• Watershed-level based upon dollars spent on fertilizer within CB watershed counties.
• County-level based upon relative crop need or application goal.
![Page 9: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use
• Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and fertilizer use reported by Maryland farmers in annual implementation reports.
Scenario Lbs Inorganic PAN Lbs Inorganic P % Delta from AIR for N % Delta from AIR for P
MD AIR 76,946,211 8,087,974 NA NA
Phase 6 Beta 376,133,253 12,184,432 -1% 51%
Data Source Lbs Inorganic PAN Lbs Inorganic P % Delta from CEAP N % Delta from CEAP P
CEAP 406,020,000 80,870,000 NA NA
Phase 6 Beta 3 (Avg. 2001-2006)
405,182,999 80,360,063 -0.20% -0.60%
Comparing Total Inorganic Applications to Agriculture in Watershed
Comparing Total Inorganic Applications to Agriculture in Maryland
![Page 10: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Nutrient Application Prescription
2) Understanding that farmer-reported nutrient application rates are not available for the majority of agricultural acres throughout the calibration period (1984-2013), please comment on the overall appropriateness of the methods used to distributeapplications to crops, hay and pasture.
![Page 11: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
“Prescribing” Applications to Crops
Final Applications
Acres of Crops Crop YieldsState-Supplied
“Best” Application Rates
Fertilizer and Manure Available
Application Goal Nutrient Spread Curves
11
![Page 12: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Crop Application Goal
12
• States provided the following for each crop:– Total N and P application goals per acre or yield unit
(varied by decade as nutrient management guidelines changed) • Example: 1 lb of N/bushel of corn for grain yield
– Fraction of total application goal which should be met by applications in each month• Example: 0.4 of yearly total N on corn for grain should be
applied in April
– Indication of which applications are eligible to be met by only inorganic fertilizer, or by any kind of nutrient in each month• Example: April applications are eligible to be met by
inorganic and organic fertilizer. June applications are eligible to be met by only inorganic fertilizer.
![Page 13: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Filling the Buckets of Application Goal
CORN
VEGGIES
HAY
Manure N
PASTURE
SOYBEANS
13100% 100% 80% 15% 15%
![Page 14: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
+ *
Section 1:Overview
Section 3:Inputs
Section 4:Sensitivity
Section 5: Land Use
Section 6: BMPs
Section 7: Land to Water
Section 9: Stream Delivery
Section 10: River Delivery
Section 11:Applications
*
*
*
*
*
Phase 6 Model DocumentationSection 2:Average
Loads
![Page 15: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Section 5: Land Use
3) Given the lack of data available to estimate acres on which two crops were harvested (double-cropped acres), please comment on the overall appropriateness of the method used to estimate these acres.
![Page 16: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Double-Cropped Acres
16
Year 1 Year 2
winter fallsummerspring winter fallsummerspring winter
• Acres established by difference of individually harvested crop acres and total harvested cropland from Ag Census.
![Page 17: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Section 5: Land Use
4) Considering the current state of the science related to agricultural forecasting and agricultural economics, please comment on the overall appropriateness of the agricultural forecasting method. Are there alternative forecasting methods you would recommend?
![Page 18: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Forecasting Agricultural Acres and Animals
• What:– Acres of crops forecasted past 2012 (last Ag Census)– Livestock, pullets and layers forecasted past 2012 (last Ag
Census)– Broilers and turkeys forecasted past most recent NASS
yearly poultry survey report
• How:– Double-exponential smoothing: short-term data
forecasting method most often used when future values are believed to be related to both long-term and short-term trends.
– Different weight is placed on short-term and long-term trends.• Ag Workgroup weighted most recent data at 0.8, and long-term
data at 0.2.18
![Page 19: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022
Example of Double Exponential Smoothing
Ag Census Data Predicted Value
![Page 20: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Section 3:Inputs
Section 5: Land Use
5) Does the documentation sufficiently describe the data and methods used to estimate nutrient inputs for the Watershed Model? Please expand if there are particular sections that should be expanded upon or improved.
![Page 21: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Section 3:Inputs
Section 5: Land Use
6) Do the reviewers have any concerns or comments about the data or methods described within the documentation aside from those already listed [in the questions] above?
![Page 22: Review of Nutrient Inputs to the Watershed Model of... · Multiple Lines of Evidence for Fertilizer Use •Partnership compared Phase 6 fertilizer estimates to CEAP estimates and](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042307/5ed3a65b204d39136513960b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Section 3:Inputs
Section 5: Land Use
7) Are there additional technical data or scientific findings that could be employed by the Chesapeake Bay Program now, or developed in the future, to better inform nutrient input estimates across the watershed?