Nutrient Best Management Practice g Verification Project Paul Kivlin - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nutrient Best Management Practice

Understanding Nutrients, Emissions & Odor at Harrison Farms ‐ 3

g Verification Project

Paul Kivlin – UW Extension/NPM/Discovery Farms Kevan Klingberg ‐ UW Extension/Discovery Farms Kate Meeks – Communications Intern/Discovery Farms

Introduction

• Agricultural best management practices

(BMPs) are typically designed to protect farm profits and protect or improve the quality of natural resources (such as surface water).

• BMPs are associated with many agricultural

management operations including soil fertility management operations including soil fertility, tillage practices, legume nitrogen crediting and manure nutrient crediting and manure nutrient crediting.

Introduction

• Growers can be reluctant to adopt and implement certain BMPs:

– Limited experience leads to belief that practices may result in lower p p y yields / profit loss, – Not unfounded; BMPs can occasionally fail, – Example: cool weather conditions may delay the breakdown of

• rganic matter, affecting manure and legume nutrient availability.
• To “protect” against yield reductions, growers who doubt the

nutrient availability from manure or legumes may apply commercial fertilizer above the recommended levels.

– Can result in over spending $$ on fertilizer over the long‐term, – Excess nutrient application can also have a negative impact on surface water and groundwater quality water and groundwater quality.

Introduction

• The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Risk Management

Agency approved a pilot crop insurance program called the “Nutrient BMP Endorsement” in 1993 for corn producers in Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. y ,

– An optional endorsement to Multi‐Peril Crop Insurance or Crop Revenue Coverage for corn, – Designed to protect from the financial risk which could be incurred by growers adopting nutrient management BMPs, l f ll l f l – Contractual agreement to follow university soil fertility recommendations including nutrient crediting for manure and legume crops, – Grower implements nutrient crediting on a field, and includes a check strip of their “normal” practices, – If yield loss occurs due to the implemented BMPs, the insurer pays the producer for the loss.

Introduction

• The Harrisons worked with the Discovery Farms

Program and a partner of Agflex, The IPM Institute of Program and a partner of Agflex, The IPM Institute of North America, Inc.

I l t d t i t t ifi ti il t – Implemented a nutrient management verification pilot project. – Project goal: to define the implementation process for the Nutrient Management BMP Endorsement including:

• Administration,
• Technical aspects of field plot management,
• Final financial settlements – as necessary.

Administration

• The roles, responsibilities and participation guidelines for this

project were defined through a series of documents, developed by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc. and the Discovery Farms P Th d t i l d d

• Program. The documents included:

– A series of agreements between Discovery Farms Program, IPM Institute and the Producer that detailed how the project would Institute, and the Producer that detailed how the project would proceed, – A participant application form identifying the producer and certified p p pp y g p crop advisor; also identified field location and specific crop management (BMP field and check strip) information, Th Wi i N t i t M t V ifi ti Pil t H db k f – The Wisconsin Nutrient Management Verification Pilot Handbook for

• corn. This handbook contains definitions, program requirements and

yield assessment protocols that guide the establishment and administration of the nutrient management verification pilot project.

BMP Verification Plot Establishment

• Nutrient management verification plot was

bli h d i fi ld h b established in a corn field that was soybeans the year before.

– During the fall season after soybeans were harvested, the field received 3,000 gallons / acre

• f injected liquid swine manure
• f injected liquid swine manure.

BMP Verification Plot Establishment

– Harrison applied their traditional nutrient crediting practices and commercial nitrogen application rate on a 60 f id h k i i h f ll l h f h fi ld foot wide check strip running the full length of the field. – The remaining portion of the field (120 acres) was fertilized according to UW soil fertility recommendations, including manure crediting guidelines. – Phosphorus and potassium needs were adequately supplied through existing soil test levels and manure. – However, Harrison’s typical nitrogen application was 15 pounds per acre higher than that indicated by following the UW soil fertility recommendation.

Results

Yield Traditional Management (check) 160 bushels/acre BMP Management 157 bushels/acre

Results

f

Check BMP

Nutrient BMP Verification Comparison

(Producer’s practice) (Manure crediting) Supplemental Nitrogen (N) 44.5 lbs. 29.7 lbs. ( ) Cost per pound (N) $0.2875 $0.2875 Nitrogen cost / acre $12.79 $8.54 Yield 160 bushels/acre 157 bushels/acre Corn price per bushel $2.06 $2.06 p p $ $ Cost differential ($ N savings vs. $ yield loss) $0.00/acre ‐$1.91/acre loss)

Results

• A payment of $231.60 was made to compensate for the profit lost due to

implementing the BMP.

• The difference between the BMP and the traditional fertility program was

a lower nitrogen application rate of 15 pounds per acre, which produced a savings of $4.25/acre.

• However, the check strip out‐yielded the BMP by three bushels per acre,

which at $2.06 per bushel generated an additional $6.18 per acre. $

• This increase in yield revenue ($6.18) was offset by the increase in

nitrogen cost ($4.25), but still resulted in an overall increase of $1.93 greater income per acre.

• The insurance payment was the value of the yield shortfall, minus the

fertilizer savings, over the 120 enrolled acres (or $1.93 /acre X 120 acres = $231.60).

Conclusion

• This project demonstrated the working details
• f a crop insurance endorsement program

p p g designed to provide yield risk management coverage for corn producers who adjust their g p j nutrient management strategies to meet university recommendations. y

Conclusion

• This project was one of more than 30 that Agflex

and partners conducted in 5 states, 2001‐ 2003.

– The cumulative experiences of these projects led to fine tuning of administrative and technical details for e tu g o ad st at e a d tec ca deta s o the Nutrient BMP Endorsement, an optional offering to corn producers by the USDA Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. p

• The insurance industry has since chosen to not

i t thi t f li d t i t incorporate this type of policy endorsement into their assortment of crop risk management products. p

Conclusion

• As of 2006, the Nutrient BMP Endorsement

program (formerly offered as an insurance product) has been reconfigured into the Nutrient BMP Challenge (http://www.bmpchallenge.org).

• It is administered by Agflex; The IPM Institute of

North America Inc ; IPM Works and American North America, Inc.; IPM Works and American Farmland Trust.

• Various public and private entities fund the

reconfigured project. reconfigured project.

Conclusion

• The Nutrient BMP Challenge is offered in

Wisconsin and 12 other states as an income Wisconsin and 12 other states as an income guarantee.

• This service agreement is of interest to

i di id l d ll bli individual corn producers, as well as public and private water quality projects that focus t i t t i i lt l

• n nutrient management in agricultural

watersheds.

Information Available

• This presentation is the third in a series of four

developed to provide the data and information ll d E & L H i E i I collected at E & L Harrison Enterprises, Inc.

• There are 4 factsheets 4 briefs and 4 presentations

There are 4 factsheets, 4 briefs and 4 presentations associated with this project. ll f h b f d l bl

• All factsheets, briefs and presentations are available on

the UW ‐ Discovery Farms website.

• http://www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org

Acknowledgement Thank you to the Wisconsin Pork Thank you to the Wisconsin Pork Association for their interest and support of this project.

For Additional Information http://www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org

UW Discovery Farms 40195 Winsand Drive PO Box 429 Pigeon Falls, WI 54760 1‐715‐983‐5668

jgoplin@wisc.edu kevan.klingberg@ces.uwex.edu g g@