Strategies for Sustainable Crop Production Kirsten Workman, Agronomy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Strategies for Sustainable Crop Production Kirsten Workman, Agronomy Specialist & CCA University of Vermont Extension June 26, 2018 Outline Strategies for Success Agronomic Conservation Practices Techniques and tools to ensure
Kirsten Workman, Agronomy Specialist & CCA University of Vermont Extension June 26, 2018
Requirements
Photo: Lake Champlain Committee
Healthy Watersheds
Healthy Food Healthy
Communities
HEALTHY SOIL
“I’ve never had a farmer text me a picture of their NMP…but I get these all the time!”
Grassed Waterways
Image courtesy of The Fertilizer Institute
www.nutrientstewardship.com
BENEFITS
time for it all! CONSIDERATIONS
mean you should
BENEFITS
CONSIDERATIONS
BENEFITS
CONSIDERATIONS
BENEFITS
prevent than it is to correct
Quality
CONSIDERATIONS
DON’T do (don’t plow, don’t spray)
the farm!
Photo: CCA Virtual Farm Tour
Pollution Source or Conservation Practice? BENEFITS
CONSIDERATIONS
Tile pictures by Steven Roy, Redline Drainage
materials have helped us control pests with less volume and toxicity
before you decide on solution
pests, weeds & disease issues
Good Agronomy IS Conservation Agronomy!
The right amount…or is it?
Taking the time always pays off
Some folks are more comfortable with baby steps, others will do 1,000 acres at time. Either way, get it right!
being ‘just right’
incremental)
motives and goals
cover crops or rotation work without a change in management?
assistance
A great place to start no‐till
challenges
it? Why not?
costs in analysis
and adapt
crops switch it up
crops after harvest interseed, shorter DRM corn that yields
roll/crimp
changes as you go
but don’t let uncertainty hold you back
the difference
(grants, suppliers, etc.)
Field Days
their neighborhood
adopters and have them help recruit early/late majority. Laggers….???
story of what is going RIGHT in agriculture
Fig uring it O ut
The Little No‐Till Drill That COULD
10’ Haybuster 30’ Landoll
Charismatic Megafauna
Charismatic Megafauna
Charismatic Megafauna
Be the risk taker
Be the risk taker
Test an idea
big blocks and whole fields!”
INFORMATION
Small Plots Big Plots
Whole Fields “Bigger” Plots
Helicopter project seeds
acres
~10,000
acres planted
~20,000 acres planted
~26,000 acres
More than
30,000 ac.
Adoption & Implementation is the Goal
1 field day 1 farmer 30 acres A whole new demonstration project 40 people at their farm 1 field day 1 farmer 30 acres A whole new demonstration project 40 people at their farm
Farmers Working Together for a Clean Lake Champlain & Thriving Agriculture in Vermont
Share the Story of What is Right with Agriculture
Share the Story of What is right with Agriculture
The Culture of Agriculture
with your producers
‘the’ answer, but must be willing to get it
and explain to the public (and neighboring farmers)
together – share success and challenges
At the end of the day… sustainability is about
People Planet Profit
VERMONT FARMERS UVM Extension Champlain Valley Crop, Soil & Pasture Team UVM Extension Northwest Crops & Soils Team Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Agronomy Conservation Assistance Program Funders
USDA NRCS
*unless otherwise noted, all pictures are my own
Kirsten Workman
UVM Extension Champlain Valley Crop, Soil & Pasture Team kirsten.workman@uvm.edu (802) 388‐4969 x347 www.uvm.edu/extension/cvcrops
Ken Cassman Professor of Agronomy (Emeritus) University of Nebraska
ASA Sustainable Agronomy Conference, 26‐27 June 2018
pollution from agriculture
“No significant decrease in nitrate load from the Mississippi River Basin to the GoM…”
EROSION
Zero loss is impossible, even without applied N, so goal is to keep losses below acceptable environmental thresholds
EROSION
So, how to minimize N losses to keep them below thresholds that degrade environmental quality?
in harvested materials (grain, stover, straw) or transformed into soil
residues
sources (residual nitrate, mineralization of SOM, and applied fertilizer) is congruent with crop N demand in terms of quantity, timing, and spatial variability
zone‐specific variable‐rate, canopy sensors, simulation models
But what is N fertilizer efficiency, and how to measure it?
It’s complicated‐‐‐Manifestations of nitrogen use efficiency
(a)
Fertilizer N (F, kg ha-1) 50 100 150 200 Grain yield (Y, 1000 kg ha-1) Agronomic efficiency (dY/dF, kg kg-1) 10 20 30 40 50 60
50 100 150 200
Ratio Y/F (kg/kg)
100 200 300 400 500
Yield dY/dF dY/dF
PFP
Metrics of nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency
Partial factor productivity from applied nitrogen
PFPN = kg grain produced per kg of applied N
Agronomic efficiency (AE) of applied N
AEN = kg grain yield increase per kg applied N
Recovery efficiency (RE) of applied N
REN = kg N taken up from fertilizer per kg N applied
Physiological efficiency (PE) of applied N
PEN = kg grain yield increase kg‐1 fertilizer N taken up
AEN = PEN x REN
Requires N fertilizer
estimate these parameters
Nitrogen fertilizer omission plots: Yield and N uptake from omission plots are compared to N uptake and yield with applied N to estimate N fertilizer efficiency
Example for corn: Partial Factor Productivity (PFP), Agronomic efficiency (AE), Nitrogen Fertilizer Uptake Efficiency
Yield without applied N = 80 bu/ac Yield with 180 lb N/ac = 200 bu/ac Yield increase from N = 120 bu/ac (6720 lb/ac) PFP = (200 bu/ac)/(180 lb N/ac) = 1.11 bu/lb N AE = (120 bu/ac)/(180 lb N/ac) = 0.67 bu/lb N Nitrogen uptake efficiency = N uptake from fertilizer/N applied Nitrogen uptake efficiency = 124 lb N/ac uptake/180 lb N applied = 0.69 lb N uptake per lb of applied N
(assumes grain contains 1.25%N, stover 0.6%N, and harvest index = 50%)
Nitrogen fertilizer omission plots: Yield and N uptake from omission plots are compared to N uptake and yield with applied N to estimate N fertilizer efficiency But establishing N fertilizer omission plots within large production fields is logistically difficult and time consuming!
FALL, 2017 ISSUE
Counting practices (performance too variable across soils, climates, tillage method, etc….) Direct monitoring (too expensive) Complex models (not adequately validated)
Current methods to track progress towards environmental goals in absence of direct measures of N efficiency and N losses:
Nitrogen balance approach: applying sufficient N to optimize profit while minimizing the nitrogen surplus and maintaining soil organic matter levels
N deficit: when harvested grain removes more N than applied in fertilizer and manure N surplus: when harvested grain removes less than N applied in fertilizer and manure
Nitrogen Balance
N inputs to the field: Fertilizer, N2 fixation, manure, compost, deposition, irrigation water N outputs from the field: Harvested materials, soil erosion, nitrate, nitrous oxide, ammonia N balance = N inputs – N outputs (the surplus is at risk of loss) Crop and soil management practices that influence yield and N uptake affect the N balance Synchronous N supply and demand, cover crops, crop rotation with legumes, tillage method, etc….
flexibility to farmers to use a wide variety of practices;
(N2O emissions and nitrate leaching);
N balance is a direct measure of sustainable intensification
Sustainable intensification – producing more food using fewer resources and/or producing less environmental damage
N balance is a measure of yield‐ scaled N losses:
production and requires more land in crop production
production and requires less land for food production
the problems associated with tradeoffs when focusing on N fertilizer efficiency alone
From: McLellan et al. 2018
Is there evidence showing the N balance approach works?
Relationship between nitrate in surface waterways in Denmark before and after using an N balance approach to benchmark N management performance, Henson et al., 2017.
Most farmers are good environmental stewards
But it’s hard to convince non‐farm population and those concerned about the environment
rates
footprint of agriculture
supply
What would a global farmer‐reported database look like?
performance
levels)
database on field management
variety and maturity rating, sowing date, plant population, nitrogen rate/form/timing of application, phosphorus rate, pesticide use
decision‐support tools, forecasts, and improved seed and other input products for pest management, irrigation, soil quality, etc.
Benchmarking N balance for Improved Nitrogen Management
reducing fertilizer pollution that is scientifically‐robust, reflects field management, uses a small set of easily‐ collected field‐level data, and aligns improved environmental
performance at watershed to regional and national levels using innovative spatial statistics, or through the food supply chain to document corporate progress towards sustainability commitments
the industry is proactive in using improved crop and soil management practices to reduce N losses and improve environmental performance
reducing fertilizer pollution that is scientifically‐robust, reflects field management, uses a small set of easily‐ collected field‐level data, and aligns improved environmental
performance at watershed to regional and national levels using innovative spatial statistics, or through the food supply chain to document corporate progress towards sustainability commitments
the industry is proactive in using improved crop and soil management practices to reduce N losses and improve environmental performance
reducing fertilizer pollution that is scientifically‐robust, reflects field management, uses a small set of easily‐ collected field‐level data, and aligns improved environmental
performance at watershed to regional and national levels using innovative spatial statistics, or through the food supply chain to document corporate progress towards sustainability commitments
the industry is proactive in using improved crop and soil management practices to reduce N losses and improve environmental performance
April, 2009
+ form (significant)
20 40 60 80 100 120 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Smith Farms (0‐1 ft. Depth) Nitrate‐N Ammonium‐N ppm NO3‐N: 27.7 ppm NH4‐N: 8.3 Plant‐Available N: 36.0 ppm
TM
10 Cores 0‐1 ft. Same hole: 10 Cores 1‐2 ft. 10 Cores 0‐1 ft. Same hole: 10 Cores 1‐2 ft.
DATA SUMMARY
LAB RESULTS SOIL NITROGEN (Estimate) 0 ‐ 1 ft. Sampling Depth 1 ‐ 2 ft. Sampling Depth 0 ‐ 2 FT. SAMPLING DEPTH
Total N Applied (Lbs/A)
Date Tested
NO3‐N (ppm) NH4‐N (ppm) NO3‐N (ppm) NH4‐N (ppm) NO3‐N (Lbs/A) NH4‐N (Lbs/A) TOTAL PAN (lbs/A) % NH4 PAN
11/20/17 7 3 8 2 60.0 20.0 80.0 25.0% 4/16/18 11 28 10 7 84.0 140.0 224.0 62.5% 120 05/25/18 28 9 13 5 164.0 56.0 220.0 25.5% 120
PRODUCER INFORMATION Site ID: NTS‐15129292929
Registered By: Howard Brown # of N Appl: 2 Producer Name: John Smith Target N Rate: 200 Field Name: South of Home Target Yield: 230 NITROGEN APPLICATION HISTORY Date Applied N Source Placement N Rate Applied (Lbs/A) Stabilizer Used 03/23/18
Injected 120 N‐Serve Total Lbs. Applied: 200
PLANT‐AVAILABLE N SOIL UPDATE:
Projected Pounds of N/Acre Needed by Crop 275Lbs. Pounds of PAN Detected at 0‐2 feet: 220Lbs. N/Acre Remaining to Meet N Requirement: 55Lbs. REVIEWER: COMMENTS: Allowing for 45 lbs. of N to be released from soil O.M. (50% of estimated potential release), there may be a need for an additional 10 lbs. N to meet the 2018 corn crop's N requirement at this site.
Bloomington Champaign Charleston Danville Kankakee
2 4 6 8 50 100 150 200 250 300
Rainfall (inches)
PLANT‐AVAILABLE N vs. WEEKLY RAINFALL and N APPLIED (Accumulated)
N Applied (Lbs N/A) Nitrate‐N (lbs/A) Ammonium‐N (lbs/A) Weekly Rainfall
Weekly Rainfall
100 80 180 28 24 52 50 100 150 200 250 0‐1 ft. 1‐2 ft 0‐2 ft. Plant‐Available N (Lbs./A Upper 2 ft.) HIGH GROUND Field 1 NO3‐N NH4‐N 104 100 204 24 16 40 50 100 150 200 250 0‐1 ft. 1‐2 ft 0‐2 ft. Plant‐Available N (Lbs. N/A Upper 2 ft.) LOW GROUND Field 1 NO3‐N NH4‐N
232 244
112 72 184 64 28 92
50 100 150 200 250 300
0‐1 ft. 1‐2 ft 0‐2 ft.
LOW GROUND Field 3
104 84 188 68 32 100
50 100 150 200 250 300
0‐1 ft. 1‐2 ft 0‐2 ft.
Plant‐Available N (Lbs./A Upper 2 ft.)
HIGH GROUND Field 3
NO3‐N NH4‐N
80 64 144 36 24 60
50 100 150 200 250 300
0‐1 ft. 1‐2 ft 0‐2 ft.
PONDED GROUND Field 3
204 276 288
188196 124 152 164160 172 204 100 224
168
50 100 150 200 250 Original 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average
Plant‐Available N (Lbs. N/Acre ‐ 2 ft.) Sampling Site Location Plant‐Available N (Lbs. N/A) in Upper 2 Ft. at V6
4 3 5 1 2 6 7 8 9 Original Site
224 284 164 200 148
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 6/2/17 6/8/17 6/16/17 6/23/17 7/14/17 Estimated PAN Lbs./Acre (0‐2 Ft.)
PAN 0‐2 Ft. Applied N Rate
296 216 236 256 344
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
6/2/17 6/8/17 6/16/17 6/23/17 7/14/17
Estimated PAN Lbs./Acre (0‐2 Ft.)
PAN 0‐2 Ft. Applied
2018 PROJECT: 5 High Schools
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
50 100 150 200 250 300
Rainfall (inches)
PLANT‐AVAILABLE N vs. WEEKLY RAINFALL and N APPLIED (Accumulated)
FALL‐APPLIED N (180 lbs)
N Applied (Lbs N/A) Nitrate‐N (lbs/A) Ammonium‐N (lbs/A) Weekly Rainfall Applied 180 lbs. N
2 4 6 8 50 100 150 200 250 300 Rainfall (inches)
PLANT‐AVAILABLE N vs. WEEKLY RAINFALL and N APPLIED (Accumulated)
SPRING‐APPLIED N (180 lbs.)
N Applied (Lbs N/A) Nitrate‐N (lbs/A) Ammonium‐N (lbs/A) Weekly Rainfall Applied 180 lbs. N