Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview – Nutrient Fate and Transport Mark B. David University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Presented at Building Science Assessments for State-Level.
Advertisements

Jane Frankenberger Purdue University.  Opportunity for agreement -- Even people with widely divergent views can agree on numbers drawn from the literature.
Manure is a Resource Ron Wiederholt Nutrient Management Specialist NDSU Extension Livestock Manure Nutrient Management Series March, 2006.
Phosphorus Index Based Management Douglas Beegle Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences Penn State University
Effects of Conservation Tillage Systems on Dissolved Phosphorus Dr. David Baker Heidelberg University Tiffin, Ohio November 15, 2012 Davenport, IA.
IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico Spring 2013.
Scenario Analysis costs per acre for various practices estimate each fully applied practice for N or P then combine for N or P to reach 20 or 45% finally,
Nutrient Management Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Practice – CP-39 Farmable Wetland Program Constructed Wetland.
An integrated study of nutrient leaching and greenhouse gas emissions Tyson Ochsner and Rodney Venterea Soil and Water Management Research Unit Agricultural.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
Water Quality Concerns in Ohio Waters What has been Happening in Lake Erie? Greg LaBarge, Field Specialist, Agronomic Systems.
Walnut Creek: Monitoring, Modeling, and Optimizing Prairie Restoration Sergey Rabotyagov 1, Keith Schilling 3, Manoj Jha 2, Calvin Wolter 3, Todd Campbell.
Drainage Water Management to meet Agronomic and Environmental goals University of Minnesota Dept. Soil, Water, & Climate Southwest Research and Outreach.
2011 Shannon Zezula NRCS Indiana State Resource Conservationist Improving Water Quality in the Corn Belt (and Beyond...)
Long-Term Field Research for Developing Nitrogen BMP’s Gyles Randall Univ. of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center
Illinois Farmers as Nutrient Stewards: Opportunities via the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy IFB Commodities Conference July 30, 2014 Lauren.
Soil Effects on Water Quality Bob Broz University of Missouri Extension Bob Broz University of Missouri Extension.
Iowa Science Assessment of Nonpoint Source Practices to Reduce Phosphorus to the Mississippi River Basin Nutrient Reduction Strategy Phosphorus Science.
Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy: Background Information Reid Christianson, P.E., Ph.D. Center for Watershed Protection Ellicott City, Maryland.
Eric G. Hurley, Nutrient Management Specialist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Agricultural Water Pollution: Some Policy Considerations Catherine Kling Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University Iowa Environmental.
Reducing phosphorus emissions: Why voluntary programs struggle and market-based instruments are likely to work best Brent Sohngen (OSU)
Managing Manure for Crop Production when Feeding DDGS Kyle Jensen ISU Extension Field Specialist-Crops.
Chesapeake Bay Program Incorporation of Lag Times into the Decision Process Gary Shenk 10/16/12 1.
Iowa Nutrient Reduction Science Assessment Cost Estimate and Outreach John D. Lawrence Associate Dean and Director Ag and Natural Resources Extension Iowa.
2014 Illinois Farm Economics Summit The Profitability of Illinois Agriculture: Back to the Future? 2015 Crop and Income Outlook: Conserve Cash Now Gary.
Empirical Modeling of Nitrate Loading and Crop Yield for Corn-Soybean Rotations in Iowa Rob Malone, USDA-ARS, Ames, IA Liwang Ma, Doug Karlen, Terry Meade,
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell March 11,
Co-Benefits from Conservation Policies that Promote Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: The Corn Belt CARD, Iowa State University Presented at the Forestry.
Preview of Summer 2014 Revision of Corn N Recommendations and N Issues Dave Franzen, PhD Extension Soil Specialist North Dakota State University, Fargo,
Iowa CREP Meeting/Tour October 15, 2007 Why off-field practices/buffers? Jim Baker, IDALS (professor emeritus, Dept. Agric. and Biosystems Eng. Iowa State.
PARTNERSHIP EFFORT WITH AGRICULTURE AND MINNESOTA PRODUCERS 2014 Drainage Water Management Initiative.
Preliminary Draft Experience from the Cedar River TMDL “Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: Implications and Strategies for Iowa” Jim Baker Professor emeritus,
Assessing Alternative Policies for the Control of Nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Catherine L. Kling, Silvia Secchi, Hongli Feng, Philip.
Review of Scenario Builder BMP crediting Christopher F. Brosch University of Maryland Extension Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Cover crop economics: estimating a return on investment Liz Juchems and Jamie Benning.
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan Scott Sturgul Nutrient & Pest Management Program Soil & Water Management Farm & Industry Short Course Feb. 16,
Agenda Item 2. A review of basic concepts and terminology related to phosphorus movement from cropland to streams and rivers. Great Lakes Protections Fund.
Drainage and Nitrate Loss Matthew Helmers Dean’s Professor, College of Ag. & Life Sciences Professor, Dept. of Ag. and Biosystems Eng. Iowa State University.
Mixed Annual-Perennial Systems: Diversity on Iowa’s Land Matt Liebman Wallace Chair for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa State University.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University.
Drainage Management for Water Quality and Crop Production Benefits Don Pitts Agricultural Engineer NRCS USDA Champaign, IL.
Lecture 2. Agricultural Pollution Control in the Baltic Sea with Special Emphasis on Manure Management Prepared by Assoc. Prof. Philip Chiverton, SLU and.
Summary of supplementary data GLPF Grant- Team meeting #5 July 23, 2013.
BMP’s used by Agriculture Producers Jessica Flores UME Ag & Natural Resources Educator November 16, 2015.
April 8, 2009Forestry and Agriculture GHG Modeling Forum Land Use Change in Agriculture: Yield Growth as a Potential Driver Scott Malcolm USDA/ERS.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell August 8,
Effect of Potential Future Climate Change on Cost-Effective Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Strategies in the UMRB Manoj Jha, Philip Gassman, Gene.
National Assessment for Cropland. Analytical Approach Sampling and modeling approach based on a subset of NRI sample points. Farmer survey conducted to.
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan The How, Where, When, and Why.
Dead Zones & Drinking Water: Farming’s Nutrient Loss Challenge Jonathan Coppess University of Illinois.
To better understand ground water, it’s important to visualize the rock layers, most of which serve as drinking water aquifers, which exist under Dodge.
IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico James Gillespie.
Taking on the Challenge Addressing Sustainability and Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy Goals Caroline Wade, Nutrient Watershed Manager Illinois Corn Growers.
Nitrogen Budgets for the Mississippi River Basin using the linked EPIC-CMAQ-NEWS Models Michelle McCrackin, Ellen Cooter, Robin Dennis, Jana Compton, John.
26 May, 2016 Panevėžys, Lithuania
Slide 1 Achieving Effective Conservation in the Upper Mississippi River Basin CEAP —Conservation Effects Assessment Project.
Amy Walkenbach, Illinois EPA- Watershed Management Section
Fertility Strategies for Lean Times
Costs and Environmental Gains from Conservation Programs
Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy - NLRS
2018 Louisiana Soil Health and Cover Crop Conference
Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Cover Crops.
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan
Biomass Yield and Nutrient Accumulation by Four Small Grain Species
Presentation transcript:

Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Technical Tasks develop a science based technical assessment of: – current conditions in Illinois of nutrient sources and export by rivers in the state from point and non- point sources – methods that could be used to reduce these losses and estimates of their effectiveness throughout Illinois – estimates of the costs of statewide and watershed level application of these methods to reduce nutrient losses to meet TMDL and Gulf of Mexico goals

Illinois Riverine Water and Nutrients

Illinois Nutrient Concentrations (average of all rivers in state)

Riverine N and P Fluxes WaterNitrate-NTotal NDRPTotal P ft 3 yr -1 million lb N or P yr -1 David & Gentry (2000) Urban runoff Point sources Percent of load Point sources David & Gentry (2000) 1647

Point and agricultural sources ( )

Nitrate-N and Total P Targets Red line is target, purple is average 1997 to 2011

Illinois as % of MRB David and Gentry (2000) 15% for total N, 10% for P

Illinois Nutrient Sources

Agricultural Management by MLRA Combined MLRA DescriptionCorn (acres) Soybean (acres) Wheat (acres) Drained acres (% of crop acres) Corn yield (bu/acre) Soybean yield (bu/acre) MLRA 1 Northern Illinois drift plain515,905224,18620, ,491 (39)16148 MLRA 2 Northeastern Illinois heavy till plain1,532,1001,111,88542,404 2,063,695 (78)15039 MLRA 3 Northern Mississippi Valley163,50752,4321,975 20,942 (10)16050 MLRA 4Deep loess and drift5,579,9803,343,44476,078 5,437,807 (61)16452 MLRA 5Claypan1,609,6331,991,939352, ,087 (9)12839 MLRA 6Thin loess and till664,242689,773161, ,971 (17)13042 MLRA 7 Central Mississippi Valley, Northern Part2,058,8531,288,68673,884 1,284,588 (38)15549 MLRA 8 Sandstone and shale hills and valleys83,969115,24410,658 49,565 (25)10333 MLRA 9 Central Mississippi Valley, Western Part203,736314,66278,250 23,769 (5)12539 Sum12,411,9259,132,251817,4609,705,916 (43) Average crop acres and yields 2008 through 2012

Agricultural N Management by MLRA Combined MLRA DescriptionEstimated corn fertilizer (lb N/acre/yr) Estimated corn fertilizer + manure (lb N/acre/yr) Row crops (acres) Nitrate-N yield per row crop acre (lb N/acre/yr) MLRA 1 Northern Illinois drift plain , MLRA 2 Northeastern Illinois heavy till plain ,686, MLRA 3 Northern Mississippi Valley , MLRA 4Deep loess and drift ,999, MLRA 5Claypan ,954, MLRA 6Thin loess and till ,515, MLRA 7 Central Mississippi Valley, Northern Part ,421, MLRA 8 Sandstone and shale hills and valleys , MLRA 9 Central Mississippi Valley, Western Part , Sum ,361,636

Corn Fertilizer N by MLRA Combined MLRA DescriptionEstimated CS fertilizer + manure (lb/acre/yr) MRTN (10 to 1) CS (lb N/acre/yr) Estimated CC fertilizer + manure (lb/acre/yr) MRTN (10 to 1) CC (lb N/acre/yr) MLRA 1 Northern Illinois drift plain MLRA 2 Northeastern Illinois heavy till plain MLRA 3 Northern Mississippi Valley MLRA 4 Deep loess and drift MLRA 5 Claypan MLRA 6 Thin loess and till MLRA 7 Central Mississippi Valley, Northern Part MLRA 8 Sandstone and shale hills and valleys MLRA 9 Central Mississippi Valley, Western Part MRTN is Maximum Return to N

Nitrate Yield by MLRA Combined MLRA Description Drained cropland (acres) Nitrate-N yield per row crop acre (lb N/acre/yr) Nitrate-N yield per tile drained acre (lb N/acre/yr) Nitrate-N yield from non-tiled land (lb N/acre/yr) MLRA 1 Northern Illinois drift plain 288, MLRA 2 Northeastern Illinois heavy till plain 2,063, MLRA 3 Northern Mississippi Valley 20, MLRA 4 Deep loess and drift 5,437, MLRA 5 Claypan 310, MLRA 6 Thin loess and till 226, MLRA 7 Central Mississippi Valley, Northern Part 1,284, MLRA 8 Sandstone and shale hills and valleys 49, MLRA 9 Central Mississippi Valley, Western Part 23,

What can we do in agriculture? given, – it is not typically over fertilization based on current rates and yields – may be zero or negative N & P balances in some areas of the tile drained Midwest three types of conservation practices could help – nutrient-use efficiency (4Rs) – in-field management – off-site measures

Woodchip bioreactors

Tile installation is faster than ever Pattern systems on 25 m spacing Annual ryegrass and radish - aerial seeding

Nitrogen costs per acre Practice/ScenarioCost Per Acre Notes Reducing N rate from background to the MRTN (10% of acres) -$8Reduce N rates (20 pounds) Nitrification inhibitor with all fall applied fertilizer on tile- drained corn acres $7Cost of inhibitor Split (50%) fall and spring (50%) on tile-drained corn acres $17Additional field pass, switch to N solutions Fall to spring on tile-drained corn acres $18Switch to N solutions, higher ammonia price, additional application costs Cover crops on all corn/soybean tile-drained acres $29Aerial applications of cereal rye Cover crops on all corn/soybean non-tiled acres $29Aerial applications of cereal rye Bioreactors on 50% of tile-drained land $17Upfront costs of $133 per acre Wetlands on 25% of tile-drained land $605% of farmland out of production Major cost is land ($11,000) Buffers on all applicable crop land (reduction only for water that interacts with active area) $294 per buffer acre Land costs plus $50 planting, $10 yearly maintenance Perennial/energy crops equal to pasture/hay acreage from 1987 $86Less profit compared to corn-soybean rotation Perennial/energy crops on 10% of tile-drained land $86Less profit compared to corn-soybean rotation Edge-of- field Land use change In-field

Phosphorus costs per acre Practice/ScenarioCost Per Acre Notes Reduce tillage -$16Eliminate one pass of heavy equipment, no change in yield No P fertilizer on 12.5 million ac of CS fields with soil test P above maintenance level for average of 6 years -$15Cost of six years of P fertilizer averaged over 20 years. Cover crops on corn/soybean tile-drained acres $29Aerial applications of cereal rye Cover crops on corn/soybean non-tiled acres $29Aerial applications of cereal rye Bioreactors on 50% of tile-drained land $17Upfront costs of $133 per acre Wetlands on 25% of tile-drained land $605% of farmland out of production Major cost is land ($11,000) Buffers on all applicable crop land (reduction only for water that interacts with active area) $294 per buffer acre Land costs plus $50 planting, $10 yearly maintenance Perennial/energy crops equal to pasture/hay acreage from 1987 $86Less profit compared to corn-soybean rotation Perennial/energy crops on 10% of tile-drained land $86Less profit compared to corn-soybean rotation Edge-of- field Land use change In-field

Example Statewide Results for N Practice/ScenarioNitrate- N reduction per acre (%) Nitrate- N reduced (million lb N) Nitrate-N Reduction % (from baseline) Cost ($/lb N removed) Baseline410 Reducing N rate from background to the MRTN (10% of acres) Nitrification inhibitor with all fall applied fertilizer on tile-drained corn acres Split (50%) fall and spring (50%) on tile-drained corn acres 7.5 to Fall to spring on tile-drained corn acres 15 to Cover crops on all corn/soybean tile-drained acres Cover crops on all corn/soybean non-tiled acres Bioreactors on 50% of tile-drained land Wetlands on 25% of tile-drained land Buffers on all applicable crop land (reduction only for water that interacts with active area) Perennial/energy crops equal to pasture/hay acreage from Perennial/energy crops on 10% of tile-drained land Point source reduction to 10 mg nitrate-N/L Point source reduction in N due to biological nutrient removal for P Point source Edge-of- field Land use change In-field

Example Statewide Results for P Practice/ScenarioTotal P reduction per acre (%) Total P reduced (million lb P) Total P Reduction % (from baseline) Cost ($/lb P removed) Baseline37.5 Convert 1.8 million acres of conventional till eroding >T to reduced, mulch or no-till P rate reduction on fields with soil test P above the recommended maintenance level Cover crops on all corn/soybean acres Cover crops on 1.6 million acres eroding>T currently in reduced, mulch or no-till Wetlands on 25% of tile-drained land Buffers on all applicable crop land Perennial/energy crops equal to pasture/hay acreage from Perennial/energy crops on 1.6 million acres>T currently in reduced, mulch or no-till Perennial/energy crops on 10% of tile- drained land Point source reduction to 1.0 mg total P/L (majors only) Point source Edge- of-field Land use change In-field USLE method

Example Statewide N & P Scenarios NameCombined Practices and/or Scenarios Nitrate-N (% reduction) Total P (% reduction) Cost of Reduction ($/lb) Annualized Costs (million $/year) NP1 MRTN, fall to spring, bioreactors 50%, wetlands 25%, no P fert. on 12.5 million ac above STP maintenance, reduced till on 1.8 million ac conv. till eroding > T, buffers on all applicable lands, point source to 1.0 mg TP/L and 10 mg nitrate-N/L 3545**383 NP2 MRTN, fall to spring, bioreactors 50%, no P fert. on 12.5 million ac above STP maintenance, reduced till on 1.8 million ac conv. till eroding > T, cover crops on all CS, point source to 1.0 mg TP/L and 10 mg nitrate-N/L 45 **810 NP3 MRTN, fall to spring, bioreactors 15%, no P fert. on 12.5 million ac above STP maintenance, reduced till on 1.8 million ac conv. till eroding > T, cover crops on 87.5% of CS, buffers on all applicable lands, perennial crops on 1.6 million ac >T, and 0.9 million additional ac. 45 **791 NP4 MRTN, fall to spring N, bioreactors 35%, no P fert. on 12.5 million ac above STP maintenance, reduced till on 1.8 million ac conv. till eroding > T, buffers on 80% of all applicable land 20 ** 48 NP5 MRTN, fall to spring N, bioreactors 30%, wetlands 15%, no P fert. on 12.5 million ac above STP maintenance, reduced till on 1.8 million ac conv. till eroding > T, point source to 1.0 mg TP/L and 10 mg nitrate-N/L on 45% of discharge 20 ** 66 NP6 MRTN, fall to spring N, no P fert. on 12.5 million ac above STP maintenance, reduced till on 1.8 million ac conv. till eroding > T, cover crops on 1.6 million ac eroding >T and 40% of all other CS 2420** 244

Combined scenarios with costs by practice (million $ per year) PracticeNP1NP2NP3NP4NP5NP6 MRTN-9.6 N fertilizer timing82 Bioreactors Wetlands140 Buffers58 46 Cover crops Perennials 215 Reduced P fertilizer-94 Reduced tillage-30 Point source P Point source N46 21 Sum

IEPA and Dept. of Agriculture two agencies have led process series of meetings with stakeholders in state I made presentations as science assessment was developed more recent meetings to develop strategy final meeting in May – drafts of strategy have been released for comment three groups represented – agriculture, point source, and environmental groups

Public meetings

Agriculture Subcommittee Survey PracticeMedian adoption rate (%) N reduction (million lb N) P reduction (million lb P) Timing change (either fall to spring or fall/spring/side dress) Cover crops – tile drained corn and soybean acres Ephemeral gulley control65?? Buffers on ag streams Wetlands on tile drained acres10110 No P fertilizers with STP above maintenance No manure application on frozen ground 93?? Convert 1.8 million acres of conventional till eroding > T to reduced, mulch, or no till Summed60 (15%)5.5 (15%)

Conclusions no simple solution, or one method to achieve goals will take a range of point and non point source reductions to meet targets initial focus could be: – point source P reductions ($114 million per year) – tile-drained nitrate reductions by agriculture (range of costs) strategy to get us started