Missouri Phosphorus Issues as Viewed by an Economist in the

Space Shuttle

Verel W. Benson

Soil and Water Conservation Society Show-Me Chapter of Missouri Fall Forum

OCTOBER 20, 2005GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER FARM

Why are there Phosphorus Issues?

Phosphorus use history and balance CRP impacts on P loss Farm and watershed assessment Manure P recycling potential Energy production recycling potential How do economic and environmental

regulations impact P issues? What are the stakes? Solution strategies

Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI) Summary of Fertilizer and Manure Nutrients in North America (2002)

PPI review of nutrient use and balance in North America

On-line order form: http://www.store.yahoo.com/ppi-store/plannutusein.html

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

ND

SKMB

ON

BCBCAB

WA

OR

MTMT

ID

SD

MN

PQPQ

NY

PAOHINIL

IA

WIMI

WY

UT

NV

CACA

AZ NM

NBNB

NSNS

PEIPEI

MEME

NH

VT

MAMA

CTCTRIRI

NE

KSMO

KY

WV

VAVA

MD

DEDE

NJNJ

NCNCTN

AROK

TX LA

MS ALAL GAGA

SCSC

FLFL

CO

1.10-1.49

0.50-0.89

0.00-0.49

0.90-1.09

>1.50

R/(F+M)

Ratio of P removal by crops to fertilizer applied plus recoverable manure.

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

N P2O5 K2O

8% increase since 1980

21% decrease since 1980

Consumption of Fertilizer N, P2O5, and K2O in the United States from 1960 to 2000

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

Trend in P2O5 Consumption in MS Basin States, 1980-2002

y = -19,404.91x + 4,023,285.91

R2 = 0.15

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

Year ending June 30

To

ns o

f P 2O

517% decline in fertilizer P2O5 since 1980

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

PPI Soil Test Summary Results

• >2.5 million samples from public & private labs, from fall 2000 through spring 2001

• 47 % test medium or lower in PLack of adequate soil fertility is limiting crop production, economic returns, and nutrient use-efficiency on many farms and fields

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

Percentage of soils testing medium or lower in P

20012001

NDND

SKSKMBMB

ONON

BCBCABAB

WAWA

OROR

MTMT

IDID

SDSD

MNMN

PQPQ

ILIL

WYWY

UTUT

NVNV

CACA

NBNB

NSNS

PEIPEI

NENE

KSKSMOMO

TNTNARAR

OKOK

TXTX LALA

ALAL GAGA

FLFL

COCO

3737

7070

7373

25252424

18182222

3939

4747

5959 8686

4747

2121

5050 26262828

North AmericaNorth America47%47%

25251616

5959

6868606059595858

5959

4141 5252

7878 7878

6969

6262

4040

5858

4646

5757

2525

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

4747

45454242

6060

6161

5151

797960605858

3737

69691515

4545

38383636

34345353

46463131

U.S. fertilizer phosphorus production and uses

Domestic Use 43%

Export57%

Domestic use by major crop

soybeans

15%

corn

62%

wheat

19%

sorghum

3%

rice

1%

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

U.S. production compared to potential manure P available

U.S.Use43%

Export57%

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

32%

Potential P from

animal manure

Sources of P from recycled animal manure

Broiler15%

Layers

10%

Turkey

8%

Swine35%

Fattened cattle14%

Dairy

18%

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

Marketing Animal By-product Phosphorus to Areas of Concentrated Crop Production

NeededAvailable

AvailableNeeded

*P (tons)

5000 +2500 - 50001000 - 2500500 - 1000250 - 500

0 - 250

State Boundary

LEGEND

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture

Phosphorus in Harvested Crops

Crop P (tons)0 - 250250 - 500500 - 10001000 - 2500> 2500

Commercial P (tons)0 - 250250 - 500500 - 10001000 - 2500> 2500

Commercial Phosphorus Sold

Source: MU Agricultural Experiment Station

Manure P (tons)0 - 250250 - 500500 - 10001000 - 2500> 2500

Potential phosphorus available from confined animal manures

Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture

Balancing Phosphorus Needs and Sources For Crop Production

P

HISTORY

&

BALANCE

Phosphorus processes

Soil

Manure applicationSoluble P Organic P

Labile Ppool

Stable mineral P

poolActive

mineral Ppool

Crop

Organic Ppool

Mineralization

ImmobilizationCrop yield P Plantresidue

Erosion organic & mineral P

Runoff

labile P

LeachedP

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Estimated P LossConventionally Tilled Crop

Total P (lbs/ac)0 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.51.5 - 33 - 66 - 99 - 1818 - 36

2 Digit HUCs

Pre-CRP simulated P loss/acre for soils with high CRP enrollment

(conventionally tilled crops)

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Estimated P LossConventionally Tilled Crop

Total P (lbs/ac)0 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.51.5 - 33 - 66 - 99 - 1818 - 36

2 Digit HUCsMissouri

Pre-CRP simulated P loss/acre for soils with high CRP enrollment

(conventionally tilled crops)

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Total P (lbs/ac)0 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.51.5 - 33 - 66 - 99 - 1818 - 36

2 Digit HUCs

Estimated P LossConservation Reserve Grassland

CRP simulated P loss/acre for soils with high CRP enrollment (mixed

grass cover)

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Total P (Lbs/ac)0 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.51.5 - 33 - 66 - 99 - 1818 - 36

2 Digit HUCsMissouri

Estimated P LossConservation Reserve Grassland

CRP simulated P loss/acre for soils with high CRP enrollment

(mixed grass cover)

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Estimated Reductions

Total P (%Change)Increase0 - 2020 - 4040 - 6060 - 8080 - 100

2 Digit HUCs

Reduction in simulated P loss/acre for soils with high CRP enrollment

Pre-CRP to CRP (conventionally tilled crops to mixed grass cover)

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Estimated P Reductions

Total P (% Change)Increase0 - 2020 - 4040 - 6060 - 8080 - 100

2 Digit HUCsMissouri

Reduction in simulated P loss/acre for soils with high CRP enrollment

Pre-CRP to CRP (conventionally tilled crops to mixed grass cover)

CRP

P HOSPHORUS

IMPACTS

Models provide us reasonable information for assessing

impacts

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Frequency

Dis

solv

ed P

(m

g/l) Measured

Predicted

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

Annual average baseline P concentrations in Upper Shoal Creek

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46Years

Ph

os

ph

oru

s

co

nc

en

tra

tio

ns

(m

g/L

)

Mineral Phosphorus

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Ending cash reserves for Lawrence and Barry Counties Contract Broiler Representative Farm

Current-annual litter

Harvest hay-annual litter

Current-no litter

Current-alt. year

litter

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46

Ph

osp

hor

us

Loa

d (

lbs/

ac)

Lawrence/Barry Counties Representative Broiler Farm

Projected accumulated soil phosphorus in top six inches of soil

Years

Current-no litter

Only slight increase in p with alternate year litter application

Current-alt. year

litter

Harvest hay-annual litter

Current-annual litter

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

Projected Phosphorus Loading in Field Runoff

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46

Ph

osp

ho

rus

Lo

ad (

lbs/

ac)

CURRENT NO LITTER ONLY HAYLAND ALT. YEARS

Projected phosphorus loading in field runoff

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

Farm runoff P when no litter is applied, evaluated to illustrate

solutions will not likely be immediate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49

Years

Ave

rag

e r

un

off

con

cen

tra

tion

(m

g/L

)

30% decrease in 50 years

37 PPB

Most municipal discharge permits are currently 500 PPB or greater

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

Annual average concentrations without litter, Upper Shoal Creek

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46Years

Ph

osp

ho

rus

Co

nce

ntr

atio

ns

(mg

/L)

Mineral Phosphorus

0.07 mg/L total P after 20 years

37 PPB

WATERSHED

& FARM

IMPACTS

Demonstration strip harvestingMANURE

RECYCLING

POTENTIAL

Poultry litter demonstration

N-P-K applications by strip

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Lb

s/A

cre

N

P2O5

K2O

Broile

r litt

er

Comm

erci

al

ferti

lizer

Pelle

ted

litte

rPel

lete

d lit

ter

Pelle

ted

litte

rEM

Tur

key

litte

rEM

Tur

key

litte

r EM T

urke

y lit

ter

Laye

r man

ure

Laye

r man

ure

MANURE

RECYCLING

POTENTIAL

Yield comparison

Broile

r litt

er

Pelle

ted

litte

r

EM T

urke

y lit

ter

Laye

r man

ure

Comm

erci

al

ferti

lizer

Pelle

ted

litte

r

Pelle

ted

litte

rEM

Tur

key

litte

r

EM T

urke

y lit

ter

Laye

r man

ure

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

Bu

sh

els

/ac

re

Corn yield (bu/ac)

Soybean yield (bu/ac)

Corn year 1 commercial fertilizer

Soybeans year 2 commercial fertilizer

MANURE

RECYCLING

POTENTIAL

Litter demonstration Gross returns –fertilizer cost

$350.00

$400.00

$450.00

$500.00

$/ac

reBro

iler l

itter

Pelle

ted

litte

r

EM T

urke

y lit

ter

Laye

r man

ure

Comm

erci

al

ferti

lizer

Pelle

ted

litte

rPel

lete

d lit

ter

EM T

urke

y lit

ter

EM T

urke

y lit

ter

Laye

r man

ure

MANURE

RECYCLING

POTENTIAL

With today’s commercial

fertilizer prices

Balance agricultural Phosphorus

Central Missouri

Central Missouri

Central Missouri

Southwest Missouri

MANURE

RECYCLING

POTENTIAL

Producing energy from

poultry & forestry byproducts

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

How much poultry litter would it take to fuel a power plant?

250,000 tons poultry litter/year

150,000 tonsForestry biomass

40MW

Fibrowatt option

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Litter supply – Springfield

Tons of poultry litter

#

Poultry Litter Supply (T/sq mi) 0 1 - 50 51 - 100101 - 200 > 200

50-mi Transport Zones# Springfield

#

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Estimated cost per Btu fromcoal & poultry litter Springfield, MO

Poultry litter by distance from site

Tons available

Cost per million Btu

0-50 miles 150,000 <$1.2051-100 miles 450,000 $1.21-$1.80

101-150 miles 900,000 $1.81-$2.40

Coal n/a $1.43

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Riparian Buffers

Buffers trap Sediment

Phosphorus Fecal coliform

Buffers produce Biomass

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Potential biomass buffers

#

Buffer Density (ac/sq mi) 0 - 5 5 - 1010 - 1515 - 20 > 20

50-mi Transport Zones# Springfield

169,333

140,771

91,387

150-mile 100-mile 50-mile

Potential acres of buffers

Biomass production

expected to be 5-10 tons/acre

per year

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Adopt/adapt new technologies biomass compressed to less than

50 % of original volume

•Methodology developed by University of Missouri-Columbia Capsule Pipeline Research Center to compress coal

•Compressed biomass is easier to transport and store

•Cost is estimated to be $5 to $8 per ton

•Prototype machine for compressing forest byproducts and poultry litter could be built this year pending funds

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Current design of a biomass fuel compaction

machine with about 3 ton/hr production rate

Transportable on a flatbed trailer and uses electric power

ENERGY

PRODUCTION

Let’s examinethe balance between regulations and feasibility of food production

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Rural R

esidence Buffer

Road Buffer

Roa

d B

uffe

r

Stream Buffer

Stream Buffer

Field characteristics and their Field characteristics and their impact on nutrient recyclingimpact on nutrient recycling

Road

Roa

d

Stream

Residence

Residence

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Field comparison of some of the Field comparison of some of the impacts of alternative buffer widthimpacts of alternative buffer width

Area in buffers- no litter application

Area remaining for litter application

Stream buffers

15 foot Buffers

Road buffers

Rural residence buffer

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Field comparison of some of the Field comparison of some of the impacts of alternative buffer widthimpacts of alternative buffer width

100 foot buffers

Stream buffers

Road buffers

Rural residencebuffers

Area in buffers- no litter application

Area remaining for litter application

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

What are the impactsof buffer widths at a

regional level?

Let us look at the impactsfrom the perspective of

integrated poultry production

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Competition among integrated Competition among integrated poultry operations is required poultry operations is required

by antitrust lawsby antitrust laws

Feed Mill Processing Plant

Hatchery 30 mile radius

Poultry Growers

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Regional impacts of maintaining competition for Regional impacts of maintaining competition for consumer and producer productsconsumer and producer products

Antitrust laws maintain competition for consumer dollar.To compete integrated poultry production is

concentrated in a 30-mile radius of central plant.

Southwest Missouri

Fraction of total crop recyclable P remaining to be met by all other sources

Fraction of total crop recyclable P that must be met with poultry litter to recycle litter P in production area

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Packer and Stockyard regulations strongly Packer and Stockyard regulations strongly encourage competition for contract poultry encourage competition for contract poultry

producers.producers. To maintain competition, two integrated operations are assumed to exist.

Fraction of total crop recyclable P remaining to be met by all other sources

Fraction of total crop recyclable P that must be met with poultry litter to recycle litter P in production area

Southwest Missouri

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Integrated poultry producers in Southwest Missouri

#

#

#

#

#

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Regional impacts of 15 foot buffer widths

Fraction of total crop recyclable P remaining to be met by all other sources

Fraction of total crop recyclable P that must be met with poultry litter to recycle litter P in production area

Southwest Missouri

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Regional impacts of 100 foot buffer widths

Southwest Missouri

Fraction of total crop recyclable P remaining to be met by all other sources

Fraction of total crop recyclable P that must be met with poultry litter to recycle litter P in production area

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

We’ve created impossible goals

• Our intentions were good at every point of the decision process

• Both economic and environmental decisions appear to be reasonable

• Holistic assessment says we’re not there yet

• A key issue is equitable allocation of costs and benefits

REGULATORY

IMPACTS

Economic and Environmental Impacts

• Consumer impacts

• Farm impacts

• Watershed impacts

• Regional impacts

WHAT

ARE

THE

STAKES?

Farm Level Prices (1982-84=100 CPI)

020406080

100120140160180

Year

cent

s/lb

Cattle Hogs Chicken

Source:USDA, ERS

Prior tovertical

integration

Verticalintegration

A chickenin every pot

meant wealth

Poultry HistoryWHAT

ARE

THE

STAKES?

Consumer Savings

Farm Level Prices (1982-84=100 CPI)

020406080

100120140160180

Year

cent

s/lb

Cattle Hogs Chicken

Source:USDA, ERS

Potential consumer savings/lb

WHAT

ARE

THE

STAKES?

Corn price effect of poultry feed demand

WHAT

ARE

THE

STAKES?

Loss ofpoultry industry

-$1.8 billion -16,000 jobs

Regional economic impacts of choices

Loss of recreation industries

-$1.4 billion-34,000 jobs

Developa litter hauling

recycling industry$15.9 million

182 jobs

Develop an integrated agroforestry/ poultry litter recycling industry that produces renewable energy and

fertilizer products

$?,??? Million

?,??? jobs

WHAT

ARE

THE

STAKES?

How do we stimulate How do we stimulate cooperation and innovation?cooperation and innovation?

• With lawsuits and penalties?– City of Tulsa, Oklahoma sued poultry companies-

settlement was $7.5 million with attorneys receiving over $7 million

• With rules and standards?• With incentives?• All of the above + public cost share?

– Premium Standard settlement – penalty of $1 million– $25 million set aside for research and capital

improvement addressing air and water quality

SOLUTION

STRATEGIES

Cooperative Efforts

Harvesting required cooperative efforts

at the turn of the20th century

SOLUTION

STRATEGIES

Cooperative Efforts

Harvesting required Cooperative Efforts

at the turn of the20th century

Meeting the food and fiber needs of a growing population

while maintaining environmental quality will take even more cooperation

in the 21st century

SOLUTION

STRATEGIES

Thank You

Questions?