phosphorus based management - extension.psu.edu

1

PHOSPHORUS BASED MANAGEMENT

Charlie White

Department of Plant Science

Penn State University

[email protected]

(814) 863‐1016

www.panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu

Penn State Extension on the web: extension.psu.edu

Nutrient Management Program on the Web:panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu

Phosphorus in the Environment• P is an essential element for

plants and animals– Maintain optimum soil test P

• High P is generally non‐toxic to plants or animals

• Relatively immobile in soil

• P causes accelerated eutrophication

– Excessive growth of algae and aquatic plants

– Limits use of water for drinking, fishing, recreation, etc.

P Management Strategy to protect the environment

Mahantango Creek Watershed, USDA-ARS

90% of P Loss comes from 10% of the watershed

Source and Transport

Tile flow

P leaching

Sources Transport

Runoff

N P K

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

Source Transport

Critical Source Area

Critical Source Area Management

• Overlap of Source & Transport Indicators

• Identify and manage the critical source areas


Tile flow

P leaching

Sources Transport

Runoff

N P K

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

2

Mehlich-3 soil P, mg/kg0 200 400 600 800

P loss,lb P2O5/A

Soil Test vs P Loss

R2=0.80

0.8

0

1.6

2.4

Sharpley, USDA-ARS

Crop POptimum

P Threshold

• No recent P inputs

• Forced Runoff

Soil Test as an Indicator of P Loss:Poor correlation with Critical Source Areas

USDA-ARS

Soil Test P Critical P Source AreasHighMedLow


Tile flow

P leaching

Sources Transport

Runoff

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

N P K

Soil Test vs P Loss ‐ with applied P

Mehlich-3 soil P, mg/kg0 200 400 600 800

P loss,lb P2O5/A

R2=0.80

For all data points R2=0.40

0.8

0

1.6

2.4

Sharpley, USDA-ARS

75 kg P/ha TSP

112 kg P/ha swine slurry

150 kg P/ha poultry manure

Manure Added Overrides Soil P

Dissolved Pin runoff

mg/L

3

2

1

0 75 150 250 500

Mehlich-3 soil P, mg/kgNo litter

50 kg P/ha100 kg P/ha

Poultrylitter

Sharpley, USDA-ARS


Tile flow

P leaching

All Sources Transport

Runoff

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

N P K

3

P Source Management

• Impact on overfeeding P to dairy cows within Chesapeake Bay watershed?

• Overfeeding dietary P – From .40% to .45% increases P excretionby 20%, 3500 tons/yr

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Yea

rly

P e

xcre

tio

n,

ton

s/C

BW

0.40% 0.50% 0.60%

Dietary P content

Knowlton et al., 1999

P Source Management• Phytase & Low phytate corn

in Swine and Poultry rations

• ~30‐40% Reduction in manure P

• Economical

P

P

P P

PP

Phytate• Major form of P in grain• Unavailable to

monogastric animals 0123456789

P E

xcre

ted

(%

of

P f

ed)

Control Phytase LowPhytateGrain

Phytase +Low

PhytateGrain

Swine

Baxter et al.

N vs P BalanceCorn/Dairy Manure

N

Corn Nutrient Requirement

Dairy Manure Nutrient Content

P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O


Nitrogen BalanceCorn/Dairy Manure

Phosphorus BalanceCorn/Dairy Manure



N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O

N vs P Transport

N Runoff/Erosion

Leaching

VolatilizationDenitrification Crop Uptake

N Behavior P Behavior

Crop Uptake

LeachingErosion

P Runoff

Nitrate Leaching

Sharpley, USDA

4

N vs P Transport

N Runoff/Erosion

Leaching

VolatilizationDenitrification Crop Uptake

N Behavior P Behavior

Crop Uptake

LeachingErosion

P Runoff

P Loss is a Complex Process

Tile flow

P leaching

Sources Transport

Runoff

Subsurfaceflow

N P K

Erosion

Phosphorus Transport by Erosion

Erosion reduced 95%

1980 1985 1990 1995

Conventionaltill wheat

Convertedto no-till

Total Pmg/L

6

4

2

0

-

-

Sharpley, USDA-ARS


Tile flow

P leaching

Sources Transport

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

N P K

Runoff

Zone of Interaction with Runoff

•Surface soil interaction with runoff

• Location of applied P

•High P Saturation

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0

20

40

60

80

100

Mehlich 1 P (mg/kg)

Dep

th (

cm)

Data from Mozaffari and Sims, 1994

Zone of interaction with runoff

Plow depth

Effect of No‐till on Soluble P Loss

Conventional till

1980 1985 19951990

Algal‐available P, m

g/L

0.5

1.0

0

Convertedto no‐till

Manure and fertilizer nutrients exposed on the surface.Sharpley, USDA-ARS

Western Lake Erie, 2014

5


Tile flow

Sources Transport

Runoff

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

N P K

P leaching

Subsurface Drainage

Gary Sands, University of Minnesotahttps://extension.umn.edu/agricultural-drainage/how-agricultural-drainage-works

Patterned DrainageJonathan Norvell, U of Illinois

Ohio Manure Manager Newsletter, 2017: “For liquid manure applicators, examine fields for tile blowouts, soil cracks, worm holes, and any other situations that might allow manure to reach surface waters. Old clay tile that are not charted, and may have an outlet buried in the bottom of a ditch, have caused a number of manure escapes in Ohio over the years. Recent manure escapes into ditches in northwest part of the state have caused fish kills and resulted in fines being levied. Farmers and applicators need to monitor field tiles

for several days after application to be sure manure does not escape with the next rainfall event.”

P Loss is a Complex “Landscape” Process

Tile flow

P leaching

Sources Transport

Runoff

Erosion

Subsurfaceflow

N P K

Grass Waterway

Direct Connection

Connectivity

Riparian Buffer

Distance

Source Transport

Critical Source Area

Critical Source Area Management

• P Index – Field tool to determine CSAs

– Overlap of Source & Transport Indicators

– Identify and manage the critical source

areas

Phosphorus Index

• P Source Site Characteristics

– Environmental Soil Test P

– P Fertilizer

• P Fertilizer Rate and Appl. Method

– Organic P

• P Source Coefficient, Rate and Appl. Method

6

Phosphorus Index

• P Transport Site Characteristics– Soil Erosion

– Runoff Class

– Sub‐surface Drainage

– Contributing Distance

– Modified Connectivity

Erosion

Runoff

Drainage

Distance

0.4

0

0.8

1.2

P loss,kg/ha

P index value for the site0 50 100 150 200

P Index describes P loss potential

Very highHighMediumLow

Sharpley, USDA-ARS

R2=0.79

75 kg P/ha TSP

112 kg P/ha swine slurry

150 kg P/ha poultry manure

PA

Phosphorus

Index

v 2.0

• Low P Index: 0‐59– N Based Management

• Medium P Index: 60‐79– N Based Management

• High P Index*: 80‐99– P Based: Crop removal

• Very High P Index*: >100– No P: Manure or Fertilizer

• Options*‐ Follow Manure Rate

Restrictions

OR

‐ Modify Management to reduce the P Index

Phosphorus Index


Low/Med P Index High P Index



N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O

• Develop N based plan

• Evaluate the N based plan based on critical source areas for P

– P Index

• Modify N based plan, where necessary, to address P issues

• High and Very High

– Modify Management based on P

• No or reduced manure

• Change time or method of application

• Conservation practices

• Buffers

• Etc.

Phosphorus Nutrient Management Plan

7

P Index Rating Distribution

0

80

160

240

320

400

Based on results from 11 Farms of different types across PA

P Index Rating

Total number of fields = 365

Number of fields PI rating > 80 = 83 (23%)

Weld et al., JSWC, 2002


0

20

40

60

80

P Index Rating

Central PA

0.41 AEU/A

Dairy



0

80

160

240

320

400

P In

dex

Rat

ing

Southeast PA

6.14 AEU/A

Layers/Finishing Pigs


0

80

160

240

320

400

P In

dex

Rat

ing

Southeast PA

6.14 AEU/A

Layers/Finishing Pigs

Changed to Incorporating the Manure

Summary• Ultimately we need to move toward getting our

agricultural systems into nutrient balance– Sustainable, economical production systems

– Current P management strategies only minimize immediate impact

• In the mean time N and P based nutrient management planning will help minimize pollution– Work on source reduction

• Feeding

– Minimize transport• Conservation Practices

– Target Critical Source Areas eg. P Index• Most cost effective for the farmer

• Workload and cost concerns for the regulator

PART A: SCREENING TOOL CMU/Field ID

Is the CMU in a Special Protection Watershed?

If the answer is Yes to any of these questions Part B must be used.

Is there a significant farm management change as defined by Act 38?

Is the Soil Test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm P?

Is the Contributing Distance from this CMU to receiving water less than 150 ft.?

PART B: SOURCE FACTORS CMU/Field ID

SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P)

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P)

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre)

FERTILIZER APPLICATION

METHOD

0.2 Placed or injected 2"

or more deep

0.4 Incorporated <1 week following application

0.6 Incorporated > 1 week or not incorporated following

application in April - October

0.8 Incorporated >1 week

or not incorporated following application

in Nov. - March

1.0 Surface applied to frozen

or snow covered soil

Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre)

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep





or not incorporated following application in November - March



P SOURCE COEFFICIENT

Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient

Source Factor Sum

PART B: TRANSPORT FACTORS CMU/Field ID

EROSION Soil Loss (ton/acre/yr)

RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is

Somewhat Excessively

4 Drainage Class is

Well/Moderately Well

6 Drainage Class is Somewhat Poorly

8 Drainage Class is Poorly/Very Poorly

SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned

CONTRIBUTING DISTANCE

0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR

<100 ft. with 35 ft. buffer

9‡ < 100 ft.

Transport Sum = Erosion + Runoff Potential + Subsurface Drainage + Contributing Distance

MODIFIED CONNECTIVITY

0.85 50 ft. Riparian Buffer

APPLIES TO DIST < 100 FT

1.0 Grassed Waterway

OR None

1.1 Direct Connection

APPLIES TO DIST > 100 FT

* OR rapidly permeable soil near a stream Transport Sum x Modified Connectivity/24 ‡ "9" factor does not apply to fields with a 35 ft. buffer receiving manure. P Index Value = 2 x Source x Transport

“Exceptional Value” or “High Quality” streams designate a

“Special Protection Watershed” for the P Index Part A

8

Is there a significant farm management change defined by the following four Act 38 criteria?

• net increase of greater than 10% in AEUs per acre • change in crop management that results in a farmwide

reduction of greater than 20% in nitrogen necessary for realistic expected crop yields

• alternative organic sources will replace all or some of the nutrient sources listed in the plan

• additional lands are brought into the operation (purchased or rented)

Field Boundaries and Soil Map

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CaB

WgC

OgC

OgC

VaB

WkD

2

150’

200’

350’

500’

100’

Pasture

Farmstead

AgB Stream

35’

100 ft. 300 ft.200 ft. 400 ft.


Under these regulatory programs, Part B is required when specific conditions are met:

1. Act 38 • Nutrient Management Plans

• Winter spreading is planned• Nutrient Balance Sheets

• Option 3 – P Index• Winter spreading is planned

2. Act 49• Nutrient Balance Sheets

• Option 3 – P Index• Winter spreading is planned

3. Manure Management Plans• More flexible method to determine N- vs. P-based

planning

It should be noted that the Act 38 definition of winter is not exclusively a calendar consideration. Winter is defined as a

time when any one of the following conditions exists: 1. the date is on or between December 15 and February 28, or 2. the ground is frozen at least 4 inches, or 3. the ground is

Additional Scenarios Requiring Part B

P Index Part B Decision ProcessStep 1 . Complete P Index Part A Yes No

Is the CMU in a Special Protection watershed?

Is there a significant farm management change defined by Act 38?

Is soil test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm ?


Step 2 . Evaluate Regulatory and Policy Scenarios Yes No

Act 38 NMPs and NBSs: Is winter manure application planned?

Act 49 NBSs: Is winter manure application planned?

Step 3 . Is a P Index Part B Assessment required? Yes No

Did you answer “Yes” to any Step 1 or Step 2 questions?

If the Step 3 answer is “Yes”, conduct a P Index

Part B evaluation.

If the Step 3 answer is “No”, the P Index evaluation

is complete. Recommend nitrogen based management.

PART A: SCREENING TOOL CMU/Field ID 8



No

Is there a significant farm management change as defined by Act 38? No

Is the Soil Test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm P? Yes

Is the Contributing Distance from this CMU to receiving water less than 150 ft.? No

PART B: SOURCE FACTORS CMU/Field ID 8

SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P)

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P)

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre)


METHOD


or more deep






in Nov. - March



Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre)

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep









Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient

Source Factor Sum



RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is


4 Drainage Class is




SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned


0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR


9‡ < 100 ft.






OR None




9

Appendix 4Crop & Manure Management Information

CMU/Field ID 8

Acres 10

Soil Test Report Date 3/18/08

Laboratory Name Penn State AASLSoil Test Levels (Mehlich-3 P & K)(If soil test results are not in ppm show conversions in Appendix 10)

ppm P ppm K pH ppm P ppm K pH ppm P ppm K pH ppm P ppm K pH

260 160 6.2

P Index Part A No P Applied N-Based (“No” to all Part A Questions) Part B (“Yes” to any Part A Question)

Crop Corn

Planned Yield 130 bu/A

Soil Test Recommendation (lb/Acre)N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O

130 0 0Other Nutrients (lb/A)(Nutrients applied regardless of manure)

15 15 15

Manure History Description Frequently

Residual Manure N (lb/A) 20

Legume History Description None

Residual Legume N (lb/A) 0

Net Nutrients Required (lb/A) 95 (15) (15)

Manure Group & Application Season Dairy SpringApplication Management(Incorporation, cover crops, etc.)

Incorp. w/ 1 day

Availability Factors(Total N or NH4-N & Organic N)

Total N NH4-N Org. N Total N NH4-N Org. N Total N NH4-N Org. N Total N NH4-N Org. N

0.40

N Balanced Manure Rate (ton or gal/A) 7,197 gal/A

P Removal Balance Manure Rate(ton or gal/A) if required by P Index

Net Crop P Removal (lb/A)

P Removal Manure

Rate


P Removal Manure

Rate


P Removal Manure

Rate


P Removal Manure

Rate

Planned Manure Rate (ton or gal/A) 7000 gal/A

Manure Nutrients Applied at Planned Rate (lb/A)

Nutrient Balance After Manure (lb/A

Supplemental Fertilizer (lb/A)

Final Nutrient Balance (lb/A)

Manure Utilized on This CMU

Manure Analysis:

33 lb N/1000 gal

13 lb P2O5/1000 gal

29 lb K2O/1000 gal

Starter Fertilizer applied 2” x 2”:

15 lbs N/ac

15 lbs P2O5/ac

15 lbs K2O/ac

Manure

Swine 1.0Broiler 0.8Layer 0.8Turkey 0.8Duck 0.8Dairy – Liquid 0.8Dairy – Bedded Pack 0.8Beef 0.8Horse 0.8BiosolidsBPR biosolids 0.8All biosolids (except BPR) 0.4

Table 1. Phosphorus Source Coefficients (PSC)

Material specific PSC can be calculated from a water soluble P test on the manure.

BPR = Biological Phosphorus Reduction

This process does not use iron or

aluminum to precipitate soluble phosphorus, so it yields a product

with higher P solubility




No





SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 260

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 52

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre) 15


METHOD


or more deep






in Nov. - March


or snow covered soil 0.2

Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method 3

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre) 91

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep









Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1 0.8

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient 29

Source Factor Sum 84



RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is


4 Drainage Class is




SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned


0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR


9‡ < 100 ft.






OR None




Soil Loss Calculations Summary of RUSLE Evaluations - Adapted from the Farm Conservation Plan

Field R K L Slope % LS C P Soil Loss

(A) T

1 125 0.28 250 10 2.16 0.158 0.38 4 2

2 125 0.37 150 4 0.6 0.158 0.5 2 3

3 125 0.28 200 12 2.55 0.158 0.38 5 2

4 125 0.37 150 6 1.00 0.158 0.31 3 3

5 125 0.37 350 6 1.26 0.158 0.31 3 3

6 125 0.37 350 6 1.26 0.100 0.31 2 3

7 125 0.37 250 5 0.85 0.158 0.5 3 3

8 125 0.37 250 11 2.5 0.158 0.38 7 3

9 125 0.37 250 5 0.85 0.158 0.5 2 3

Subsurface DrainageRandom- Isolated drainage tile lines serving small portion of a

field• Somewhat common in Pennsylvania

Patterned – Drainage tile lines installed on regular spacing throughout the whole field• Uncommon in Pennsylvania

Gary Sands, University of Minnesotahttps://extension.umn.edu/agricultural-drainage/how-agricultural-drainage-works

Patterned DrainageJonathan Norvell, U of Illinois

10

Field Boundaries and Soil Map

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CaB

WgC

OgC

OgC

VaB

WkD

2

150’

200’

350’

500’

100’

Pasture

Farmstead

AgB Stream

35’

100 ft. 300 ft. 200 ft. 400 ft.

Determining Contributing Distance Field Boundaries and Soil Map

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CaB

WgC

OgC

OgC

VaB

WkD

2

150’

200’

350’

500’

100’

Pasture

Farmstead

AgB Stream

35’

100 ft. 300 ft. 200 ft. 400 ft.

Ditch

NRCSBuffer

Waterway

For fields <100ft with

a 50 ft. NRCS

buffer, use 0.85 factor

For fields >100ft with aboveground drainage inlets or flow to ditch or other

concentrated flow

paths, use 1.1 factor

Grassed waterways

are a special type of direct

connection that get a 1.0 factor




No





SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 260

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 52

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre) 15


METHOD


or more deep






in Nov. - March



Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method 3

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre) 91

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep









Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1 0.8

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient 29

Source Factor Sum 84


EROSION Soil Loss (ton/acre/yr) 7

RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is


4 Drainage Class is




4

SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned 0


0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR


9‡ < 100 ft. 2

Transport Sum = Erosion + Runoff Potential + Subsurface Drainage + Contributing Distance 13





OR None


APPLIES TO DIST > 100 FT 1.0

* OR rapidly permeable soil near a stream Transport Sum x Modified Connectivity/24 0.54 ‡ "9" factor does not apply to fields with a 35 ft. buffer receiving manure. P Index Value = 2 x Source x Transport 91

Value Rating Management Guidance

0 to 59 Low Nutrients can be applied to meet the Nitrogen crop requirement. Low potential for P loss. Maintenance of current farming practices is recommended to minimize the risk of adverse impacts on surface waters.

60 to 79 Medium Nutrients can be applied to meet the Nitrogen crop requirement. Medium potential for P loss. The chance for adverse impacts on surface waters exists. An assessment of current farm nutrient management and conservation practices is recommended to minimize the risk of future P losses.

80 to 99 High Nutrients can be applied to meet the Phosphorus crop removal. High potential for P loss and adverse impacts on surface waters. Soil and water conservation measures and P-based management plans are needed to minimize the risk of P loss.

100 or greater*

Very High

No Phosphorus can be applied. Very high potential for P loss and adverse impacts on surface waters. Conservation measures and a P-based management plan must be implemented to minimize the P loss.

Table 2. Phosphorus index management guidance.

PER UNIT OF YIELD REMOVAL FOR GIVEN YIELD

CROP (UNITS) P2O5 K2O TYPICAL YIELD/A

P2O5 K2O

CORN (BU) 0.4 0.3 125 (BU) 50 40

CORN SILAGE (T)1 5.0 11.0 21 (T) 105 230

GRAIN SORGHUM (BU) 0.6 0.8 125 (BU) 75 100

FORAGE SORGHUM (T)1 3.0 10.0 15 (T) 45 150

SORGHUM/SUDANGRASS1

7.0 7.0 15 (T) 105 105

ALFALFA (T)2,3 15.0 50.0 5 (T) 75 250RED CLOVER (T)2,3 15.0 40.0 3.5 (T) 55 140

TREFOIL (T)2,3 15.0 40.0 3.5 (T) 55 140COOL-SEASON GRASS (T)2,3

15.0 50.0 4 (T) 60 200

BLUEGRASS (T)2,3 10.0 30.0 2.5 (T) 25 75WHEAT/RYE (BU)4 1.0 1.8 60 (BU) 60 110

OATS (BU)4 0.9 1.5 80 (BU) 70 120

BARLEY (BU)4 0.6 1.5 75 (BU) 45 110

SOYBEANS (BU) 1.0 1.4 40 (BU) 40 55

SMALL GRAIN SILAGE (T)1

7.0 26.0 6 (T) 40 160

TABLE 1.2-9. TYPICAL CROP NUTRIENT REMOVAL FOR PHOSPHORUS AND POTASSIUM.

PSU Agronomy Guide

Calculating Crop Removal for 130 bu/ac corn

130 bu/ac x 0.4 lbP2O5/bu

=52 lb P2O5 /ac crop

removalSubtract 15 lb P2O5/ac

added as starter

52 lb P2O5 /ac - 15 lbP2O5

=37 lb P2O5/ac net crop requirementCalculating manure rate to apply 37 lb P2O5/ac

37 lb P2O5 /ac ÷ 13 lb P2O5 /1000 gal

=2 846 l/

etermining Crop Phosphorus Removal Manure Rates

PART A: SCREENING TOOL CMU/Field ID 8 8 P Rate



No No

Is there a significant farm management change as defined by Act 38? No No

Is the Soil Test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm P? Yes Yes

Is the Contributing Distance from this CMU to receiving water less than 150 ft.? No No

PART B: SOURCE FACTORS CMU/Field ID 8 8 P

SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 260 260

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 52 52

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre) 15 15


METHOD


or more deep






in Nov. - March


or snow covered soil 0.2 0.2

Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method 3 3

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre) 91 37

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep







or snow covered soil 0.4 0.4


Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1 0.8 0.8

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient 29 12

Source Factor Sum 84 67


EROSION Soil Loss (ton/acre/yr) 7 7

RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is


4 Drainage Class is




4 4

SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned 0 0


0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR


9‡ < 100 ft. 2 2

Transport Sum = Erosion + Runoff Potential + Subsurface Drainage + Contributing Distance 13 13





OR None


APPLIES TO DIST > 100 FT 1.0 1.0

* OR rapidly permeable soil near a stream Transport Sum x Modified Connectivity/24 0.54 0.54 ‡ "9" factor does not apply to fields with a 35 ft. buffer receiving manure. P Index Value = 2 x Source x Transport 91 72

11

What are some management options available to the farmer to reduce the P index score in order to allow a greater manure application rate

than 2,846 gal/ac?

PART A: SCREENING TOOL CMU/Field ID 8 8 P Rate 8 Inj 8 Er3T



No No No No

Is there a significant farm management change as defined by Act 38? No No No No

Is the Soil Test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm P? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is the Contributing Distance from this CMU to receiving water less than 150 ft.? No No No No

PART B: SOURCE FACTORS CMU/Field ID 8 8 P rate 8 Inj 8 Er3T

SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 260 260 260 260

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 52 52 52 52

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre) 15 15 15 15


METHOD


or more deep






in Nov. - March


or snow covered soil 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method 3 3 3 3

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre) 91 37 91 91

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep







or snow covered soil 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4


Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient 29 12 15 29

Source Factor Sum 84 67 70 84


EROSION Soil Loss (ton/acre/yr) 7 7 7 3

RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is


4 Drainage Class is




4 4 4 4

SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned 0 0 0 0


0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR


9‡ < 100 ft. 2 2 2 2

Transport Sum = Erosion + Runoff Potential + Subsurface Drainage + Contributing Distance 13 13 13 9





OR None


APPLIES TO DIST > 100 FT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

* OR rapidly permeable soil near a stream Transport Sum x Modified Connectivity/24 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.38 ‡ "9" factor does not apply to fields with a 35 ft. buffer receiving manure. P Index Value = 2 x Source x Transport 91 72 75 63

PART A: SCREENING TOOL CMU/Field ID 8 P Rate 8 P NS 8 PMaxNS



No No No

Is there a significant farm management change as defined by Act 38? No No No

Is the Soil Test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm P? Yes Yes Yes

Is the Contributing Distance from this CMU to receiving water less than 150 ft.? No No No

PART B: SOURCE FACTORS CMU/Field ID 8 P rate 8 P NS

8 P Max NS

SOIL TEST Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 260 260 260

Soil Test Rating = 0.20 * Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P) 52 52 52

FERTILIZER P RATE

Fertilizer P (lb P2O5/acre) 15 0 0


METHOD


or more deep






in Nov. - March


or snow covered soil 0.2 0 0

Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method 3 0 0

MANURE P RATE

Manure P (lb P2O5/acre) 37 52 65

MANURE APPLICATION

METHOD


or more deep







or snow covered soil 0.4 0.4 0.4


Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet Table 1 0.8 0.8 0.8

Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient 12 17 21

Source Factor Sum 67 69 73


EROSION Soil Loss (ton/acre/yr) 7 7 7

RUNOFF POTENTIAL

0 Drainage Class is

Excessively

2 Drainage Class is


4 Drainage Class is




4 4 4

SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

0 None

1 Random

2*

Patterned 0 0 0


0 > 500 ft.

2 350 to 500 ft.

4 200 to 349 ft.

6 100 to 199 ft. OR


9‡ < 100 ft. 2 2 2

Transport Sum = Erosion + Runoff Potential + Subsurface Drainage + Contributing Distance 13 13 13





OR None


APPLIES TO DIST > 100 FT 1.0 1.0 1.0

* OR rapidly permeable soil near a stream Transport Sum x Modified Connectivity/24 0.54 0.54 0.54 ‡ "9" factor does not apply to fields with a 35 ft. buffer receiving manure. P Index Value = 2 x Source x Transport 72 74 79

2,846 gal/ac

4,000 gal/ac

5,000 gal/ac

In the future, running the P index will be a built-in part of the Nutrient Management Plan Spreadsheet

Also a standalone P Index Spreadsheet on the Nutrient Management Education Website

Act 38 Manure ApplicationSetbacks,

Buffers and the P-Index

12

Manure Application SetbacksChapter 83.294(f)(1-4)

Manure may NOT be mechanically applied in the following situations:

Within 100’ (top of bank) of: Perennial & Intermittent Streams Lakes & Ponds Sinkholes (open)

Unless a permanent vegetated buffer at least 35 feet in total width is used

In this case, manure may not be applied within 35 feet of the stream/lake/pond/sinkhole

Within 100’ of active public & private drinking water sources – Wells & Springs No allowance for 35’ buffer Public drinking water sources may require greater

setback distances

Unless…

What is a Stream? Intermittent Stream - “A body of water flowing in a channel or bed

composed primarily of substrates associated with flowing water which, during periods of the year, is below the water table and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and groundwater discharges”.

What is a Stream?

Perennial Stream –“A body of water flowing in a channel or bed composed primarily of substrates associated with flowing waters and capable, in the absence of pollution or other manmade disturbances, of supporting bottom dwelling aquatic animals”.

Manure Application Setbacks100’ setback is a distance condition only

The use of a 35’ foot vegetated buffer imposes a distance and cover condition

Farmer & planner decide: Will manure be applied within the 100’ setback?No - Establish 100’ setback (Contributing

Distance = 6) in the field and show on farm maps – no mechanical manure application within 100’

Yes - Establish a minimum 35’ permanent vegetated buffer (Contributing Distance = 6) in the field and show on farm maps – no mechanicalmanure application within 35’

14

Vegetated BufferWhat is a permanent vegetated buffer? “A permanent strip of perennial vegetation

established parallel to the contours of, and perpendicular to, the dominant slope of the field”

Vegetation: Any perennial vegetation (woody, herbaceous or any combination)

Location: Between the field and the protected feature (stream, lake, pond, sinkhole)

Flow characteristics: Primarily sheet flow – no concentrated flow (converging rills, ephemeral or classic gullies) into/within/leaving the buffer

Vegetated BufferWhat is the purpose of a vegetated

buffer?

83.201. Definitions. Buffer or Vegetated Buffer – (iii) “ The purposes include slowing water runoff, enhancing water infiltration and minimizing the risk of any potential nutrients from leaving the field and reaching surface waters”

To prevent manure runoff from getting into the stream, lake pond or sinkhole.

Act 38 BuffersMust provide 80% canopy or cover

Eliminate/control noxious weeds

No mechanical manure application within the buffer

Periodic harvest of the buffer is allowed (Hay or Value Added Crop)

Criteria must be implemented by the time manure is applied upslope

Act 38 Pastures as BuffersMust have 80% canopy or cover

Grazing management must maintain or improve pasture conditions

Alternate water source may be needed

No mechanical manure application

Limit grazing when needed (drought, etc.)

Address In-Pasture ACA discharges

Implemented before manure is animal-applied

15

Act 38 Pastures as Buffers

Note: A pasture not meeting the buffer criteria may not be utilized as its own buffer or buffer for upslope cropland

In that case, the animal-applied manure must be entered into the pasture’s P Index as Contributing Distance Factor 9.

Setback/Buffer ManagementWhen utilizing the 100’ setback:If fertilizer P is applied within the setback,

the 100’ strip must be identified as a separate CMU (field); use the Contributing Distance Factor of 9

If no fertilizer P is applied, this is not necessary.

When using the 35’ vegetated buffer:The same fertilizer use strategy applies

(Contributing Distance Factor 9); however,

Not likely to apply fertilizer to a buffer

Winter Application SetbacksWinter Setbacks (no buffer option)

December 15 – February 28Snow-covered groundFrozen ground (4 inch depth)

100’ from surface inlet to ag drainage systems if flow is toward the inlet

100’ from wetlands identified on NWI map if within 100-year floodplain of an EV stream

Note: CAFOs - DEP may require additional setbacks from “conduits to surface water” (road ditches, etc.)

Additional P Index Distance Consideration

Very Important!!Regardless of the P Index distance category assigned to a specific field,

If any portion of a field is within 100’ of a perennial or intermittent stream, lake, pond or sinkhole the setback and buffer issues must be considered.

16

Setback & BufferField Exercise

Field 6

phosphorus based management - extension.psu.edu

Documents