What’s the Best Fit?

Organic Amendment Options Outline:

• Why do we need organic amendments?

• How can organic amendments help soil?

• Synergies with other practices?

• How much can we afford to pay for amendments?

• What amendments are available?

• Opportunities?

Why do we need Organic Amendments?

Organic Matter In Ontario Soils (2002 - 2016) Data courtesy of Jack Legg – SGS Agri-Food Labs

Compiled by Christine Brown – OMAFRA Jan 2017

• Ranges from 12,300 to 23,100 total samples/year – all Ontario

• Samples are not from the same locations every year

• Clay soils will have a higher SOM level than sandy soils

• Livestock farms will have a higher SOM level than cash-crop farms

• Research projects and grid sampling are included in this data set

and can “skew” the data for 1 year

• Organic (muck) soils are included in this data set

• Unrealistic county averages (e.g., 23% for York) were left out

How much yield gives enough residue to maintain SOM levels?

Comparison of Approximate Crop Yields Required to Maintain 3% SOM

Crop

Crop Residue

lbs/ac1

Root Biomass lbs/ac1

Stable OM from

crop biomass (lbs/bu yield)

Yield to maintain 3% SOM

(1,800 lbs/ac OM) estimated

Crop residue Crop residue + Root Biomass

Corn 12,000 1,500 11.1 162 bu/ac 142 bu/ac Wheat 5,000 2,000 11.7 153 bu/ac 92 bu/ac

Soybeans 2,400 750 7.8 230 bu/ac 158 bu/ac

1 Source: Dale Cowan (AgriFood Lab info sheets) assumes 180 bu corn, 80 bu wheat and 45 bu/ac soy yield

Assumptions:

Soil organic matter level 3.0% goal

~ 3% of the SOM decomposes each year

2,000,000 lbs in surface 6 inches of soil/acre

2,000,000 x 0.03 = 60,000 lbs SOM/acre x 0.03/yr decomposition

= 1,800 lbs/ac lost by decomposition that needs to be replaced

Comparison of Approximate Crop Yields Required to Maintain 3% Soil Organic Matter

Crop

Yield to Maintain 3% SOM (1,800 lbs/ac OM) estimated

Crop residue Crop residue + Root Biomass

Corn 162 bu/ac 142 bu/ac Wheat 153 bu/ac 92 bu/ac Soybeans 230 bu/ac 158 bu/ac

Example Crop Yields: Corn 200 bu/ac – Soy 50 bu/ac – Wheat 100 bu/ac

Impact of Soybeans in Rotation for Maintaining SOM

Rotation Yield

(combined bu/ac) Yield needed for SOM

(combined bu/ac)

Yield Balance/Rotation Bu/ac

Soys-Soys-Soys 150 474 - 324

Corn-Soy-Wheat 350 392 - 42

Corn-Corn-Soy 450 442 + 8

Corn-Corn-Soy-Wheat 550 532 + 16

Corn-Soy-Soy 300 458 - 158

Wheat-Corn-Soy-Soy 400 550 - 100

Residue Management

Cover Crops

Organic Amendments

Steps to Maximum Soil Health

Rotation

Reduced Tillage

Organic Amendment Synergy

Cover Crops without digestate Cover Crops with digestate - More top growth and root biomass

sugars

cellulose

proteins

hemicellulose

polyphenols

lignin

humus

Cover crops

Digestate

Manure/Biosolids

Compost

Different Amendments provide Different Benefits to Soil

Diversity benefits the soil

sugars

cellulose

proteins

hemicellulose

polyphenols

lignin

humus

Bacteria Actinomycetes

Fungi

Cover crops

Approximate Biomass Yield of Three Cover Crop Mixes with and without Organic Amendments

Cover Crop

With Manure Without Manure Increase from manure

Approximate Yield (ton/ac)*

Oats 3.6

2.8

33 %

Multi-Species Mix: Planted at 40 lbs/ac

33% Oats, 4% Nitro radish, 2% Brassica, 2% Sorghum Sudangrass, 1% Phacelia, 2% Sunflowers, 4% Sun hemp, 5% Turnips, 25% Crimson Clover, 23% Austrian Peas

2.10 1.75 17 %

3 Species Mix: Planted at 30 lbs/ac

14% Nitro Radish, 16% Crimson Clover, 70% Oats

2.85 1.83 36 %

* biomass yield that includes top-growth and comparative root mass The above data represents one site –one year 3,500 gal/ac digestate was applied in mid-August. Nutrient composition of digestate is similar to hog manure.

EXAMPLE: 2016 Cover Crops Oats with and without digestate

Cover crop and Digestate Plots (harvested Oct 13, 2016)

Yield Yield & Quality *

Treatment

(ave of 18 samples)

Dry Weight

(t/ac) % Δ Milk/ton Milk/ac $$/acre

CC Oat 1.91 --- 1,985 2,997 $1,030

Digestate + CC Oat 3.24 41.2 1,916 6,312 $2,168 *using Wisconsin MILK2013 and milk value = $0.78/L

Organic Amendment Synergy = $$ Economic opportunities with cover crops and organic amendments

EXAMPLE: 2016 Cover Crops Oats with and without digestate

Above ground

biomass only

OM

(lbs/acre)

P205

Uptake/removal

K20

uptake/removal

CC Oat 3,514 21 lbs/ac P205 97 lbs/ac K20

Digestate + CC Oat 5,861 42 lbs/ac P205 231 lbs K20/acre

SOM

Stable Carbon

(lbs/ac)

% Δ in SOM Above ground only

Years to ↑ SOM by 1%

Above ground only

+ Root

Biomass

(estimate)**

Digestate only 101 0.005 200 200 yrs

CC Oat 422 0.02 47 26 yrs

Digestate + CC Oat 823 0.04 24 15 yrs ** 1,685 lbs/acre (6” depth) of carbon from 8 wk oat growth (J. Environ Qual 30:1911-1918 (2001))

Organic Amendment Synergy = $$ Economic opportunities with cover crops and organic amendments

If biomass was returned to the soil:

Amendment Type Total N

(lbs/ton)

C:N

ratio

Application

rate (ton/ac)

Stable C

(lb/ton)

% SOM

increase

1% ↑

SOM (applicatons)

N - P205 - K20 (lbs/ac)*

(available)

High C:N dairy 6 lbs 49 340 19,992 1.0 1 327 – 625 - 1,179

High C:N dairy 6 49 150 8,820 0.44 2.3 145 - 276 – 520

Mushroom compost 24.8 10 400 99,200 1.0 1 3,143 - 5,000 - 9,390

Mushroom compost 24.8 10 25 1,240 0.062 16 196 – 313 - 587

Solid Dairy manure 18.32 16 341 19,991 1.0 1 1,160 - 3,600 - 6,900

Solid Dairy manure 18.32 16 32 1,875 0.094 10.6 109 – 338 – 650

Leaf/yard compost 19.6 17 300 19,992 1.0 1 1,808 - 2,315 - 3,445

Leaf/yard compost 19.6 17 34 2,266 0.113 8.8 204 - 263 – 390

Solid Horse manure 10 30 333 19,980 1.0 1 801 - 1,836 - 3,103

Solid Horse manure 10 30 62 3,720 0.186 5.4 149 - 342 - 578

*NMAN3 data using average database nutrient values for application 1 x per 3 years for a 180 bu corn crop

Materials are not created equally – Need to know the nutrient and OM, C:N ratio of the materials being considered.

Organic Amendments: Nutrients or Organic Matter?

How long does it take and how much material is required to raise Soil Organic Matter by ~1%

Sources of Organic Matter (& Nutrients)

• Cover crops

• Manure

• Biosolids

• Biosolids Pellets

• N-Viro

• Biochar

• Digestate

• Lystegro

• Compost (manure & municipal)

There is a wide range in cost of the materials. The price is determined mainly by distance transported, application and volume (bulk density). Biosolids:

Terratec Environmental - Mark Janiec 905-878-2800 x223 mjaniec@terratecenvironmental.com

WESSUC - Adrian Tod - 1-519 -752-0837 adrian.tod@wessuc.com

Processed Biosolids Pellets: David Buurma 519-671-2534 roger.buurma@gmail.com

Veolia Water Canada Inc.- Paul Purser 905-906-1292 paul.purser@veolia.com www.nutri-pel.ca

N-Viro – Ian Shipley 519-786-2106 or Lise LeBlanc 519-410-3228 lise.leblanc@n-viro.ca Lystegro – Michael Dougherty 519-923-3539 mdougherty@lystek.com www.lystek.com Municipal Compost: AIM Environmental Group – Hamilton/Guelph – Frank Peters fpeters@aimgroup.ca or Mike Lishman 289-260-6820 arlington.farms@live.com MILLER Compost – Kyle Schumacher – 905-426-4222x232 kyle.schumacher@millergroup.ca

ORGA - London Municipal Greenbin Compost – Chris O’Toole 519-649-4446 x 106 cotoole@orgaworld.ca

Ottawa Municipal Greenbin Compost - 613-822-2056 Peel Region Compost – Terry DiNatale 905-791-7800 x7963 - terry.dinatale@peelregion.ca TRY Recycling (compost) – Rick Vandersluis – 519-858-2199 rick.vandersluis@tryrecycling.com

Walker Environmental – Diana Aquino 905-329-4285 daquino@walkerind.com www.walkerind.com

Municipal Digestate: Cornerstone Renewables – Travis Woolings 519-317-6756 twoollings@rogers.com Manure/Compost Brokers:

M.P. Agri-Products Ted Empey 519-765-4535 mpagriproducts@auracom.com Organix Matters – Scott Boldt 519-389-2888 organixmatters@bmts.co

Livestock Manure (Solid)

What Is It? • Livestock waste with bedding materials (straw, wood chips etc.)

Benefits: • Available on-farm (livestock neighbours?) • provides many of the required macro and micro nutrients • supplies organic matter which will help maintain or improve soil health

Challenges: • contains odours and pathogens which,

– can lead to water contamination

• application to wet soils – can cause soil compaction.

• Nutrient content – usually not in proportions needed by crops

• Application to crops further from manure storage – takes time and planning

Manure Has Value

Animal Type DM

%

Useable N1

lbs

P2052

lbs

K20

lbs

Year 1 Value

$

Year 2-4 Value3

$

Liquid Hog /1000 gal 4 22 11 21 28.80 7.80

Liquid Dairy /1000 gal 8 17 8 27 26.70 7.40

Solid Cattle /ton 30 4.5 5.3 14 12.00 4.60

Poultry layers /ton 37 20 18 21 32.20 13.80

Poultry broilers/ton 66 25 26 39 47.30 20.90

Sheep /ton 32 6 6.3 16 14.50 5.00

Horses /ton 37 2.4 2.8 9 7.10 2.60 Spring applied; incorporated; 40% P in application year; Organic N and 40% P in yr 2-4

Are there opportunities to move/sell manure to fields with higher fertility needs?

http://fieldcropnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Nutrient-Value-of-Manure.pdf

Compost (manure)

What Is It?

• Material with specific C:N ratio and moisture content that goes through a process of heating, turning and curing provides nutrients and organic matter with reduced volume and odour compared to the original material

Benefits:

• provides many of the required macro and micro nutrients (ration based)

• Low odour and pathogen content

• Low risk of nitrogen loss (leaching or volatilzation)

• supplies organic matter which will help maintain or improve soil health

Challenges:

• Higher labour requirement than with manure

• Could have odour issues if C:N ratio or

moisture content is too high or low

Municipal Compost What Is It?

• Municipal good waste mixed with high carbon materials (ie wood

chips) and composted in-vessel, or in windrows, under specific conditions to meet MOE un-restricted compost guidelines

• Analysis will vary for each facility, depends on process and length of curing.

Benefits:

• High OM product with good balance of available N-P-K and micro nutrients. (Varies with inputs i.e. food waste v.s. leaf-yard waste)

• Cured compost = low odour & low risk of N loss

• Uniform application is easier than with most solid manure types

• Ideally applied once in the rotation (after cereal harvest) at ~10-15 ton/acre

Municipal Greenbin Compost Challenges:

• Low bulk density as low as 20 lbs/cubic foot, makes transport expensive

• Contaminants – plastics

• Maturity – could result in class B compost = NASM 3 = more work

• Odour - Un-cured or green compost can have a distinct odour that re-occurs when wetted if material is not incorporated

• Temporary field storage can cause some compaction damage

• Timing of product availability and application

• Some variability in product – time of year input availability

• Un-incorporated, surface applied = soluble P runoff risk ?

Compost Study - Yield/Quality Results 2011-2015

AIM Hamilton Try Recycling Compost Analysis Available (lbs/ton) Analysis Available (lbs/ton)

Dry Matter % 72 1,532 61.7 1,234 Total Nitrogen % 2.4

19.5 + 3.8 = ~20 0.98

5.8 + 0.2 = ~5 NH4-N (ppm) 2541 142 Phosphorus % 0.62 22.7 (P205) 0.21 7.7 (P205) Potassium % 1.25 27 (K20) 0.53 11.4 (K20) Organic Matter % 50.1 720* 30.2 373* pH 6.60 8.10 C:N ratio 12 : 1 17 : 1 Bulk Density 329 kg/m3 20.5 lbs/ft3 596 kg/m3 37.2 lbs/ft3 Sulphur (ppm) 2373 4.7 1171 2.3 EC (conductivity) (ms/cm) 9.81 12.6 3.15 4.0 Sodium % 0.62 12.4 0.07 1.4 Aluminum (ppm) 1458 2.9 2183 4.4 Boron (ppm) 15.1 0.03 15 0.03 Calcium (%) 3.28 66 3.70 74 Copper (ppm) 31.6 0.06 35.5 0.07 Iron (ppm) 2775 5.6 5644 11.3 Magnesium (%) 0.39 7.8 0.79 15.8 Manganese (ppm) 134.2 0.27 219.2 0.44 Zinc (ppm) 94.6 0.18 251.0 0.50

* ~20% of OM is assumed stable

Knowing Material Composition is Important

Biochar What is It?

• Black carbon material produced from a thermochemical process (pyrolysis) of organic feedstocks

• Stable, inert material that can adsorb nutrients and increase nutrient retention without carbon release to atmosphere

Benefits:

• Increases water holding capacity when applied at high rates

• Yield response to biochar when added to fall applied liquid manure:

– Viscosity (thickness) increased

– Provides odour control

– benefit from immobilization of NH4-N & NO3-N to slow release / could ↓ N loss

Challenges:

• Soil applied (without manure) - little impact on biomass grain yield

• Difficult to handle and apply in a practical operation

• Composition influenced by feedstock and manufacturing conditions

• Supply driven by energy industry (carbon offsets) -limited Ontario supply

Biosolids What Is It?

• Dried & dewatered sewage biosolids

• Pulp & paper waste

• Processing waste

Benefits:

• similar to manure from nutrient and organic matter perspective

• custom applied and applied at no cost for the farm (usually)

• regulatory changes in 2010 - application rates set to meet crop needs

Challenges:

• Sewage biosolids contain little or no potash

• contain trace elements (ie lead, copper)

• wider setbacks are required from residences and sensitive features

• setback areas = additional trip with commercial fertilizer

• regulatory requirements – NASM plan required pre-application

N-Viro What Is It?

• Biosolids material processed with kiln dust to provide liming benefit

• Regulated through CFIA - treated as a fertilizer material

Benefits:

• high calcium and potassium = liming capacity

• relatively high sulphur content

• ideal product for sandy soils with low pH

• regulated through CFIA = product consistency and no need for NASM plan

Challenges:

• nitrogen contribution and organic matter is relatively low.

• N-Viro is dusty and should be applied under low wind conditions

Biosolids Pellets What Are They?

• Process takes digested sewage to biosolids cake (dewatered, thickening agents added) then pelletization (heating and drying) process occurs

• Regulated through CFIA - treated as a fertilizer

Benefits:

• excellent source of organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and micro-nutrients

• Regulated through CFIA = product consistency and no need for NASM plan

• processed biosolids pellets are available from Windsor, Detroit and Toronto and are similar in nutrient content

Challenges:

• Low K = not the product of choice if potash is an important requirement

• Can heat and ignite in storage

• Water treatment processes result in differences in aluminum, calcium, iron levels which could affect phosphorus availability, especially in low pH soils

• Pellets application rate restricted to meet heavy metals limits (~1 T/ha for Toronto pellets)

Label (guaranteed analysis) v.s. “real analysis”

Label: 4.6 – 6.0 - 0

Actual: 5.0 – 6.7 – 0

Available: 2.6 -5.3 - 0

Lystegro What Is It?

• Regulated through CFIA - treated as a fertilizer material

• Patented process that combines sewage biosolids + potassium hydroxide + heat (70 °C) + a lysing process

Benefits:

• 12-13% dry matter

• ~ 30 – 27 – 31 lbs/1000 gal of available N-P205-K20 in year of application

• relatively high sulphur (~12 lbs) and high organic matter (~ 500 lbs) content

• regulated through CFIA = product consistency - no need for NASM plan

• Custom applied

Challenges:

• Ideal rate between 3,000 – 4,000 gal/ac for corn

• High pH, high NH4-N = high volatilization risk

• Requires immediate incorporation (cover crops)

Label (guaranteed analysis) v.s. “real analysis”

Label: 4.5 – 7 – 2.5

Actual: 4.9 – 10 - 4

Anaerobic Digestate What Is It?

• By-product of anaerobic digesters – main program for GHG

• Composition will vary with inputs – testing is important

• Opportunity for liquid solid separation – further composting

Benefits:

• Higher N & lower C:N ratio compared to pre-AD

• Spring application to growing crops is ideal

• odour and pathogens lower (closed system)

• Liquid application can be difficult if ↑ N content

Challenges:

• ↑ NH4-N and ↓C:N ratio – similar composition to liquid hog manure

• Higher risk = more management

– Application rate, uniformity, timing is more important

– ↑pH, ↑ NH4-N – Higher risk of volatilization & leaching

R² = 0.8138

R² = 0.8001

R² = 0.8277

R² = 0.8265

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Do

sim

ete

r R

ead

ings

(p

pm

/hr)

Hours After Application

Comparing Ammonia Loss Trends – Injected and Surface Applied Manure to Digestate

check

injected digestate

surface digestate

surface manure

injected manure

Surface Applied Digestate Surface Applied Manure Injected Digestate Injected Manure

75

95

115

135

155

175

195

Riverview Shelbourne New Lowell Meaford Average

Yie

ld (

bu

/acr

e)

75

95

115

135

155

175

195

215

235

Riverview Dundalk Elora Meaford Stayner Average

Yie

ld (

bu

/acr

e)

4,500 gal/ac

3,000 gal/ac

N-P-K equivalent

2015 Wet Summer Average:

16 bu/ac ↑ yield

2016 – Dry Summer Average:

1 bu/ac ↑ yield

Lystegro Field Trials (2015-16) Georgian Region S & C project

? Soil Test P = 3 ppm K = 17 ppm

75

95

115

135

155

175

195

Riverview Shelbourne New Lowell Meaford Average

Yie

ld (

bu

/acr

e)

Lystegro Field Trials (2015-16)

? Soil Test P = 3 ppm K = 17 ppm

Approximate Nutrients Applied (lbs/ac N - P205 - K20)

Fertilizer check 127 – 92 – 143 3,000 gal/ac 101 – 131 ̶ 106 4,500 gal/ac 151 – 197 – 118

Recommendation

110 lbs P205

160 lb/ac K20

D = Digestate ( BioEn - Elmira)

B = Processed Biosolids (Lystegro)

4R Application of Organic Amendments Small Plot Study Don King, Ann Huber - SRG

R² = 0.7606

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

co

rn y

ield

(b

u/a

cre

)

Initial + added K (ppm in soil)

K "total vs yield

60-80 ppm K Recommendation: 80 lbs/ac K Applied:

Digestate: 22 lbs/ac Lystgro: 41 lbs/ac

D = Digestate ( BioEn - Elmira)

B = Processed Biosolids (Lystegro)

4R Application of Organic Amendments Small Plot Study Don King, Ann Huber - SRG

R² = 0.7606

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

co

rn y

ield

(b

u/a

cre

)

Initial + added K (ppm in soil)

K "total vs yield

Critical Level = 1.20 %

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Dni Bni D-0 B-0 0+N D+N B+N check

K (

%)

Corn leaf tissue %K

Opportunities with Organic Amendments Issues: • municipal organics production - daily • application –

o limited to growing season o no application when soils are frozen or snow covered.

• Storage of liquids is expensive • Storage of solids (temporary field storage options) • Solids have lower environmental risk

Opportunities: Mixing materials to match needs • Examples: ↑carbon solid + ↑ N liquid = ↑ nutrient concentration = ↑ marketability to agriculture (e.g. digestate mixed with leaf-yard based compost)

• match nutrient needs vs organic matter

• match products to where they have greatest benefit

Opportunities with Organic Amendments

• Marketing to agriculture • Example immature compost – as a potential market

• Mixing products to match niche markets

• Government initiatives • Soil Health (GLASI funding for adding OM) • Lake Erie phosphorus reduction • Climate Change

• Improving logistics • Shared transportation? Improved efficiency?

• Working with fertilizer industry • 4R initiative • Storage/ marketing/application opportunities for

“August-October” applications with cover crops

Summary:

• Ontario soils at risk for erosion, compaction, OM depletion

• Farm interest in soil health is increasing • Cover crops, organic amendments, GPS tools & funding programs

• Less livestock manure – but could be distributed better

• Municipal sourced organics - ↑ with urban population

• Policy to decrease organics from landfill

• Policies: soil health, GL water quality, climate change & pollinator health have OM as a key element

• Various markets / end uses for organic waste (competition)

• Cooperative efforts? marketing, policy (↓ red tape), innovation

• The future is filled with opportunities – lets make it happen!

Questions?

Christine Brown Field Crop Sustainability Specialist OMAFRA - Woodstock Christine.brown1@ontario.ca 519-537-8305