Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness
-
Upload
lpe-learning-center -
Category
Education
-
view
382 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness
![Page 1: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Farm-System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses and
Management Practice Cost-Effectiveness
Andy McLean, Tamie Veith, Al Rotz, Jim Hamlett, Jim Shortle
USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research
Unit & The Pennsylvania State University
![Page 2: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Loadings to the Chesapeake Bay
Agriculture dominates all other sectors for
nutrient and sediment contributions57
%
45%
70%Legend
AgriculturePoint SourceForestDeveloped
![Page 3: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Study Region
Chesapeake Bay
Susquehanna River
Dauphin County
Lebanon County
Lancaster County
![Page 4: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Most Beneficial Practices as Determined by Regional
StudiesRank Lancaster County
Informal Study (2004)
CBC (2004) Cost-effective strategies for the Bay
1 Nutrient management plan
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades
2 Cover crops Diet and Feed Adjustments
3 Management advice Traditional Nutrient Management
4 Structural field practices Enhanced Nutrient Management
5 Conservation tillage Conservation Tillage
6 Implement farm conservation plan
Cover Crops
7 Cultural field practices (crop rotation, etc.)
8 Develop farm conservation plan
9 Grass buffers, 15-ft
10 Animal waste system
![Page 5: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Objective
Simulate representative farming systems for this region to determine the environmental benefit of
management practices and determine their economic
value to the producer
![Page 6: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Baseline Descriptions
Crop FarmOld Order
Amish DairyContemporary
Dairy
400 ha (1000 ac)4 yr rotationC-SB-C-SB/WW
Primarily no-till Import poultry manure & some starter fertilizer
100 cows120 ha (300 ac)8 yr rotation
2(Cg)-2(Cs/WW)-4(Hay)Primarily no-tillLow grain to forage50% rented fields
50 cows24 ha (60 ac)8 yr rotation4(Cs/WW)-
4(Alfalfa)Conventional-tillHigh grain to forage
Horse-drawn methods
![Page 7: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Practices InvestigatedFarm Management Cropping Strategies
Nutrient ManagementTreatment Strategies
Tillage (conv., mulch, no)Strip croppingManure storage (4, 6, 12 month)
Manure reallocation among cropsManure application (broadcast, immediate incorp.)
Field-edge grass buffer
Crop conversion(50% silage to grazed pasture)
Cover Crop (mulch winter grain)
Double Crop(harvest winter grain)
Dietary P (100%, 120% of NRC)
Dietary N (100%, 110% of NRC)
Tests against prior methods
![Page 8: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM)
Soil
Establish
Crop
Harvest
Storage
Animal
Manure
Grazing
Volatile lossExported manure
Purchased feed,bedding, etc.
Feed soldVolatile loss
Fixed nutrients
Volatile loss
Purchased fertilizer
Runoff & Leaching loss
Milk and animals
Engine exhaust
![Page 9: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Challenges of Modeling an Amish Dairy Farm
Machinery Differences Machine specifications Operational efficiency Power requirements Costs Horses vs. Tractors
Corn Harvest
![Page 10: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Challenges of Modeling an Amish Dairy Farm
Operational Differences Labor requirements Timing of operations Representing horses
![Page 11: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
BASELINE RESULTS
![Page 12: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Yield Comparison (t DM/ha)
IFSM Crop
IFSM Cont. Dairy
NASSDistrictCons.
Corn grain
8.7 (2.0)7.8
(1.6)5.9 – 7.9 8.5
Corn silage
— 16 (2.3) 16 16 – 21
Soybeans 2.8 (0.3) — 2.2 – 2.7 2.9
Small grain
4.2 (0.4)1.8
(0.2)3.0 – 3.9 5.2
Alfalfa — 9.4 7.711 – 13.5
![Page 13: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Operational Timing (day of year)
IFSM Crop
IFSM Cont. Dairy
District Cons.
Corn plant 129 116 110
Corn harvest 284-289 247-286 283
Wheat plant 297 309 293
Wheat harvest 183-184 118-116 176-186Soybean plant 133 130Soybean harvest
289-294 288-298
Hay harvest4
cuttings3-5
cuttings
![Page 14: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Amish DairyLabor Requirements (hour)
IFSM Total Labor
Extension Estimate
Corn planting 65 99
Hay harvest 71 60Corn silage harvest
335 270
Small grain planting
55 40
Manure handling 349 360
![Page 15: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Avg. Nutrient Loss (kg/ha-yr)
IFSMCrop
IFSM Contemp. Dairy
IFSM AmishDairy
Chesapeake
modelN volatilized
10.4 69.2 122.7
N leaching 29.7 20.8 44.8
N denitrified
16 14.5 35.3
P runoff (sed+sol)
1.2 0.4 1.7 0.19-0.84
P buildup 8.9 -4.6 28.2
Erosion 2132 294 23811424-2376
![Page 16: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE PERFORMANCE
![Page 17: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Mulch
Till
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Mulch Till
Man.
Inco
rp.
No-till
Conv
Till
Strip
Crop DC
Man.
Inco
rp.
DC +
NM100%
CCDC +
NM
100%
CCCCNo-ti
ll
Phosphorus Runoff Sediment Runoff
Conv
Till
Crop Farm
![Page 18: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Nitrogen Leaching
100%
CC
NM
DC
CCDC
+
NM
DC
CCNM
Con
v Ti
ll
Grass
Buffer
Return to Management
DC
+
NM
Crop Farm
![Page 19: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
4 mo st
or.
+ Man.
Inco
rp.
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Phosphorus Runoff Sediment Runoff
Mulch Till
Man.
Inco
rp.
Strip
Crop
Conv
Till
4 mo st
or.
+ Man.
Inco
rp.
Strip
Crop
DCCCGra
ss
Buffer
Mulch Till
Man.
Inco
rp.
Conv
Till
Contemporary Dairy
![Page 20: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
-50
0
50
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
-10
0
10
20
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
DC
Nitrogen Volatilization Nitrogen Leaching
12 mo
stor
.
Man
. Inco
rp.
High N
diet
12 mo
stor
.
CC
High N
diet
CCDC
4 mo
stor
. NM
Contemporary Dairy
![Page 21: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Return to Management
NM
4 mo st
or.
Grass
buffer 4 mo st
or.
+ Man.
Inco
rp.
DCConv.
Till
Contemporary Dairy
![Page 22: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
-75
-50
-25
0
25
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Phosphorus Runoff Sediment Runoff
High
P Diet
No-tillMulch
Till
Convert
to
pasture
DC +
NM
Convert
to
pasture
DCDC
Mulch
Till
No-till
Strip
CropStri
p
Crop
Amish Dairy
![Page 23: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
-50
-25
0
25
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Nitrogen Volatilization Nitrogen Leaching
DC +
NM
Conve
rt
to p
astu
re
6
mo
stor
.
4 mo
stor
. +
Man
.
Inco
rp.
NM
DC
4
mo
stor
.
High N
diet
Conve
rt
to
pastu
re
High
N
diet
4 mo
stor
.
6 mo
stor
.
DC
+
NM
Amish Dairy
![Page 24: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
Perc
en
t C
han
ge
Return to Management
No-till
4 mo
stor.
Convert
to
pasture
6 mo
stor.
DCDC
+NM
4mo st
or. +
Man. Inco
rp.
Amish Dairy
![Page 25: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Amish Dairy• No-till• Pasturing• Strip cropping• Cover cropping
(baseline)
Contemporary Dairy
• Cover cropping• Nutrient
management• Strip cropping• No-till (baseline)
Crop Farm• Cover cropping• Double cropping• No-till • Strip cropping • Grass buffer
Best environmental practices for each farm?
![Page 26: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Most profitable management practices for each farm
Amish Dairy Farm
• Double cropping• Mulch tillage
Contemporary Dairy Farm
• Nutrient management• Reduced manure
storage
Crop Farm• Cover cropping• Double cropping• Nutrient
management• Reduced tillage
![Page 27: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Distributions Across 25 Years of Weather
Nitrogen loss
Phosphorus loss
Farm profit
![Page 28: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Cost Effectiveness
Phosphorus loss Nitrogen loss
![Page 29: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions Most management practices have a nutrient
tradeoff - at least as they are modeled in this study
Farm operation/strategy/location may have a significant impact on which practices are best
Double cropping shows great potential
Cost-effective reductions from “low-hanging fruit”
Corn appears to be water limited, not nutrient limited, therefore we may be over-applying nutrients to corn
Profitability and the environment benefited from transferring manure nutrients from corn to small grain
![Page 30: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Application of Results
Provide a basis for recommendations by conservation district officials and policymakers
Hopefully encourages farmers to experiment with these practices
![Page 31: Farm System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and BMP Cost-Effectiveness](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5562f17ed8b42a213b8b50d6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
USDA
Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit
University Park, Pennsylvania
Agricultural Research Service