LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Lesson 23 Lesson 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning By Rick...

1

LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning

Lesson 2Whole Farm Nutrient PlanningBy Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska

2

MODULE A Introduction

Financial SupportFunding for the development of this lesson was provided by USDA-CSREESand U.S. EPA Ag Center under a grant awarded to the University of NebraskaCooperative Extension, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The followingorganizations were also affiliated with this project: Farm*A*Syst, MidWestPlan Service, USDA-ARS, and USDA-NRCS.

DisclaimerThis lesson reflects the best professional judgment of the contributing authorsand is based on information available as of the publication date. References toparticular products should not be regarded as an endorsement.

Copyright © 2001 MidWest Plan Service.Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-3080.

For copyright permission, contact MidWest Plan Service (MWPS) at515-294-4337. Organizations may reproduce this publication fornon-commercial use, provided they acknowledge MWPS as the copyrightowner and include the following credit statement:

Reprinted from Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship curriculum,lesson authored by Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska, courtesy ofMidWest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-3080,Copyright © 2001.

...And Justice for All.MidWest Plan Service publications are available to all potential clientele without regardto race, color, sex, or national origin. Anyone who feels discriminated against should senda complaint within 180 days to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. Weare an equal opportunity employer.

3

Lesson 2Whole Farm Nutrient PlanningBy Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska

Intended OutcomesThe participants will• Recognize the importance of balancing nutrient inputs and managed

outputs for a livestock operation.• Identify potential indicators of a “whole farm” nutrient imbalance

within the producer’s own operation.• Be aware of fundamental strategies for addressing a whole farm

nutrient imbalance.

ContentsIntroduction 5Nutrient Concentration and Distribution 5Whole Farm Nutrient Balance 8Typical Nutrient Balances 10Sources of Nutrient Inputs 12Is My Livestock/Poultry Operation in Balance? 13Strategies to Improve Nutrient Balance 14

Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop production 15Alternative livestock feeding programs 15Marketing of manure nutrients 15Manure treatment 16

Regulatory Compliance 16Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning 18

Appendix A. Estimating a Whole Farm Nutrient Balance 20

Activities• Environmental Stewardship Assessment: Indicators of a possible

imbalance that may exist on your farm 13• Regulatory Compliance Assessment: Regulatory compliance issues

related to nutrient management that may be applicable to yourlivestock or poultry operation 17

• Estimating a whole farm nutrient balance 20

PROJECT STATEMENT

This educational program,Livestock and PoultryEnvironmental Stewardship,consists of lessons arrangedinto the following six modules:• Introduction• Animal Dietary Strategies• Manure Storage and

Treatment• Land Application and

Nutrient Management• Outdoor Air Quality• Related Issues

4


5


IntroductionFor most of the U.S. livestock industry, nutrients in manure represent the

single largest threat to water quality. Thus, choices made relative to themanagement of nutrients within a livestock operation are absolutely criticalto protecting water quality.

If managed correctly, manure is an excellent plant nutrient source andsoil “builder,” resulting in many important environmental benefits. Soilsregularly receiving manure require less commercial fertilizer (conservingenergy and limited phosphorus reserves), are higher in organic mattercontributing to greater soil productivity, and may experience less runoff anderosion and better conservation of moisture. However, an increased risk towater quality will result from excess application of manure nutrients to acropping system.

Nutrient Concentration and DistributionThe fundamental question, “Is my livestock or poultry operation

concentrating nutrients?”, must be the premise for any successful nutrientmanagement plan. Most nutrient-related issues associated with animalproduction result from poor nutrient distribution, leading to concentration-related problems. This distribution issue can be a local or a regional issue.

• Single-field nutrient concentration issues. An integrated crop andlivestock farm commonly experiences this distribution problem withinits own boundaries. Some fields, often those closest to the livestockfacility, receive excessive manure applications while commercialfertilizer is purchased to meet the needs of fields more distant from thelivestock. Spreading manure based upon convenience and not thecrop’s nutrient requirements causes water quality problems.

• Individual farm nutrient concentration issues. Farms focused primarilyon livestock production import significant quantities of nutrients asanimal feeds. Livestock utilize only 10% to 30% of these nutrients,excreting the remaining as manure. This results in a concentration ofnutrients on the livestock farm and a shortage of nutrients (typicallyreplaced by purchased commercial fertilizers) on neighboring cropfarms. The separation of ownership of crop and livestock productiontypically drives this problem. Such problems are commonly observedin regions where sufficient crop land is available but separation oflivestock and crop ownership creates nutrient distribution problems(e.g., Corn Belt states).

• Regional nutrient distribution issues have developed in the last 30years as livestock/poultry production and feed grain production hasconcentrated in specific, but separate, regions of the country (Figures2-1 and 2-2). Examples of these regional nutrient distributionproblems include the concentration of pork production in theCarolinas, poultry concentration in southern and mid-Atlantic states,beef cattle production in the High Plains, and dairy in western, northcentral, and northeastern states. Many of these regions importsignificant quantities of nutrients primarily as feed grains from theCorn Belt. The nutrients excreted by these animals can overwhelm theability of locally grown crops to recycle these nutrients. These regionaldistribution problems (shaded areas in Figures 2-1 and -2) representthe animal feeding industry’s most difficult nutrient challenges.

The fundamentalquestion, “Is mylivestock or poultryoperationconcentratingnutrients?”, must bethe premise for anysuccessful nutrientmanagement plan.

For your operation,is nutrientconcentration a• Single-field issue?• Individual farm

issue?• Regional issue?

6


Fig

ure

2-1

. P

ote

nti

al

for

N a

va

ila

ble

in

an

ima

l m

an

ure

to

me

et

or

exce

ed

pla

nt

up

take

an

d r

em

ova

l fo

r h

arv

este

d c

rop

an

d h

ay

la

nd

.So

urce

: Kel

logg

et a

l. 20

00.

7


Fig

ure

2-2

. Po

ten

tial fo

r P

availab

le in

an

imal m

an

ure

to

meet

or

exceed

pla

nt

up

take a

nd

rem

oval fo

r h

arv

este

d c

rop

an

d h

ay lan

d.

Sour

ce: K

ello

gg e

t al.

2000

.

8


To determine if these nutrient concentration concerns affect yourlivestock operation requires an appreciation of the total nutrient picture foryour livestock operation. A discussion of a “Whole Farm Nutrient Balance”follows.

Whole Farm Nutrient BalanceNutrients are transported along multiple pathways and in a variety of

forms on a livestock operation. Our tendency is to focus on a small part of thetotal picture, such as the nutrients in manure and their losses into theenvironment. However, an understanding of the big picture is necessary toidentifying the underlying cause of nutrient concentration concerns as well asthe solutions.

A picture of the flow of nutrients is presented in Figure 2-3. Nutrientsarrive on a livestock operation as purchased products (fertilizer, animal feed,and purchased animals), nitrogen (N) fixed by legume crops, and nitrates inrain and irrigation water. These “Inputs” are the origin of all nutrientsrequired for crop and livestock production as well as those nutrients thatescape into the environment.

Within the boundaries of the farm, there is a “Recycling” of nutrientsbetween the livestock and crop components. Manure nutrients are recycled, atleast in part, for crop production. Feed crop nutrients are in turn recycled asanimal feed for livestock or poultry production.

Nutrients exit a livestock operation preferably as “Managed Outputs”including animals and crops sold and possibly other products moved off farm(e.g., manure sold or given to a neighboring crop producer). Some nutrients exitthe farm as losses to the environment (nitrates in groundwater, ammoniavolatilized into the atmosphere, and N and phosphorus into surface water).Nutrients (especially phosphorus) also accumulate in large quantities in the soil.Although not a direct loss to the environment, a growing accumulation ofnutrients in the soil adds to the risk of future environmental losses.

The “Imbalance” is the difference between the Inputs and the ManagedOutputs. This Imbalance accounts for both the direct environmental loss and

Figure 2-3. A whole farm nutrient balance considers all nutrient inputs

and managed outputs. The difference or imbalance drives a farm’s

nutrient-related water quality risks.

The balancebetween nutrientinputs and managedoutputs defines thequantity of nutrientslost to theenvironment oradded to soilstorage.

Inputs Managed

outputs

Imbalance (Losses to environmentor additions to soil storage)

Feed

Legumes

Irrigation

Animals

Crops

Manure

Fertilizer

Animals

9


the accumulation of nutrients in the soil. Livestock operations with asignificant imbalance are concentrating nutrients, resulting in increased riskto water quality (Lanyon and Beegle 1993 and Klausner 1995). In contrast,livestock operations that have achieved a balance represent a potentiallysustainable production system.

An analogy can be drawn between the whole farm nutrient balance for alivestock operation and water flow in a farm pond. The farm pond is theequivalent of a livestock and cropping operation (whole farm). The “WaterIn” and “Water Out” (of the pipe) are, respectively, comparable to nutrientInputs and Managed Outputs. If the flow of water into the pond exceeds theoutflow, the pond level rises. Similarly, if the nutrients entering a livestockoperation exceed the nutrients leaving as managed products, the nutrientsconcentrate within the farm (e.g., rising soil P levels).

If that imbalance is sustained, water eventually flows over the top of thedam with potentially catastrophic results. Similarly with nutrients, theimbalance is eventually corrected by losses to the environment (e.g., nitratesleaching to groundwater or P exiting with runoff and erosion) of similarmagnitude as the imbalance. A sustained nutrient imbalance drives the nutrient-related contamination of water.

Sandbags provide a temporary solution to this problem. If the waterimbalance is not corrected, however, the water level eventually exceeds what thesandbags can hold back. Many current best management practices (BMPs) formanure handling focus on plugging leaks without correcting the origin of theimbalance. BMPs such as grass filter strips, no applications on frozen soil, or soilerosion control do not correct the imbalance and provide only short-term benefits.

Water

In

In2 gal. …and overflow the dam.

Farm

pond

Water

Out

1 gal.

1 gal.

A sustained…whole farm nutrientimbalance…hasundesirableenvironmentalconsequences.

Water

In

InWater

Out

2 gal.

Farm

pond

1 gal.

The imbalance between “Water In”and “Water Out” causes the waterlevel to rise…

10


The imbalance of water flows must first be corrected to save the dam andthe property downstream. To achieve a relative balance, the quantity of waterentering the pond needs to be reduced and/or the water exiting the outlet pipemust be increased. Similarly, any nutrient management planning process mustfirst achieve a whole farm nutrient balance. The nutrients arriving on farmmust roughly balance those exiting the farm in managed products. After abalance is achieved, then BMPs designed to plug the leaks will provideadditional long-term benefits.

For the purpose of this discussion, nutrient imbalance will be expressedas a ratio of inputs to managed outputs. A ratio of 3:1 suggests that for everythree pounds of nutrient entering a farm, one pound leaves as a managedproduct and the remaining two pounds are lost to the environment or added tosoil storage reserves.

Typical Nutrient BalancesThe nutrient balance is illustrated for a feedlot, dairy, and swine

operation in Figure 2-4. For this feedlot, the input to output ratio was 2.5:1for N (imbalance of 650 tons/year) and 2:1 for phosphorus (P) (imbalance of120 tons/year). The magnitude of the imbalance is smaller for the dairy andswine operation. However, the ratio of inputs to outputs ranges from 2.5:1 tomore than 4:1. Inputs to outputs ratios of 2:1 up to 4:1 are common for manylivestock operations.

Size is generally a poor indicator of the nutrient imbalance experiencedby livestock operations. A review of the whole farm nutrient balance for 33Nebraska swine confinements and beef feedlots did not observe a trendbetween an increasing imbalance and larger livestock operations (Figure 2-5).Many of the operations involved in this study experienced a P balance nearthe ideal 1:1 ratio while some exceeded ratios of 4:1. Several of the worst

Whole farmnutrient imbalancesare common formodern livestockoperations.

Water

In

In2 gal.

“Plugging the leaks” provides atemporary solution.

Farm

pond

Water

Out

1 gal.

Water

In

InWater

Out

1.5 gal.The imbalance between“Water In” and Water Out”must first be corrected.

Farm

pond

1.5 gal.

11


Figure 2-4. Typical nutrient imbalance observed for different livestock systems (Koelsch and Lesoing 1999 and

Klausner 1995).

Inputs

Inputs

Inputs

Managed

outputs

Managed

outputs

Managed

outputs

Imbalance

Imbalance

Imbalance650 ton N/yr or 2.5:1120 ton P/yr or 2:1

43 ton N/yr4.4 ton P/yr

or 3.9:1or 2.5:1

22.3 ton N/yr or 4.2:11.8 ton P/yr or 3.3:1

1,080 ton N/yr240 ton P/yr


29.2 ton N/yr2.6 ton P/yr

430 ton N/yr120 ton P/yr


6.9 ton N/yr0.8 ton P/yr

11,500-head feedlot

190-sow farrow to finish

120-cow dairy

Figure 2-5. Phosphorus balance vs. size for 33 Nebraska livestock

operations (Koelsch and Lesoing 1999).

imbalances were observed for livestock operations with less than 1,000animal units.

A P balance provides a preferred indicator of the risk to water quality. Animbalance in N does not distinguish between the relatively benign losses(e.g., denitrification of nitrate to N2 gas) and the relatively harmful

Livestock Capacity, Animal Units

0

1:1

2:1

3:1

4:1

5:1

10 100 1,000

Low Risk

High RiskPhosphorus

(Ratio of

Inputs to

Outputs)

10,000

12


environmental losses (e.g., nitrate loss to water). In contrast, P losses impactonly water quality through increased soil P levels and greater concentration ofP moving with surface runoff water.

Farms with a P input to output ratio near 1:1 (“Low Risk” group in Figure2-5) have the potential to be environmentally sustainable. Since soil storage isthe primary reservoir for P, average soil P level should not be increasing foran input:output ratio near 1:1. If manure is managed appropriately within theavailable land base, the nutrient-related water quality risk should not beincreasing.

Livestock and poultry operations with a large imbalance (1.5:1 andgreater) would expect steadily increasing soil P levels. Runoff and erosionfrom land application sites will carry an increasing P load as soil P levelsincrease. Measures to reduce runoff and erosion will partially reduce this riskand provide temporary solutions. The P imbalance must be corrected beforethis growing pollution potential will stabilize. These “High Risk” operationsare not environmentally sustainable.

Sources of Nutrient InputsThe source of nutrient inputs to livestock operations is important to

understanding preferred management strategies for reducing water quality risk(Figure 2-6). Commercial fertilizer can be a common source of nutrient inputsfor many livestock operations, especially those with large cropping programs.The previously discussed Nebraska study observed that commercial fertilizerwas the most significant N input and an important P input for livestockoperations with less than 2,500 animal units. However, commercial fertilizerwas an insignificant nutrient input for the livestock operations with more than2,500 animal units (2% of N inputs and 1% of P inputs).

Purchased animal feeds are often the most significant source of the N andP inputs. In the Nebraska study, N inputs as feed varied from 33% to 77% oftotal N inputs for farms with less than 250 animal units and more than 2,500animal units, respectively. Phosphorus inputs as feed was the largest nutrient

The primary sourceof nutrients formost animal feedingoperations ispurchased feed orfertilizer.

Figure 2-6. Relative sources of N and P inputs with different-sized Nebraska

livestock operations (Koelsch and Lesoing 1999).

100%

Nutrient

inputs

% of

total

Nitrogen inputs

<250 <250250-2,500

250-2,500

>2,500 >2,500

Average one-time animal capacity, animal units

Phosphorus inputs

Legumefixed N

AnimalsAnimals

Feeds

Feeds

Fertilizer

Fertilizer80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

To beenvironmentallysustainable, alivestock or poultryoperation shouldattempt to achievea whole farmphosphorusbalance of 1:1.

13


source for most farms. With the growing concentration of livestock andpoultry, purchased animal feed is often the most significant source ofnutrients even in regions that grow most animal feeds locally. Efforts tocorrect nutrient imbalances must focus on options for utilizing feed nutrientsmore efficiently and reducing purchased feed inputs.

Other potential sources of nutrient inputs include purchased animals,legume-fixed N, and nitrates in irrigation water. These sources are typicallyinsignificant or offer few options for input reduction. The one exception maybe legume-fixed N grown on dairy operations.

Is My Livestock/Poultry Operation in Balance?An understanding of nutrient balance and primary source of purchased

nutrients is key to operating a livestock operation in an environmentallysustainable manner. Three methods are provided for estimating if a nutrientimbalance may be an issue on your farm. Those methods include

(1) A checklist of potential indicators of nutrient imbalance (Table 2-1).(2) Whole Farm Nutrient Balance (see Appendix A) provides the “bottom

line” answer to this issue. It also provides a measurement of progressmade toward environmental sustainability following the implementationof changes. You, the producer, must be willing to assemble informationfor animal purchases and sales, feed and grain purchases and sales,fertilizer purchases, manure sales, and possibly other contributors definedin Figure 2-3 for a one-year period.

(3) Manure nutrient production vs. crop nutrient utilization (see Lesson 31,Manure Utilization Plans). This method checks the ability of your land baseto utilize the nutrients in manure. An excess of manure nutrients for cropproduction suggests a likely whole farm nutrient imbalance.

Is whole farmnutrient balance aconcern for yourlivestock operation?Answering thisquestion is the firststep towardachievingenvironmentalsustainability.

Table 2-1. Environmental Stewardship Assessment: Indicators of a possible

imbalance that may exist on your farm. Check those that apply. “Yes”

response indicates that potential for nutrient imbalance is high.

Don’t

Yes No Know

____ ____ ____ Soil P levels for the majority of fields are increasing withtime.

____ ____ ____ Soil P levels for the majority of fields are identified as“High” or “Very High” on the soil test.

____ ____ ____ The majority (more than 50%) of the protein andP in the ration originates from off-farm sources.

____ ____ ____ Livestock feed programs routinely contain higher levelsof protein and/or P than National Research Council orland-grant university recommendations.

____ ____ ____ A manure nutrient management plan is not currentlyused to determine appropriate manure application ratesto crops.

____ ____ ____ Less than 1 acre of crop land is available per animal(1,000 lbs of live weight), and no manure is transportedto off-farm users.

14


The indicators found in Table 2-1 may help you identify if nutrientconcentration might be an issue on your farm. Increasing soil P levels is agood indicator of a potential imbalance. Most of the P accumulation on alivestock and crop farm is likely to be stored in the soil (with the exception oflivestock operations with an anaerobic lagoon). In addition, a livestockoperation’s reliance on purchased feed for the majority of feed nutrients isalso an excellent indicator of a nutrient imbalance (assuming that manure isnot transferred to off-farm customers).

Strategies to Improve Nutrient BalanceEvaluating a livestock system’s nutrient balance from a whole farm

perspective provides a more complete picture of the driving forces behindnutrient-related environmental issues. The original sources of these nutrientinputs are clearly identified, which in turn suggest management strategies forreducing excess nutrient accumulations. The following four managementstrategies (Figure 2-7) should reduce nutrient imbalances:

(1) Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop production(2) Alternative livestock feeding programs

Figure 2-7. Four strategies are fundamental to addressing nutrient imbalances on modern livestock operations and

achieving a sustainable nutrient balance between nutrient inputs and managed outputs.

Fertilizer

Feed andforages

Crops

Meat andMilk

Losses or soil storage Losses or soil storage

Losses or soil storage Losses or soil storage

FeedsFeed

ManureManure

Manure Manure

Manure

Manure

Lowimpactlosses

Strategy 1: Efficient use of manure

in crop production offsets fertilizer inputs.

nutrients Strategy 2: Alternative feed rations and efficient

utilization of on-farm feeds offsets nutrient

inputs as purchased feeds and forages.

Strategy 4: Manure treatment allows disposal

of manure nutrients. Some treatment options

enhance the value of manure nutrients and

complement manure marketing efforts.

Strategy 3: Exporting of manure nutrients to

off-farm users increases managed nutrient

outputs.

15


(3) Marketing of manure nutrients(4) Manure treatment

Efficient use of manure nutrients in crop productionBy accurately crediting manure nutrients in a cropping program, the

purchases of commercial fertilizer can be reduced or eliminated and the riskto the environment reduced (Figure 2-7). This practice is especially importantto livestock operations with significant crop production and substantialnutrient inputs as commercial fertilizers. It may offer greater benefit for N-related issues due to common use of commercial N fertilizers as insurance onmanure applied fields. Lessons 30 through 36 will provide an in-depthdiscussion of the planning and management practices for efficiently usingmanure nutrients in crop production.

Alternative livestock feeding programsOpportunities are available for reducing both N and P inputs by

alternative livestock feeding programs (Figure 2-7). Specific managementpractices for reducing nutrient inputs as feeds will be discussed for ruminant(Lessons 12 and 13) and nonruminant (Lessons 10 and 11) animals.

The Nebraska study observed a greater P imbalance when high P rationswere used in feedlot feeding programs. Ethanol and corn processingbyproducts, attractive feed alternatives for some cattlemen, are typically highin P concentrations, resulting in finished cattle rations with excess P levels.Participating operations that were users of these byproducts experiencedsubstantially greater P imbalance as compared to those operations notutilizing these byproducts (Table 2-2). Both groups had very similar Nbalance. Feeding program choices are likely to impact whole farm nutrientbalance, especially for farms purchasing significant quantities of feed fromoff-farm sources.

In addition to changes in feed rations, some additional options that mayreduce purchased feed nutrient inputs include (1) alternative crops or croprotations that result in a greater on-farm production of livestock protein and Prequirements and (2) harvesting and storage practices that improve the qualityof animal feed and reduce losses.

Marketing of manure nutrientsMarketing of manure creates an additional managed output, similar to the

sale of crops or livestock products. For two Nebraska feedlots summarized inTable 2-3, marketing of manure moved sufficient P to off-farm uses toeliminate a P imbalance (-1% and +6% imbalance on Farms #1 and #2,respectively). Farm #2’s nutrient balance was illustrated earlier(Figure 2-3) without crediting marketed manure nutrients. By activelymarketing manure, this feedlot has achieved a relative level of nutrient

Table 2-2. Nutrient imbalance for cattle operations as influenced by their use

of byproducts of ethanol production and corn processing.*

Input:Output Ratio

N P

Feedlots using byproducts (7 operations) 2.6:1 2.0:1

Feedlots not using byproducts (9 cattle operations) 2.5:1 1.1:1

*The high P content of these feed supplements increased the P imbalance.

Improved wholefarm nutrientbalance can beachieved by(1) Efficient use

of manurenutrients incropproduction.

(2) Alternativefeedingprograms.

(3) Marketingmanurenutrients tooff-farm users.

16


sustainability that should prevent future buildup of soil P. Farm #3 alsoexhibits significant improvements in P balance due to the exporting ofmanure.

Manure treatmentIn some situations, it may be necessary for animal production systems to

consider manure treatment technologies similar to municipal and industrialwaste treatment systems. Some manure treatment systems focus on disposalof nutrients with modest environmental impact. For example, treatmentsystems commonly dispose of wastewater N as N gas (no environmentalimpact) or ammonia (some environmental impact). This is a preferablealternative to N losses to surface or groundwater. Other treatment systemsenhance the value of manure (e.g., solids separation or composting) to allowalternative uses of the nutrients. Complementary manure treatment andmanure marketing strategies can contribute to improved nutrient balance. Forexample, some producers are successfully combining composting (for odorcontrol and volume reduction) with marketing of manure to crop farms andurban clients. Lesson 25, Manure Treatment Options, introduces theprinciples of manure treatment.

A single strategy will probably not fit all situations. For systems withsufficient land base for utilization of manure nutrients, a strategy that utilizesmanure nutrients effectively may be most appropriate. This strategy shouldfocus on preventing manure nutrient losses and reducing commercial fertilizerinputs as a means of achieving a nutrient balance and gaining the greatestbenefit from manure. Little incentive exists for animal production facilities withsufficient land to reduce nutrient excretion by changing diets or marketingmanure to off-farm customers. Alternative feeding programs to reduce P inmanure may better match the ratio of manure N to P with crop needs.

When the land base becomes insufficient for utilizing the nutrients inmanure, livestock dietary options for reducing manure nutrients may be animportant strategy for attaining a nutrient balance. If neighboring crop farmsor other nutrient users are in the vicinity of concentrated livestock operations,manure treatment and marketing of manure nutrients to off-farm customersmay also be an important alternative. If nutrient uses do not exist, manuretreatment options that benignly dispose of nutrients may be an importantoption. These alternatives will be discussed in greater detail in later lessons.

Regulatory ComplianceThe USDA and EPA recently published a “Unified National Strategy for

Animal Feeding Operations.” The primary focus of this strategy is theimplementation of comprehensive nutrient management planning. Although

Improved wholefarm nutrientbalance can beachieved by

(4) Manuretreatmenttechnologies.

Table 2-3. Phosphorus imbalance for three feedlots actively marketing

manure to off-farm users.

IIIIIs Manure Marketed Farm #1 Farm #2 Farm #3

to Off-Farm 4,300 animal units 11,500 animal units 20,600 animal units

Customers? No1 Yes2 No1 Yes2 No1 Yes2

Phosphorus 51 ton/yr -1 ton/yr 123 ton/yr 13 ton/yr 280 ton/yr 156 ton/yrImbalance 4.2:1 1.0:1 2.0:1 1 1.1:1 2.6:1 1.5:11Phosphorus imbalance if manure was not marketed to off-farm sources.2Current P imbalance including manure marketed to off-farm sources.

17


this strategy is not regulatory policy, it provides a framework for potentialfuture federal regulation of nutrient-related issues. In addition, EPA hasproposed significant changes to the National Pollution Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) permit process to be more encompassing of livestock andpoultry operations, require Permit Nutrient Plans for all permitted facilities,and base all planning processes on P. The final rules will be announced inDecember 2002. Prior to these proposals, federal policy included only vaguereference to regulation of livestock nutrient issues. However, it is likely thatnutrient issues will be the focus of future federal regulations.

Many states have established requirements for nutrient managementplanning. To date, most states have focused on nutrient management as itrelates to crop production as opposed to comprehensive or whole farmnutrient management. It is likely, however, that nutrient-related issues willalso be the focal point of greater state and local regulation. Your operation’scompliance with nutrient planning regulations can be reviewed usingTable 2-4.

Table 2-4. Regulatory compliance assessment: Regulatory compliance issues related to nutrient management that

may be applicable to your livestock or poultry operation.

Is my livestock/

Is this issue addressed by regulations? poultry operation

Regulatory Issue If “Yes”, summarize those regulations in compliance?

What agencies are ___ US EPA ___ State ___ Local List Name, Address, Phone No.:involved in administratingregulations related tonutrient management?

Is comprehensive ___ Yes ___ No ___ Yes ___ Nonutrient management ___ Not applicableplanning required? ___ Don’t Know

Is manure nutrient ___ Yes ___ No ___ Yes ___ Nomanagement planning ___ Not applicableas it relates to crop ___ Don’t Knowproduction required?

Is documentation of ___ Yes ___ No ___ Yes ___ Noavailable land base for ___ Not applicablemanaging manure ___ Don’t Knownutrients required?

Are current rules focused ___ Nitrogen ___ Phosphorus ___ Yes ___ Noon N or P? ___ Both ___ Neither ___ Not applicable

___ Don’t Know

Other: ___ Yes ___ No ___ Yes ___ No___ Not applicable___ Don’t Know

Are potential changes in ___ Yes ___ No ___ Yes ___ Nopublic policy related ___ Not applicableto nutrient management ___ Don’t Knowcurrently under discussion?

18


Comprehensive Nutrient Management PlanningRecently, the concept of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning

(CNMP) was introduced by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS). It is anticipated that the CNMP will serve as the cornerstone ofenvironmental plans assembled by animal feeding operations to address federaland state regulations. At the time this lesson was written, the issues addressedby a CNMP were only broadly defined. EPA and NRCS guidelines for CNMPprovide an indication of the key issues to be addressed (Table 2-5) by thisplanning process (USDA 2000 and USDA and U.S. EPA 1999).

The basic functions of a CNMP are expected to be as follows:• A CNMP should serve as the environmental “operating plan” for a

livestock or poultry operation. It should detail the management practicesfor minimizing the impact of nutrients and manure on soil, water, andair resources. The producer should be intimately familiar with this“operating plan” and use it to guide management decisions and conveydesired outcomes to all participants in an animal operation (owner,manager, employees, and advisors). This same plan should also conveythe management strategies employed to appropriate regulatory agencies.

• A CNMP should carefully analyze nutrient issues from a(1) “whole farm” perspective, assessing concentration of nutrientswithin the farm (comparison of sources and quantities arriving on-farm and exported from the farm), as well as (2) the “individualcomponent” perspective such as a crop nutrient balance or animalfeeding program analysis. Historically, only the crop nutrientmanagement component was considered in most environmental plans.

• A CNMP should integrate nutrient management planning with otherenvironmental considerations such as soil conservation and odor

CNMP serves asthe environmental“operating plan”for a livestock orpoultry operation.

ComprehensiveNutrientManagementPlanning (CNMP)…will serve as thecornerstone ofenvironmentalplans assembled byanimal feedingoperations… .

Table 2-5. Summary of issues addressed by a CNMP as initially defined by

EPA’s Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)1.

Planning components of CNMP Issues addressed

A manure handling and (1) Diversion of clean waterstorage plan (2) Prevention of leakage storage plan

(3) Adequate storage(4) Manure treatment(5) Management of mortality

Land application plan (1) Proper nutrient application rates to achieve acrop nutrient balance

(2) Selection of timing and application methods tolimit risk of runoff

Site management plan Soil conservation practices that minimizemovement of soil and manure components tosurface and groundwater

Recordkeeping Manure production, utilization, and export tooff-farm users

Other utilization options plan Alternative safe manure utilization strategies suchas sale of manure, treatment technologies, orenergy generation

Feed management plan Alternative feed programs to minimize thenutrients in manure

1Reference is available from http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm.

19


management. Many proposed BMPs can positively affect someresources (e.g., manure incorporation can reduce odor concerns) whiledamaging other resources (e.g., manure incorporation can increase soilerosion). Balancing the protection of water, soil, and air resourcesshould be the objective of a successful CNMP.

• A CNMP should establish a record-keeping system that will documentthe degree of implementation and success of the proposedmanagement practices and identify future changes to improve the plan.

The form that a CNMP is likely to take will evolve over the next severalyears. One state’s CNMP framework is illustrated in Figure 2-8. However, thefundamental principles addressed by a CNMP will remain relativelyunchanged. Those principles are introduced in the following lessons:

• Whole farm nutrient balance: Lesson 2• Managing manure nutrients in crop production: Lessons 30-36• Managing nutrients in animal feeding programs: Lessons 10-13• Managing manure and other byproducts in a manure storage:

Lessons 20-24• Managing odors: Lessons 40-44• Alternative treatment technologies for nutrient disposal: Lesson 25

CNMP should• Analyze

nutrients from awhole farm andan individualcomponentperspective.

• Balance water,soil, and airquality issues.

• Includerecordkeepingto documentCNMPimplementation.

Figure 2-8. A framework and several example tools are illustrated for a CNMP in Nebraska. This CNMP organizes

components according to a chronological order that a producer would follow in the CNMP’s development and

implementation.

Annual Review

Review as necessary

Strategic (long-term) Plan

Documentation and Records

1. Livestock and poultry inventory2. Manure storage system description3. Land application site inventory4. Environmental risk assessment

Review and Plan Modification

Inventory

1. Whole farm nutrient balance2. Land requirements for nutrient utilization3. Animal feeding program review4. Odor management plan5. Emergency action plan

Annual Plan

1. Crop nitrogen management plan2. Crop phosphorus management plan3. Action plan

1. Manure analysis records2. Soil phosphorus test levels3. Manure application field logs4. Manure storage inspection reports

1. Post season summary of actualnutrient balance

2. Review of past year’s plan andmodifications to next year’s plan

20


Whole Farm Nutrient Balance

Inputs Managed

outputs

Imbalance (Losses to environmentor additions to soil storage)

Feed

Legumes

Irrigation

Animals

Crops

Manure

Fertilizer

Animals

Farm Boundary

APPENDIX AEstimating a Whole Farm Nutrient Balance

ConceptNutrients arrive on the livestock farm (Inputs) in the form of purchased feed, fertilizer, and animals or as N fixed

by legumes or transported with irrigation water. It is desirable that these nutrients leave the farm as marketedproducts (Managed Outputs) such as animals or crops. Any imbalance between Input and Managed Outputs willeither (1) be added to soil reserves (adding to future environmental risks) or (2) lost directly to the environment.

Excess N will be lost to the air as ammonia gas or to surface and groundwater as nitrate or ammonium. Excess Pis commonly stored in the soil, contributing to soil P levels in excess of agronomic requirements. A high soil P levelincreases the potential for P movement to surface waters, contributing to eutrophication issues (see Lesson 1,Principles of Environmental Stewardship).

Understanding the whole farm’s nutrient balance as well as the sources of nutrient inputs is critical to identifyinga nutrient management strategy for reducing an imbalance and achieving an environmentally sustainable operation.

InstructionsThis balance is interested only in the nutrients that cross the border of the farm. It is not concerned with

nutrients recycled within the farm. For example, homegrown crops fed to animals raised on your farm will not beconsidered because they do not cross the farm’s boundary. Purchased feed products will be included because thisnutrient input crosses the farm’s boundary.

The boundary of the farm includes all owned or rented land that you farm (do not include land that is rented toothers) and all livestock production facilities. This nutrient balance is to be estimated for a one-year period.

For estimating Nutrient Inputs and Outputs, information is required on the total commodity weight and nutrientcontent (feeds, forages, crops, and fertilizers). If a nutrient concentration is unknown, please select a representativefeed, forage, or fertilizer value from the reference tables at the end of this appendix.

To assist with these calculations, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is available that can be downloaded at no costfrom the following website: http://manure.unl.edu/Koelsch-nbalance.html

http://manure.unl.edu/Koelsch-nbalance.html

21


C. Animal Products Outputs: For a one-year period, enter the quantity of animals sold and nutrient concentration ifyou have an analysis for your own animal products.

Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Pounds of Animal b. N c. P

Animal products Products Sold Factor = a x b Factor = a x c

Milk 0.00501 0.001

Eggs 0.0167 0.002

Wool 0.0012 0.0001

TOTAL

1Assumes 3.2% protein in milk. The nitrogen factor can be estimated as follows: Nitrogen Factor = % Crude Protein/638

I. Livestock and Poultry

A. Animal Inputs: For a one-year period, enter the number of animals purchased (including custom fed animals),their average live purchase weight, and the appropriate nutrient factor (Table 2A-1, page 26) .

b. Average Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Number Purchased c. Table 2A-1 Total= d. Table 2A-1 Total=

Animal Group of Animals Weight, lbs Fraction a x b x c Fraction a x b x d

Example: Calves 3,000 600 0.027 48,600 lbs 0.0073 13,100 lbs

1.

2.

3.

4.

TOTAL

B. Animal Outputs: For a one-year period, enter the number of animals sold or shipped off-farm, average live sellweight (include custom fed animals, culls, and mortality shipped off-farm).

b. Average Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Number Sell c. Table 2A-1 Total= d. Table 2A-1 Total=

Animal Group of Animals Weight, lbs Fraction a x b x c Fraction a x b x d

Example: Finish Cattle 2,800 1,250 0.024 84,600 lbs 0.0065 22,800 lbs

1.

2.

3.

4.

TOTAL

D. Change in Animal Inventory: (beginning vs. end of year). For those livestock groups that have changed innumbers fed from the beginning to the end of the year, indicate that change in inventory below.

January 1 December 31 Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Number b. Average c. Number d. Average e. Table Total= f. Table Total=

of Weight, of weight, 2A-1 (c x d x e)- 2A-1 (c x d x f)-

Animals lbs Animals lbs Fraction (a x b x e) Fraction (a x b x f)

Example 1,500 925 1,700 925 0.027 5,000 lbs 0.0065 1,2001.

2.

TOTAL

22


G. Change in Inventory: (beginning vs. end of year). If the inventory of any previously mentioned crop or animalfeed stored on farm has changed from the beginning to the end of the year, indicate that change in inventory below.

Crops and Feeds Stored on Farm Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Inventory on b. Inventory on c. Fraction DM d. Fraction CP Total= e. Fraction P Total=

List Jan. 1, lbs Dec. 31, lbs (% DM/100)1 (% CP/100) (b - a) x c x (% P/100) (b - a) x c x e

Crop/Feed Wet Weight Wet Weight d/6.25

Example: Corn 560,000 300,000 0.87 0.09 lbs. 3,300 lbs 0.0031 720 lbs

1.

2.

3.

TOTAL1If Fraction CP and Fraction P are reported on a dry matter basis, enter fraction DM. If Fraction CP and Fraction P are reported on a wetbasis (as fed basis), enter “1” for fraction DM. DM … Dry Matter CP … Crude Protein P … Phosphorus

Example: CP and P concentration were reported on a dry weight basis. Actual “Fraction DM” is entered (0.90) for calculation purposes.

II. Feeds, Forages, Grains, and Other Crops

E. Inputs: (include grain, supplement, forages, bedding, and minerals purchased). For a one-year period, list all feedpurchases, quantity purchased, fraction dry matter, nutrient concentrations if known (use Table 2A-3 if unknown).

All Purchased Feeds Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Pounds Sold, b. Fraction DM c. Fraction CP Total= d. Fraction P Total=

List Feed Wet Weight (% DM/100)1 (% CP/100) a x b x c/6.25 (% P/100) a x b x d

Example: Hay 200,000 1 0.19 6,100 lbs 0.0025 500 lbs

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TOTAL

Example: CP and P concentrations were reported on a wet weight or as-fed basis. “Fraction DM”is entered as 1 (see footnote) forcalculation purposes.

F. Outputs: (include grain, forages, and straw sold). Follow same directions as Inputs.

Crops and Feeds Sold Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Pounds Sold, b. Fraction DM c. Fraction CP Total= d. Fraction P Total=

List Feed Wet Weight (% DM/100)1 (% CP/100) a x b x c/6.25 (% P/100) a x b x d

Example: Soybeans 240,000 0.90 0.403 13,900 lbs 0.0065 1,400 lbs

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TOTAL

23


I. Outputs: (Manure, compost etc.). For a one-year period, list all fertilizers, manures, or other miscellaneousproducts sold, traded or given away and your best estimate of quantity involved. If nutrient content is known, enterthose concentrations. Manure quantity and nutrient concentrations should be reported on a wet weight basis.Phosphorus should be entered as elemental P, not P205. Convert to elemental P by dividing P2O5 by 2.29.

Nitrogen Phosphorus

Fertilizer, manure, and a. Amount b. N Total= c. P Total=

compost outputs Purchased, pounds Fraction a x b Fraction a x c

Example: Compost 100,000 0.012 1,200 lbs 0.008 800 lbs

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TOTAL

III. Fertilizer, Manure, and Miscellaneous Products

H. Fertilizer Inputs: (Dry, liquid, anhydrous, compost, etc.). For a one-year period, enter all fertilizer purchases fromoff-farm suppliers, quantity purchased, and nitrogen and phosphorus content. If nutrient contents areunknown, refer to Table 2A-2. Phosphorus should be entered as elemental P, not P205. Convert to elemental P bydividing P2O5 by 2.29.

Nitrogen Phosphorus

a. Amount b. N Total= c. P Total=

Fertilizer Inputs Purchased, pounds Fraction a x b Fraction a x c c c c c

Example: Conc. Super-phosphate 48,000 0 0 lbs 0.2 9,600 lbs

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TOTAL

1Assumes 3.2% protein in milk. The nitrogen factor can be estimated as follows: Nitrogen Factor = % Crude Protein/638

J. Change in Inventory: (beginning vs. end of year). If the inventory of any previously mentioned product haschanged from the beginning to the end of the year, indicate that change in inventory below.

Inventory on Nitrogen Phosphorus

Fertilizer, manure, a. b. c. N Total= d. P Total=

and compost January 1 December 31 Fraction (b - a) x (b-a) x c Fraction (b - a) x d

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TOTAL

24


L. Inputs as Nitrogen in Irrigation Water: List all irrigation wells, quantity of fresh water pumped, and nitrate-Nconcentration, if known. Do not include effluent from lagoon or feedlot runoff control pond.

Well a. PPM Nitrate-N b/ Acre-inches pumped Total = a x b x 0.2265

Example: Home well 15 1,700 5,800 lbs N

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TOTAL

IV. Miscellaneous Nitrogen Sources

K. Inputs as Legume Fixed Nitrogen: For all legumes not manured within the past two years, indicate acres grown,yield, and crude protein (CP) content (as fed or wet basis).

Assumptions

a. Acres not c. CP Fraction Legume Fixation

Crop Manured b. Yield (as fed) Total= Factor Factor

Example: Older legume hay crop 100 5 ton/ac 0.18 a x b x c x 192= 1 0.6

17,300 lbs N

1. 1st year hay crop(≥90% legume) tons/ac a x b c x 96= 1 0.3

2. 2nd year or older hay crop(≥90% legume) tons/ac a x b x c x 192= 1 0.6

3. 1st year hay crop (grass &legume mix: 25%-90% legume) tons/ac a x b x c x 58= 0.6 0.3

4. 2nd year or older hay crop (grass& legume mix: 25%-90% legume) tons/ac a x b x c x 115= 0.6 0.6

5. Soybeans bu/ac a x b x c x 3.8= 1 0.4

6. Dry edible beans bu/ac a x b x c x 3.8= 1 0.4

7. Other

TOTALLegume Factor: Portion of harvested crop crude protein from legumes. Fixation Factor: Portion of fixed nitrogen that originates from atmosphere.

25


Calculation of Balance

Instructions: To complete Nitrogen Balance and Phosphorus Balance, enter input and output values from previousfour pages. For example, “A” refers to Animal Inputs total from page 21.

Nitrogen Balance

Inputs

A

E

G

K

L

D

G

J

-

-

-

-

-

-

TOTALS:

Or RATIO of

lbs lbs

lbs

to

toInputs/ Outputs

Imbalance (environmental lossesand additions to soil storage)

ImbalanceInputs - Managed Outputs

Total Inputs Total Managed Outputs

1

B + C

F

H

D

G

J

Input Inventory Correction(if inventory increases)

ManagedOutputs

Output Inventory Correction(if inventory decreases)

Animals

Feed

Fertilizer

Legumes

Irrigation

Animals

Crops

Manure

Phosphorus Balance

Inputs

A

E

G

D

G

J

-

-

-

-

-

-

TOTALS:

Or RATIO of

lbs lbs

lbs

to

toInputs/ Outputs

Imbalance (environmental lossesand additions to soil storage)

ImbalanceInputs - Managed Outputs

Total Inputs Total Managed Outputs

1

B + C

F

H

D

G

J

Input Inventory Correction(if inventory increases)

ManagedOutputs

Output Inventory Correction(if inventory decreases)

Animals

Feed

Fertilizer

Animals

Crops

Manure

26


Table 2A-1. Nutrient concentration in meat animals.

Species Nitrogen Fraction Phosphorus Fraction

Beef cattle < 1,000 lbs 0.027 0.0073Beef cattle > 1,000 lbs 0.024 0.0065

Dairy cattle (replacement herd) 0.029 0.0083Dairy cattle (milking herd) 0.025 0.0072

Swine < 100 lbs 0.025 0.0056Swine 100 to 300 lbs 0.024 0.0047Swine > 300 lbs 0.023 0.0047

Poultry 0.028 0.0058

Goat 0.024 0.0060

Sheep 0.025 0.0060

Nitrogen and phosphorus fractions represent the fraction (elemental N or P) of live weight divided by 100.

Table 2A-2. Fertilizer nutrient concentration.

Product Nitrogen Fraction Phosphorus Fraction

Anhydrous ammonia 0.82 —

Aqua ammonia 0.20 —

Ammonium nitrate 0.34 —

Ammonium sulfate 0.21 —

Ammonium nitrate-sulfate 0.30 —

Urea 0.46 —

Urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) 0.28 —

Phosphoric acid — 0.24

Superphosphoric acid — 0.35

Ordinary superphosphate — 0.087

Concentrated superphosphate — 0.20

Ammonium phosphate-sulfate 0.16 0.087

Ammonium phosphate-nitrate 0.27 0.052

Monoammonium phosphate 0.11 0.23

Diammonium phosphate 0.18 0.20

Ammonium polyphosphate-liquid 0.10 0.15

Ammonium polyphosphate-dry 0.11 0.25

Nitrogen and phosphorus fractions represent the fraction (elemental N or P) of total commodity weight divided by100. To convert from P2O5 to P, divide P2O5 by 2.29.

27


Table 2A-3. NRC Feed Code Listing.

Fraction1 Fraction1

NCR Common Dry Crude Fraction2

Feed Name Matter Protein Phosphorus

101 Bahiagrass 30% Dry Matter 0.30 0.089 0.0022102 Bahiagrass Hay 0.90 0.082 0.0022103 Bermudagrass Late Vegetative 0.91 0.078 0.0018

104 Brome Hay Pre-bloom 0.88 0.160 0.0037105 Brome Hay Mid Bloom 0.88 0.144 0.0028106 Brome Hay late Bloom 0.91 0.100 0.0000

107 Brome Hay Mature 0.92 0.060 0.0022108 Fescue Meadow Hay 0.88 0.091 0.0029109 Fescue Alta Hay 0.89 0.102 0.0024

110 Fescue K31 Hay 0.91 0.150 0.0037111 Fescue K31 Hay Full Bloom 0.91 0.129 0.0032112 Fescue K31 Mature 0.91 0.108 0.0030

113 Napiergrass Fresh 30 day DM 0.20 0.087 0.0041114 Napiergrass Fresh 60 day DM 0.23 0.078 0.0041115 Orchardgrass Hay, Early Bloom 0.89 0.128 0.0034

116 Orchardgrass Hay, Late Bloom 0.91 0.084 0.0030117 Pangoliagrass Fresh 0.21 0.091 0.0022118 Red Top Fresh 0.29 0.116 0.0037

119 Reed Canarygrass Hay 0.89 0.103 0.0024120 Ryegrass Hay 0.88 0.086 0.0000121 Sorghum Sudan Hay 0.91 0.113 0.0031

122 Sorghum-Sudan Pasture 0.18 0.168 0.0044123 Sorghum-Sudan Silage 0.28 0.108 0.0021124 Timothy Hay Late Vegetative 0.89 0.140 0.0040

125 Timothy Hay Early Bloom 0.89 0.108 0.0029126 Timothy Hay Mid Bloom 0.89 0.097 0.0023127 Timothy Hay Full Bloom 0.89 0.081 0.0020

128 Timothy Hay Seed Stage 0.89 0.060 0.0000129 Wheatgrass Crest., Hay 0.92 0.090 0.0015135 Grass Pasture Spring 0.23 0.213 0.0045

136 Grass Pasture Summer 0.25 0.150 0.0000137 Grass Pasture Fall 0.24 0.220 0.0000138 Mix Pasture Spring 0.21 0.260 0.0000

139 Mix Pasture Summer 0.22 0.195 0.0000140 Range June Diet 0.20 0.110 0.0015141 Range July Diet 0.20 0.105 0.0015

142 Range August Diet 0.20 0.097 0.0015143 Range September Diet 0.20 0.069 0.0015144 Range Winter 0.80 0.047 0.0015

145 Meadow Spring 0.15 0.203 0.0015146 Meadow Fall 0.20 0.134 0.0015147 Meadow Hay 0.90 0.134 0.0015

148 Prairie Hay 0.91 0.053 0.0014201 Alfalfa Hay Early Vegetative 0.91 0.300 0.0033202 Alfalfa Hay Early Vegetative 0.91 0.234 0.0033

203 Alfalfa Hay Late Vegetative 0.91 0.270 0.0033204 Alfalfa Hay Late Vegetative 0.91 0.217 0.0033205 Alfalfa Hay Early Bloom 0.91 0.250 0.0022

206 Alfalfa Hay Early Bloom 0.91 0.199 0.0022207 Alfalfa Hay Mid Bloom 0.91 0.220 0.0022208 Alfalfa Hay Mid Bloom 0.91 0.170 0.0024

209 Alfalfa Hay Full Bloom 0.91 0.170 0.0024210 Alfalfa Hay Full Bloom 0.91 0.130 0.0024211 Alfalfa Hay Late Bloom 0.91 0.170 0.0024

1 Fraction Dry Matter is the percentage dry matter of total commodity weight divided by 100.Fraction Crude Protein and Fraction Phosphorus is indicated on a dry weight basis.

2 Fraction Phosphorus is indicated as elemental phosphorus.Source: National Research Council Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle 1996.

28


212 Alfalfa Hay Late Bloom 0.91 0.120 0.0024213 Alfalfa Hay Mature 0.91 0.140 0.0021214 Alfalfa Hay Seeded 0.91 0.120 0.0021

215 Alfalfa Hay Weathered 0.89 0.100 0.0023216 Alfalfa Meal Dehydrated 15%CP 0.90 0.173 0.0025217 Alfalfa Silage Early Bloom 0.35 0.195 0.0031

218 Alfalfa Silage Mid Bloom 0.38 0.170 0.0027219 Alfalfa Silage Full Bloom 0.40 0.160 0.0027220 Birdsfoot Trefoil, Hay 0.91 0.159 0.0023

221 Clover Ladino Hay 0.89 0.224 0.0033222 Clover Red Hay 0.88 0.150 0.0024223 Vetch Hay 0.89 0.208 0.0034

230 Leg Pasture Spring 0.20 0.280 0.0030231 Leg Pasture Summer 0.23 0.222 0.0030301 Barley Silage 0.39 0.119 0.0029

302 Barley Straw 0.91 0.044 0.0007303 Corn Cobs Ground 0.90 0.028 0.0004304 Corn Silage 25% Grain 0.29 0.083 0.0027

305 Corn Silage 25% Grain 0.29 0.083 0.0027306 Corn Silage 35% Grain 0.33 0.086 0.0027307 Corn Silage 40% Grain 0.33 0.092 0.0027

308 Corn Silage 40% GR + NPN 0.33 0.132 0.0027309 Corn Silage 40% GR + NPN + Ca 0.33 0.130 0.0027310 Corn Silage 45% Grain 0.34 0.087 0.0022

311 Corn Silage 45% GR + NPN 0.33 0.130 0.0027312 Corn Silage 45% GR + NPN + Ca 0.33 0.130 0.0027313 Corn Silage 50% Grain 0.35 0.080 0.0027

314 Corn Silage 50 + NPN + CA 0.35 0.130 0.0027315 Corn Silage Immature (no ears) 0.25 0.090 0.0031316 Corn Silage Stalklage 0.30 0.063 0.0000

317 Corn Stalks Grazing 0.50 0.065 0.0009318 Oat Silage Dough 0.36 0.127 0.0031319 Oat Straw 0.92 0.044 0.0006

320 Oat Hay 0.91 0.095 0.0025321 Sorghum Silage 0.30 0.094 0.0022322 Wheat Silage Dough 0.35 0.125 0.0029

323 Wheat Straw 0.89 0.035 0.0005401 Barley Malt Sprouts w/hulls 0.93 0.281 0.0068402 Barley Grain Heavy 0.88 0.132 0.0035

403 Barley Grain Light 0.88 0.140 0.0039404 Corn Hominy 0.90 0.115 0.0057405 Corn Grain Cracked 0.88 0.098 0.0032

406 Corn Dry Ear 45 lb/bu 0.86 0.090 0.0027407 Corn Dry Ear 56 lb/bu 0.87 0.090 0.0027408 Corn Dry Grain 45 lb/bu 0.88 0.098 0.0030

409 Corn Ground Grain 56 lb/bu 0.88 0.098 0.0031410 Corn Dry Grain 56 lb/bu 0.88 0.098 0.0031411 Corn Grain Flaked 0.86 0.098 0.0031

412 Corn HM Ear 56 lb/bu 0.72 0.090 0.0027413 Corn HM Grain 45 lb/bu 0.72 0.098 0.0030414 Corn HM Grain 56 lb/bu 0.72 0.098 0.0031

415 Cottonseed Black Whole 0.92 0.230 0.0062416 Cottonseed High Lint 0.92 0.244 0.0062417 Cottonseed Meal - Mech.. 0.92 0.440 0.0076

Table 2A-3. NRC Feed Code Listing (continued)

Fraction1 Fraction1





29


418 Cottonseed Meal - Sol - 41% CP 0.92 0.461 0.0116419 Cottonseed Meal - Sol - 43% CP 0.92 0.489 0.0076420 Molasses Beet 0.78 0.085 0.0003421 Molasses Cane 0.74 0.058 0.0010422 Oats 32 lb/bu 0.91 0.136 0.0030423 Oats 38 lb/bu 0.89 0.136 0.0041424 Rice Bran 0.90 0.144 0.0173425 Rice Grain Ground 0.89 0.089 0.0036426 Rice Grain Polished 0.89 0.086 0.0013427 Rye Grain 0.88 0.138 0.0036428 Sorghum, Dry Grain 0.89 0.116 0.0034429 Sorghum, Rolled Grain 0.90 0.126 0.0034430 Sorghum, Steam Flaked 0.70 0.120 0.0034431 Tapioca 0.89 0.031 0.0000432 Wheat Ground 0.89 0.142 0.0044433 Wheat Middlings 0.89 0.184 0.0100434 Wheat Grain Hard Red Spring 0.88 0.142 0.0042435 Wheat Grain Soft White 0.90 0.113 0.0033501 Brewers Grain 21% Dry Matter 0.21 0.260 0.0070502 Brewers Grain Dehydrated 0.92 0.292 0.0070503 Canola Meal 0.92 0.409 0.0120504 Coconut Meal 0.92 0.215 0.0021505 Corn Gluten Feed 0.90 0.238 0.0095506 Corn Gluten Meal 0.91 0.468 0.0051507 Corn Gluten Meal 60% CP 0.91 0.663 0.0061508 Distillers Grain + Solubles 0.25 0.295 0.0083509 Distillers Grain Dehydrated - Light 0.91 0.304 0.0140510 Distillers Grain Dehydrated - Interm. 0.91 0.304 0.0083511 Distillers Grain Dehydrated - Dark 0.91 0.304 0.0140512 Distillers Grain Dehydrated - Very Dk. 0.91 0.304 0.0140513 Distillers Grain Solubles Dehydrated 0.91 0.000 0.0140514 Distillers Grain Wet 0.25 0.297 0.0140515 Lupins 0.90 0.260 0.0044516 Peanut Meal 0.92 0.342 0.0066517 Soybean Meal - 44 0.89 0.499 0.0071518 Soybean Meal - 49 0.90 0.521 0.0071519 Soybean Whole 0.90 0.540 0.0065520 Soybean Whole Roasted 0.90 0.403 0.0065521 Sunflower Seed Meal 0.90 0.428 0.0102522 Urea 0.99 2.910 0.0000601 Apple Pomace 0.22 0.000 0.0011602 Bakery Waste 0.92 0.054 0.0024603 Beet Pulp + Steffen’s filt 0.91 0.090 0.0010604 Beet Pulp Dehydrated 0.91 1.000 0.0010605 Citrus Pulp Dehydrated 0.91 0.098 0.0013606 Grape Pomace 0.90 0.067 0.0017607 Soybean Hulls 0.91 0.000 0.0018701 Bloodmeal 0.90 0.938 0.0032702 Feather Meal 0.90 0.858 0.0068703 Fishmeal 0.90 0.679 0.0314704 Meat Meal 0.95 0.582 0.0434705 Tallow 0.99 0.000 0.0006706 Whey Acid 0.07 0.142 0.0071707 Whey Delact 0.93 0.179 0.0118


Fraction1 Fraction1





30


801 Ammonium Phos (Mono) 0.97 0.709 0.2474802 Ammonium Phos (Dibasic) 0.97 1.159 0.2060803 Ammonium Sulfate 1.00 1.341 0.0000

804 Bone Meal 0.97 0.132 0.1286805 Calcium Carbonate 1.00 0 0.0004806 Calcium Sulfate 0.97 0 0.0000

807 Cobalt Carbonate 0.99 0 0.0000808 Copper Sulfate 1.00 0 0.0000809 Dicalcium Phosphate 0.97 0 0.1930

810 EDTA 0.98 0 0.0000811 Iron Sulfate 0.98 0 0.0000812 Limestone 1.00 0 0.0002

813 Limestone Magnesium 0.99 0 0.0004814 Magnesium Carbonate 0.98 0 0.0000815 Magnesium Oxide 0.98 0 0.0000

816 Manganese Oxide 0.99 0 0.0000817 Manganese Carbonate 0.97 0 0.0000818 Mono-Sodium Phosphate 0.97 0 0.2250

819 Oystershell Ground 0.99 0 0.0007820 Phosphate Deflourinated 1.00 0 0.1800821 Phosphate Rock 1.00 0 0.1300

822 Phosphate Rock - Low Fl 1.00 0 0.1400823 Phosphate Rock - Soft 1.00 0 0.0900824 Phosphate Mono-Mono 0.97 0 0.2250

825 Phosphoric Acid 0.75 0 0.3160826 Potassium Bicarbonate 0.99 0 0.0000827 Potassium Iodide 1.00 0 0.0000

828 Potassium Sulfate 0.98 0 0.0000829 Salt 1.00 0 0.0000830 Sodium Bicarbonate 1.00 0 0.0000

831 Sodium Selenite 0.98 0 0.0000832 Sodium Sulfate 0.97 0 0.0000833 Zinc Oxide 1.00 0 0.0000

834 Zinc Sulfate 0.99 0 0.0000835 Potassium Chloride 1.00 0 0.0000836 Calcium Phosphate (Mono) 0.97 0 0.2160

837 Sodium TriPoly Phosphate 0.96 0 0.2500999 Minerals 0.99 0 0.0000

L-lysine.HCl 0.958 0.0000DL-methionine 0.958 0.0000




Fraction1 Fraction1



31


About the AuthorThis lesson was written by Rick Koelsch, Livestock Environmental Engineer, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

who can be reached at this e-mail address: [email protected]

References

Kellogg, R.L., C.H. Lander, D.C. Moffitt, and N. Gollehon. 2000. Manure nutrients relative to the capacity ofcropland and pastureland to assimilate nutrients: Spatial and temporal trends for the United States. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/manntr.pdf.

Klausner, S. 1995. Nutrient management planning. Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface. K. Steele (editor).Lewis Publishers: New York, 383-392.

Koelsch, R. and G. Lesoing. 1999. Nutrient Balance on Nebraska Livestock Confinement Systems. Journal of AnimalScience. Vol. 77(2/J): 63-71.

Lanyon, L.E. and D.B. Beegle. 1989. The role of on-farm nutrient balance assessments in an integrated approach onnutrient management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 44(2): 164-168.

Lanyon, L.E. and D.B. Beegle. 1993. A nutrient management approach for Pennsylvania: plant nutrient stocks andflows. Penn State Agronomy Facts 38-B.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2000. Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning TechnicalGuidance. Released November 24, 2000. Available from http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/ahcwpd/CNMPTG.pdf.

USDA and U.S. EPA. 1999. Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. Released March 9, 1999.Available from http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm.

GlossaryAnimal units. Commonly refers to 1,000 pounds of live animal weight. It is used to compare the relative animal

feeding operation population for different species.

Agronomic rate. Application of nutrients, typically nitrogen and phosphorus, at rates designed to be in balance withcrop nutrient needs.

Anaerobic. Microbial processes that occur in the absence of free oxygen.

Comprehensive nutrient management plan (CNMP). A complete “operating plan” for environmental managementof air, water, and soil resource under the stewardship of an animal feeding system.

Eutrophied. Designates a water body that has experienced an increase in the available nutrient, an environment thatfavors plant over animal life, and a reduced dissolved oxygen level.

Nutrient balance. A comparison of all nutrient inputs and output for a system and the identification of the resultingbalance or imbalance.

32


Sludge. Solid portion of manure that commonly accumulates in manure storages, anaerobic lagoons, and runoffholding ponds.

Volatilization. Compounds that evaporate readily at normal temperatures and pressures, such as ammonium, whichreleases into the atmosphere as ammonia gas.

Whole farm nutrient balance. A procedure for comparing all nutrient inputs and managed outputs for a total farmingoperation (including livestock and cropping enterprises) and identifying the resulting balance.

Index

AAgronomic rates, 31

CComprehensive nutrient

management plan (CNMP),16-18, 19

IImbalance, 8, 9-15Inputs, 8-10, 12-16

MManure

nutrients, 14, 15, 16treatment, 16

NNutrient

balance, 8-10, 11-16concentration, 5distribution, 5input, 12, 13

OOutputs, 8-10

F U N D I N GThis material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Agriculture Assistance Center; and the University of Nebraska CooperativeExtension, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, under Cooperative Agreement Number 97-EXCA-3-0642.

PPhosphorus (P), 5, 8, 10, 12, 17

RRegulatory compliance, 16, 17

WWhole Farm Nutrient Balance, 8-10

Click on road map toreturn to Contents.

33


ReviewersMany colleagues reviewed drafts of the Livestock and Poultry EnvironmentalStewardship curriculum and offered input over a two-year period. Thus, it isimpossible to list all reviewers; however, certain reviewers provided in-depthreviews, which greatly improved the curriculum’s overall quality, and pilottested the curriculum within their state. These reviewers, also members of theReview and Pilot Team, are listed below.

Ted FunkExtension SpecialistAgricultural EngineeringUniversity of Illinois

Carol GallowayUSEPA Ag CenterKansas City, KS

Mohammed IbrahimExtension SpecialistNorth Carolina A&T State University

Gary JacksonProfessor, Soil Science, and Director,National Farm*A*Syst ProgramUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison

Barry KintzerNational Environmental EngineerUSDA-NRCSWashington, D.C.

Rick KoelschLivestock Environmental EngineerUniversity of Nebraska

Deanne MeyerLivestock Waste Management SpecialistUniversity of California-Davis

Mark RisseExtension Engineer, Agricultural Pollution PreventionUniversity of Georgia

Peter WrightSenior Extension Associate, PRO-DAIRYCornell University

Finally, recognition must also be given to three individuals, members of theAccess Team, who helped determine the final appearance of the curriculumlessons: Don Jones, Purdue University; Jack Moore, MidWest Plan Service;and Ginah Mortensen, EPA Ag Center.

34


Mod

ule

B.

Ani

mal

Die

tary

Str

ateg

ies

10.

Red

uci

ng

th

e N

utr

ien

t E

xcre

tio

n a

nd

Od

or

of

Pig

s T

hro

ug

h N

utr

itio

nal

Mea

ns

11.

Usi

ng

Die

tary

an

d M

anag

emen

t S

trat

egie

sto

Red

uce

th

e N

utr

ien

t E

xcre

tio

n o

f Po

ult

ry12

.Fe

edin

g D

airy

Co

ws

to R

edu

ce N

utr

ien

tE

xcre

tio

n13

.U

sin

g D

ieta

ry S

trat

egie

s to

Red

uce

th

eN

utr

ien

t E

xcre

tio

n o

f Fe

edlo

t C

attl

e

Mod

ule

D.

Land

App

lica

tion

and

Nut

rien

tM

anag

emen

t30

.S

oil

Uti

lizat

ion

of

Man

ure

31.

Man

ure

Uti

lizat

ion

Pla

ns

32.

Lan

d A

pp

licat

ion

Bes

t M

anag

emen

tP

ract

ices

33.

Sel

ecti

ng

Lan

d A

pp

licat

ion

Sit

es34

.P

ho

sph

oru

s M

anag

emen

t fo

r A

gri

cult

ure

and

th

e E

nvi

ron

men

t35

.La

nd

Ap

plic

atio

n R

eco

rds

and

Sam

plin

g36

.La

nd

Ap

plic

atio

n E

qu

ipm

ent

Mod

ule

F.Re

late

d Is

sues

50.

Em

erg

ency

Act

ion

Pla

ns

51.

Mo

rtal

ity

Man

agem

ent

52.

Env

iro

nm

enta

l R

isk

and

Reg

ula

tory

Ass

essm

ent

Wo

rkb

oo

k

Mod

ule

C.M

anur

e St

orag

e an

dTr

eatm

ent

20.

Pla

nn

ing

an

d E

valu

atio

n o

fM

anu

re S

tora

ge

21.

Siz

ing

Man

ure

Sto

rag

e, T

ypic

alN

utr

ien

t C

har

acte

rist

ics

22.

Op

en L

ot

Ru

no

ff M

anag

emen

tO

pti

on

s23

.M

anu

re S

tora

ge

Co

nst

ruct

ion

and

Saf

ety,

New

Fac

ility

Co

nsi

der

atio

ns

24.

Op

erat

ion

an

d M

ain

ten

ance

of

Man

ure

Sto

rag

e Fa

cilit

ies

25.

Man

ure

Tre

atm

ent

Op

tio

ns

Mod

ule

E.O

utdo

or A

ir Q

uali

ty40

.E

mis

sio

n f

rom

An

imal

Pro

du

ctio

n S

yste

ms

41.

Em

issi

on

Co

ntr

ol

Str

ateg

ies

for

Bu

ildin

g S

ou

rces

42.

Co

ntr

olli

ng

Du

st a

nd

Od

or

fro

mO

pen

Lo

t Li

vest

ock

Fac

iliti

es43

.E

mis

sio

n C

on

tro

l S

trat

egie

sfo

r M

anu

re S

tora

ge

Faci

litie

s44

.E

mis

sio

n C

on

tro

l S

trat

egie

sfo

r La

nd

Ap

plic

atio

n

Live

stoc

k an

d Po

ultry

Env

ironm

enta

l Ste

war

dshi

p Cu

rric

ulum

: Les

son

Orga

niza

tion

Th

is c

urr

icu

lum

co

nsi

sts

of

27 le

sso

ns

arra

ng

ed in

to s

ix m

od

ule

s. P

leas

e n

ote

th

at t

he

curr

ent

less

on

is h

igh

ligh

ted

.

Mod

ule

A.

Intr

oduc

tion

1.P

rin

cip

les

of

En

viro

nm

enta

lS

tew

ard

ship

2.

Wh

ole

Fa

rm N

utr

ien

t P

lan

nin

g

LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Lesson 23 Lesson 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning By Rick...

Documents

Transcript of LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning Lesson 23 Lesson 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning By Rick...