Managing manure in no-till...No-till does not reduce odor Tillage can reduce leaching No-till can...

Managing manure in no-till

Peter KleinmanUSDA ARS

Douglas BeeglePenn State

Joel MyersUSDA-NRCS (retired)

Advantages to No-till

�� Reduced soil erosionReduced soil erosion

� More biological activity

� Moisture Conservation

� Better soil quality

� Residue on the surface

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Plow Chisel No-till

So

il L

oss

(t/

A)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Re

sid

ue

(%

)

Soil Loss Residue

Advantages to No-till

� Reduced soil erosion

�� More biological activityMore biological activity

� Moisture Conservation

� Better soil quality

� Residue on the surface

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Plow No-till

Ea

rth

wo

rms

/Ac

re

Advantages to No-till

� Reduced soil erosion

� More biological activity

�� Moisture ConservationMoisture Conservation

� Better soil quality

� Residue on the surface0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Plowed

bare

No-till

bare

No-till

40% cover

No-till

80% cover

Infi

ltra

tio

n (

in)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

May June July Aug SeptMo

nth

ly E

vap

ora

tio

n (

in) Conv. No-till

Advantages to No-till

� Reduced soil erosion

� More biological activity

� Moisture conservation

�� Better soil qualityBetter soil quality

� Residue on the surface

Advantages to No-till

� Reduced soil erosion

� More biological activity

� Moisture conservation

� Better soil quality

�� Residue on the surfaceResidue on the surface

What does this mean for nutrients?

N

Leaching

Volatilization Denitrification

Crop

Uptake

Runoff

Erosion

Runoff

Crop Uptake

LeachingErosion

P

Nutrient Management

� Not Incorporating manure

�� Increases ammonia Increases ammonia

volatilizationvolatilization

� Decreases the risk of P

loss with erosion

� Increases the risk of

dissolved P loss

� May impact nitrate

leaching

� More odor issues

0.50

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.20

0.70

0.60

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.75

0.50

0.45

0.30

0.15

Incorporation the same day

Incorporation within 1 day

Incorporation within 2-4 days

Incorporation within 5-7 days

Incorporation after 7 days

or no incorporation

Other

Manure

Swine

Manure

Poultry

Manure

Nitrogen Availability Factor

Planned Manure Application

Management

From Penn State Agronomy Guide

Nutrient Management� Not Incorporating

manure

� Increases ammonia

volatilization

�� Decreases the risk of P Decreases the risk of P

loss with erosionloss with erosion

� Increases the risk of

dissolved P loss

� May impact nitrate

leaching

� More odor issues

1980 1985 1990 1995

Conventional

till wheat

Converted

to no-till

Total P

mg/L

6

4

2

0

Erosion reduced 95%

Nutrient Management

� Not Incorporating manure

� Increases ammonia

volatilization

� Decreases the risk of P loss

with erosion

�� Increases the risk of Increases the risk of

dissolved P lossdissolved P loss

� May impact nitrate leaching

� More odor issues

Conventional

till wheat

1980 1985 19951990

Dis

solv

ed P

, m

g/L

0.5

1.0

0

Converted

to no-till

Nutrient Management

� Not Incorporating manure

� Increases ammonia

volatilization

� Decreases the risk of P loss

with erosion

� Increases the risk of

dissolved P loss

�� May impact nitrate May impact nitrate

leachingleaching

� More odor issues

Conventional

till wheat

1980 1985 19951990N

itra

te, m

g/L

30

20

10

0

Infiltration increased 33%

Converted

to no-till

Nutrient Management

� Not Incorporating manure

� Increases ammonia

volatilization

� Decreases the risk of P

loss with erosion

� Increases the risk of

dissolved P loss

� May impact nitrate

leaching

�� More odor issuesMore odor issues

� Tillage reduces N volatilization

� No till increases N volatilization

� Tillage increases erosion P loss

� No-till reduces erosion P loss

� Tillage reduces dissolved P loss

� No-till increases dissolved P loss

� Tillage reduces odor

� No-till does not reduce odor

� Tillage can reduce leaching

� No-till can increase leaching

To till or not to till,

that is the question . . .”

Research Questions:

� Is there a way to get the benefits of manure incorporation and retain the benefits of no-till?

� What are the tradeoffs?

Manure Application

� No-till & Injection

� Mutually exclusive?

6000 gal/A Dairy Manure

Liquid manure injection

Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay

WatershedWatershed

State College, PA

Princess Anne, MD

Shallow disk

Aeration

infiltrationHigh pressure

Chisel Broadcast

After Application

Shallow Disk Surface

High Pressure Aerator

After Application

Shallow

Disk

High Pressure Aerator

Surface

Impacts of alternative manure

application methods in no-till

� Nutrient availability to crops

� N Volatilization

� N Leaching

� P Runoff

� P Erosion

� Odor

� Economics

Ammonia Volatilization Measurements

No

man

ure

Plo

wed

inPre

ssur

e in

j.D

isk

inj.

Aer

atio

nBro

adca

st

Am

monia

-N L

oss

Most

Least

Evidence from existing studies –

NH3 loss� Aerway SSD vs. Broadcast

~50% decrease (Bittman et al., 2003)

� Norwegian Pressure Injector (DGI) vs. Broadcast

~60% decrease (Morken and Sakshaug, 1995)

� Shallow disk vs. Broadcast

~70% decrease (Misselbrook et al., 2002)

� Knife Injector vs. Broadcast

No difference, low emissions (Hanna, 2000)

Nitrate Leaching Measurements

Nitra

te-N

Loss

No

man

ure

Plo

wed

inPre

ssur

e in

j. D

isk

inj.

Aer

atio

n

Bro

adca

st

Most

Least Not

availa

ble

Evidence from existing studies –

NO3 leaching� Knife Injector vs. Broadcast

~20% increase in leaching due to deep injection (Weslien et al., 1998)

Rainfall simulations to measure P and

Sediment runoff

National P Project Protocol

Plot Scale Issues?

Rainfall simulations to measure P and

Sediment runoff

Field runoff plots with natural rainfall

Sunken runoff collection house

Earthen berm perimeter

To

tal P

ho

spho

rus R

un

off

No

man

ure

Plo

wed

inPre

ssur

e in

j.D

isk

inj.

Aer

atio

nBro

adca

st

Most

Least

To

tal P

ho

spho

rus R

un

off

No

man

ure

Plo

wed

inPre

ssur

e in

j.D

isk

inj.

Aer

atio

nBro

adca

st

Most

Least

A lot of runoff, “clean” Low

runoff, turbid

Moderate runoff, some

dissolved

and part. P

Almost no runoff, high

dissolved

P

Low runoff, high

dissolved

P

High runoff, some

diss. P

Odor intensity

Oh that “dairy air”

After chisel plowing

Penn State odor panel

100’

Most intense

Least intense

Brandt, R.C. and H.A. Elliott. Dept. Agr. & Bio. Engin., Penn State Univ.

No

man

ure

Plo

wed

inPre

ssur

e in

j.D

isk

inj.

Aer

atio

nBro

adca

st

Od

or

inte

nsity

1 hour after application

Evidence from existing studies –

Odor� Aerway SSD vs. Broadcast

~75% decrease (Bittman et al., 2003)

� Knife Injector vs. Broadcast

~40% decrease (Hanna, 2000)

� Unknown Injector vs. Broadcast

~75% decrease (Lorimor, 1998)

Indexing for site specific concerns

Least

Most

Aerator

Pressure

injection

Least

Most

Nitrate NH3

N losses P losses

Odor

Shallow

disk

Least

Most

Integrated Farming Systems Model (IFSM)

� Evaluation of different manure application technologies.

� Economics

� Time and labor

� Constraints to adoption

Modeling feasibility of adoption

� Adoption Costs vs. Environmental Benefits

Costs of

adopting

technology

$$$$$$$

Time

Competing objectives

Benefits of technology

Lower ammonia loss

Erosion control

Decreased runoff

Less Odor

Integrated Farming System Model

(IFSM)

Expected outcome

� Site specific recommendations for manure application equipment

� Optimizing environmental benefits while addressing local needs/constraints

� Transfer of new technologies for manure injection

� Improve P Index

� No-till

� Manure application methods

� Standardized approach to testing field BMPs

Acknowledgements

� USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants

� PDA Ag Research Grants

� USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit

� Penn State Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

� Project Personnel� Pete Kleinman

� Doug Beegle

� John Schmidt

� Curt Dell

� Andrew Sharpley

� Keisha Johnson

� Randy Bowersox

� Lou Saporito

� Bart Moyer

� Sarah Marshal

� Mike Reiner

� David Otto

Summary

� Conflicts exist between manure management and no-till

� Compromise is usually required

� Prioritize concerns

� New technologies may improve the tradeoffs