Efforts at Solving the Agricultural Non-Point Pollution Challenge, Dennis Frame, PhD, 9/2010

8/8/2019 Efforts at Solving the Agricultural Non-Point Pollution Challenge, Dennis Frame, PhD, 9/2010

1/45

Efforts at solving the

Agricultural Non-PointPollution Challenge

Dennis R. FrameCo Director

UW Discovery Farms


2/45

Topics for this session

What is the agricultural challenge

Amounts of sediment and phosphoruscoming from agricultural fields

How to engage producers

How to better collaborate to solve the P

challenge


3/45


What is theAgricultural

Challenge


4/45

Why is nonpoint source pollution difficult tocorrect?

Little baseline information:Guessing at the source decreases the chances of correcting the problem

Intensive field and stream monitoringDuring base flow and storm runoff periodsSample for key constituentsDetermines not only concentrations but also totalvolumes


5/45


Success is often based on changes in waterquality collected at the mouth of the stream.

Losses are estimated up the watershed basedon established models (SWAT, APEX).

Farms are assumed to have similar losses andreductions in loss.


6/45


However, we know that all farms havedifferent losses which vary depending on:

Physical settingWeatherCropFarming systems


7/45


8/45


Producers have adopted a farming systemthat they believe protects theenvironment.

Producers use data and information all thetime to improve management decisions.

Producers have to believe your data andunderstand how they fit into the solution.


9/45

UW Discovery Farms


10/45


11/45

Locations of Discovery

Farms Projects1 Beef 1 Swine odor3 Poultry-stacking

2 dairy grazing

1 dairy -grazing/organic

6 dairy -

confinement


12/45


13/45


14/45

Surface Water

Tile Water


15/45

the brains of the operation

Meteorological data:precipitation, wind speed anddirection, air temperature, solarradiation, relative humidity, soilmoisture and temperature

7 1 4


16/45

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6/16/0418:30

6/16/0419:00

6/16/0419:30

6/16/0420:00

6/16/0420:30

6/16/0421:00

6/16/0421:30

6/16/0422:00

6/16/0422:30

6/16/0423:00

6/16/0423:30

6/17/04 0:00

S t a g e i n f e e t , D i s c h a r g e i n c f s

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

C u m u l a t i v e P r e c i p i t a t i o n

, i n i n c h e s

StageDischarge

SampleStorm Rain

Suspendedsediment

Total dissolvedsolids

TKN

Ammonium

Nitrate

Total P

Dissolved

reactive P

Chloride

Total Nitrogen

Organic Nitrogen

Constituent list


17/45


How muchsediment and

phosphorus


18/45

Major factors:Frozen and snow covered soilsNon-frozen soil with high soil moisture >30%

It depends on location in the state

Soil typeSlope

It depends on farming systemGrazingNo-tillMinimum tillage

Surface water versus tile drainage

How much runoff?


19/45

26 Farm Years of data 2003 2008

Average annual runoff was 2.5

Average runoff as a percent of annual

precipitation: 8%Tendency for higher percentages atthe northeast farms

Annual precipitation was not a goodindicator of annual runoff.


20/45

Distribution of Runoff On average, runoff

volumes were nearlyequally distributedbetween frozen andnon-frozen periods.

In any one year, frozenground contributed upto 100% of annualrunoff.

Because of this

distribution, it isimportant to focus oncauses/timing of runoff during both periods.

Distribution of Annual Runoff Edge-of-Field Stations

Non-frozenground

46%

Frozenground

54%

Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations,Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 2003 8,publication pending


21/45

Timing Critical Runoff Periods

Mean-MonthlyRunoff

Mean-Monthly Runoffas a Percentage of

Annual RunoffRunoff

FrequencyTotal

Precip

Mean-Monthly Runoffas a Percentage of Total

Precip

October 0.07 3% 23% 2.32 3%

November 0.02


22/45

Decisions Matter!

Two Adjacent Fields.Dairy manure applied to one field (above)No manure applied to the other field (below)


23/45

Frozen ground: 80%, Non-Frozen Ground: ~ 20%Of the frozen ground runoff, about has occurredin February and March.

Of the non-frozen ground runoff:83% occurred when soils were Wet

(>35%)10% occurred when soils were Medium (25 -35%)7% occurred when soils were Dry (


24/45

Field ConditionsExample: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008)

5%

29%

34%32%

Frozen Days

"Low" Moisture Days

"Medium" Moisture Days

"High" Moisture Days


25/45

How much rain does it take to produce runoff for a given soil condition?

Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

35% (high) Frozen

Soil Condition

R a

i n f a l l

, i n c

h e

s

35% (high)

Frozen

Focus on the minimum rainfall needed to produce runoff


26/45

Soil Loss / Sediment Delivery

Our Discovery Farms are doing an excellent jobcontrolling sediment delivery.

Farms include minimum tillage, no-till, direct plantand grazing systems.

Sediment delivery is low for field sites, need towork on the relationship to stream sites.

Install grass waterways in areas of concentrated flow.

Identify problem fields/sites.


27/45

Suspended sediment losses (yields)

0500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

S W 1 , 2 0 0 5

S W 1 , 2 0 0 6

S W 1 , 2 0 0 7

S W 2 , 2 0 0 4

S W 2 , 2 0 0 5

S W 2 , 2 0 0 6

S W 2 , 2 0 0 7

S W 2 , 2 0 0 8

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 3

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 4

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 5

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 6

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 7

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 8

S E 1 , 2 0 0 6

S E 1 , 2 0 0 7

S E 1 , 2 0 0 8

N E 1

, 2 0 0 4

N E 1

, 2 0 0 5

N E 1

, 2 0 0 6

N E 1

, 2 0 0 7

N E 1

, 2 0 0 8

N E 2

, 2 0 0 5

N E 2

, 2 0 0 6

N E 2

, 2 0 0 7

N E 2

, 2 0 0 8

S u s p e n d e d s e d i m e n t y i e l d , i n p o u n d s p e r a c r e

Non-frozen ground

Frozen ground

Mean


28/45

A erage ann al ields of total phosphor s


29/45

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

S W 1 , 2 0 0 5

S W 1 , 2 0 0 6

S W 1 , 2 0 0 7

S W 2 , 2 0 0 4

S W 2 , 2 0 0 5

S W 2 , 2 0 0 6

S W 2 , 2 0 0 7

S W 2 , 2 0 0 8

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 3

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 4

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 5

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 6

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 7

P i o n e e r , 2 0 0 8

S E 1 , 2 0 0 6

S E 1 , 2 0 0 7

S E 1 , 2 0 0 8

N E 1

, 2 0 0 4

N E 1

, 2 0 0 5

N E 1

, 2 0 0 6

N E 1

, 2 0 0 7

N E 1

, 2 0 0 8

N E 2

, 2 0 0 5

N E 2

, 2 0 0 6

N E 2

, 2 0 0 7

N E 2

, 2 0 0 8

T o t a l p h o s p h o r u s y i e l d

, i n p o u n d s p e r a c r e

Non-Frozen GroundFrozen GroundMean

Average annual yields of total phosphorus,by farm and year, 2003 8.

Distribution of event mean total P concentration 2003 08


30/45

Distribution of event-mean total P concentration 2003 - 08

Average annual phosphorus yields (lbs/acre) and


31/45

Dissolvedreactive

phosphorusNon-Frozen,

0.42, 21%

ParticulatephosphorusFrozen, 0.22,

11%

Dissolvedreactive

phosphorusFrozen, 0.60,30%

Particulatephosphorus

Non-Frozen,0.74, 38%

Average annual phosphorus yields (lbs/acre) andpercent of total, by ground condition, 2003 08


32/45


33/45


How to EngageProducers


34/45

Stay Focused On Goals

What are you trying to achieve?

Graduate students, published papers

Promote programs, practices or regulations

Work with farmers to identify what ishappening on their farms. If their farm hasnegative impacts, work with them to identifysolutions.


35/45

People Must Trust You/Program

You are sincerely interested in their farm.

You want to help them resolve anyenvironmental issues and remain profitable.

You respect their farming system and seek tofind acceptable alternatives to their currentfarming practices.


36/45

Be Open and Honest

Participants need to know that you aregoing to use the data correctly.

However, you must show all the data andmake sure that you can put it into contextas it relates to their farming system andgeophysical settings.


37/45


How to bettercollaborate to solve

the P challenge


38/45

Collaboration

Water quality cannot be improvedwithout everyone being involvedand being part of the solution.

Every acre counts!

Every source matters!!!


39/45

Collaboration

Focusing on one portion of theproblem causes people to getdefensive:

Septic systemsBarnyards

FieldsNon-farmed landPoint sources


40/45

Milwaukee RiverWatershed

Map provided by:Clean-water.uwex.edu/milwaukee


41/45

Milwaukee River Project

Sand County Foundation is workingin the Milwaukee River Watershedto identify agricultural sources.

Discovery Farms is working withthem on the project.


42/45


Counties are important partners inthis project.

Municipalities are importantpartners.

Other NGOs are welcome.


43/45


Local state and federal agencieshave to be engaged:

DNRDATCPLCDsUW Extension


44/45


Producers have to be engaged inthe identification of practices thatcan reduce losses:

Have to fit into farming system

Have to fit into beliefs and values


45/45

Documents

Efforts at Solving the Agricultural Non-Point Pollution Challenge, Dennis Frame, PhD, 9/2010