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
MODULE A Introduction
5
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
58 ton N/yr7.4 ton P/yr
29.2 ton N/yr2.6 ton P/yr
430 ton N/yr120 ton P/yr
15 ton N/yr3.0 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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
(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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
21
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
NCR Common Dry Crude Fraction2
Feed Name Matter Protein Phosphorus
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.
29
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
Table 2A-3. NRC Feed Code Listing (continued)
Fraction1 Fraction1
NCR Common Dry Crude Fraction2
Feed Name Matter Protein Phosphorus
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.
30
MODULE A Introduction
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
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.
Table 2A-3. NRC Feed Code Listing (continued)
Fraction1 Fraction1
NCR Common Dry Crude Fraction2
Feed Name Matter Protein Phosphorus
31
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
LESSON 2 Whole Farm Nutrient Planning
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
MODULE A Introduction
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
Top Related