1) The document discusses lessons learned from implementing nutrient management plans (NMPs) as part of the Pleasant Valley Project in Wisconsin. It found that farmer buy-in and understanding of NMPs is key for success. When farmers were more involved in planning and understood why changes were needed, they were more likely to follow and value their NMP. 2) Another key lesson was that including all stakeholders (farmers, consultants, agencies) in planning helped address issues and ensure expectations were clear. When consultants were not involved initially, many plan revisions were needed later. 3) While direct water quality impacts could not be determined, signs of success included 93% of farmers making changes and reductions seen in a phosph

1. Role of the P Index in Conservation Targeting and
Nutrient Management Planning:
Lessons learned from the Pleasant Valley Project
Laura Ward Good, Dept. of Soil Science, U. Wisconsin‐Madison.
Kim Meyer, Nutrient and Pest Management Program, U. W.‐ Madison
Jim Leverich, UW‐Extension
Photo: M Godfrey

2. Wisconsin P Index
Estimates average annual P
lb/acre/year delivered to surface
water from field
Developed for use in Nutrient Management Planning, uses “conservative” assumptions
Photo: M Godfrey

3. SnapPlus
RUSLE2
P Index calculator P Index:
Rotation Average
Annual
Dissolved
Particulate
Nutrient application
calculator
County
Soil Test P and
Organic Matter
Field Slope
Field Slope Length
Tillage
Rotation crops and
yields
Manure Applications
P Fertilizer
Applications
Downfield Slope to
Surface Water
Soil Type
Distance to Surface
Water
Soil Type
Phosphorus
Index

4. SnapPlus NM PlanCounty
Soil Test P and
Organic Matter
Field Slope
Field Slope Length
Tillage
Rotation crops and
yields
Manure Applications
P Fertilizer
Applications
Downfield Slope to
Surface Water
Soil Type
Distance to Surface
Water
Soil Type
Nutrient
recommendations
Manure and legume
credits
Fertilizer needs
Checks that applications
meet surface and
groundwater protections
Maintain a rotational PI
of 6 or less and an
annual PI of 12 or less
Must meet T on
all fields
RUSLE2
P Index calculator
Nutrient application
calculator
Phosphorus
Index

5. Beyond NMPs:
Other uses of P Index and SnapPlus
Identifying high P
runoff risk fields
Identifying alternative
managements
Quantifying P loss reductions (P Trade Report)
Fall chisel in
10,000 gal/acre
dairy manure
5 T/a/yr erosion
No till, fall apply
10,000 gal/acre
dairy manure
2 T/a/yr erosion

6. How did Nutrient Management
Planning work as a targeted
conservation practice?
Pleasant Valley Project Question

7. • Goal of the survey: to determine the farmers opinion
of nutrient management (NM) and whether or not
they viewed NM as a useful tool on their farm
• Survey participation: 16 of 22 farmers participated in
the survey
• Contacted ‘non‐participating’ farmers to get their
take on NM (2 of the 16 farmers)
Farmer Survey

8. Questions:
1. Are you following your Nutrient Management
Plan (NMP)?
2. What, if any, changes have you made to your
operation since implementing the NMP?
3. If you hired a consultant to complete your NMP,
did they go over it with you?
4. Do you value your NMP as a useful management
tool on your farm?
Farmer Survey

9. 1. Most farmers were following their NMP – 86%
• Barriers to implementation included
impracticalities in the plan, such as location of
scheduled winter manure applications
2. Most farmer made changes to their operation
because of the plan – 93%
• Changes include:
a) Less tillage
b) Adjustments to their cropping rotation
c) Amount, location, or timing of manure or
fertilizer applications
d) Integration of winter forage crops into their
system
Farmer Survey‐Responses

10. Farmer Survey‐Responses
3. Most consultants went over the plan with the
farmer to some degree
• Some items covered:
a) Soil test results
b) Manure and/or fertilizer plan
c) Suggestions for change
*MOST farmers relied heavily on the consultant to
implement the majority of fertilizer plan

11. Farmer Survey‐Responses
4. Most farmers saw the plan as a useful tool in the
beginning
• BUT after making the necessary changes to their
operation some didn’t see the value in having an
updated plan every year
• Grain farmers vs Dairy farmers perspective
Dairy farmers saw the value in annual updates as
they have additional variables to deal with such
as manure

12. Overall trend viewed during the survey:
The more involved the farmer was with the planning
process, the more they understood about the NMP
and WHY they needed to make certain changes
Lessons Learned
Personal
Buy‐in to
the NMP is
Key

13. Lessons Learned
Locally lead conservation is a good thing!
Warning: the speed of change when conducting such a
project can turn off potential farmer participants

14. Lessons Learned
1. Increased workload is inevitable, be prepared
• Time frame for cost‐share sign‐up was extremely
short which required more hours from agency
staff
• When using a field scale planning tool such as
SnapPlus, tracking changes takes a lot of time
• Consider the extra time required of the
project coordinators and farmers
• Farming is variable, so adjustments will
always need to be made to reflect real‐world
changes

15. 2. Include all players in the planning process
a) County, NRCS
b) Farmers
c) Farmer’s Consultants
• Likely due to the quick sign‐up period, the
farmer’s consultants where not included in
the conversation, and expectations where not
communicated
• This lead to many changes and revisions to
the NMP’s after they were completed
Lessons Learned

16. Lessons Learned
3. Education is invaluable
• The more educated the farmer was on the
concepts of NM and saw why they were
important  the more likely they were to adopt
and follow the plan
• Once they understood the NMP they were
able to see how the NMP could benefit their
farming operation
• No longer viewed the plan just as a
government requirement but also as a
valuable on‐farm management tool

17. Lessons Learned
Farmer Success Story
Mark Keller operates a 300 cow dairy
along with his brother Tim. Mark
took ownership of the nutrient
management plan on their farm and
learned the SnapPlus program. He
used the program to test out various
cropping scenarios that had a positive
conservation benefit and that would
work well with their current farming
operation.
Photo: L. Betts

18. How did NM work as a targeted
conservation practice?
Signs of Success
• 93% of farmers made changes to their operation
because of their nutrient management plan
• The gauge shows progress in the reduction of P
loading
Even though the effects of Nutrient Management on the
overall change in water quality can not be determined,
farmers are making changes and moving in a positive
direction towards better conservation
Personal Buy‐In
to the Nutrient Management Plan is KEY