Canadian Livestock Producers Efforts to Improve Water Quality - Christine Brown, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, from the 2020 Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference, held March 3-4, 2020, Ada, OH, USA.

1. Ontario Livestock Producer Efforts to
Improve Water Quality
Conservation Tillage Conference – Ada Ohio, March 3, 2020

2. Outline
o Agriculture in Ontario, Canada
o The Issues around Water Quality
o Manure’s impact on source water (drinking water)
o Manure’s impact on surface water
o Winter manure application
o Moving ahead with common solutions
o The impact of 4R
o On-farm solutions

5. Agriculture in Ontario
o Large urban influence – only 2%
farmers
o 20% of farms product 80% of
commodities
o Manure storages & size
o Manure composition
o Application rates
o Municipal amendments

6. Ontario Nutrient Management:
Regulated Farms
o Farms over 300 nutrient units
o Farms in source water protection zones
o Farms requiring a building permit need NM strategy
o Nutrient management plan – 5 yr prediction
o Phosphorus & nitrogen application limits
o 70 lbs/ac P over crop removal; max 200 lbs N
o Separation distance from water sources
o Restricted winter application

7. Water Quality Issues – Surface Water

8. What’s happening to our Soils?
Impact of rain on poorly structured soils – lack of infiltration
capacity – Runoff with potential for P movement

9. Particulate phosphorus movement

10. Particulate phosphorus movement

11. “30% cover 100 % of the time”

12. Non Growing Season Soil and Nutrient Loss
“Snirt” 9.5 % SOM; P 42 ppm; K 208 ppm
Field: 3.2% SOM; P 11 ppm; K 80 ppm
“Snirt” Oxford

13. Water Quality & Surface Water
Organic matter decline leads to:
o Decreased aggregate stability = Increased erosion
o Decreased water holding capacity
o Increased drought and flooding
o Decreased crop yields in stressed areas

14. Ontario Soil Organic Matter Trends 2002-2018
All Ontario compared to Southwestern Ontario (Essex, Kent, Lambton)
(from agricultural soil samples – curtesy of SGS)
317,254 total samples (~47,000 new added 2017-18)

15. Dr. Bill Deen’s work:
Rotation2 Estimated Carbon
Sequestration
Estimated Time3 to increase SOM
1%
lbs/acre/year years
C-C-C-C --- ---
C-C-Sb-Sb - 240 Not possible with only rotation
C-C-Sb-W 425 81
C-C-Sb-Wrc 555 62
C-C-A-A 945 36
A-A-A-A 1,680 21
1 extrapolated information using “Cost efficient rotation and tillage options to sequester carbon and
mitigate GHG emissions from agriculture in E. Canada”, Meyer-Aurich, A., Janovicek, K., Deen, B.,
Weersink, A., 2006
2 C=Corn, Sb=Soybean, W=Wheat, Wrc=Wheat underseeded Red Clover; A=Alfalfa
3 Assumes 58% of SOM is made up of organic carbon
Importance of
Rotation

16. What’s different?

17. Change in Livestock Density over Time

18. Socio-Economic Changes over Time
Socio-Economic Changes over Time

19. Rotation vs manure application options

20. 1955 1975
1999
2013
20 small fields 13 medium fields
Fencerows removed
Random tile drainage 1 field, 1 crop, systematic drainage
Impact of Field Size and Crop Rotation over Time

21. 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept
Monthly Precipitation for the 2017 Water Year (Oct
2016 - Sept 2017)
Station CAN-ON-475 :…
Monthly Precipitation (inches)
October 2016 – Sept 2019
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept
MonthlyPrecipitation(inches)
Monthly Precipitation for the 2018 Water Year (Oct 2017
- Sept 2018)
Station CAN-ON-475 :…
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept
MonthlyPrecipitation(inches)
Monthly Precipitation for the 2019 Water Year (Oct 2018 - Sept 2019)
Station CAN-ON-475 : Belmont 3.8…
2016-17 2017-18
2018-19

22. Water Quality Issues – Source Water
Leaching
Factors Influencing Leaching of Nitrogen
• Concentration of P in soil
• Downward movement of
water
Leaching of Phosphorus
• Concentration of Nitrate in soil
• Downward movement of water
the downward movement of a nutrient with water in the soil matrix

23. Drainage Water and Nutrient Pathways
Dissolved P
Particulate P
Graphic Source: adapted from Radcliffe et al, 2015

24. Preferential Flow:
Manure Moving Through Soil
Macropores
Tile drain

25. • ↑ risk for agri P loss is in non-growing season (Nov – April)
• Intense rainfall during this period increasing with climate change
• Over 80% of P loss can occur during this period
Non Growing Season P Loss

26. Disolved
Reactive P
Total P
Tile
Surface
Source: C. Van Esbroeck –
Thesis U. of Waterloo
Surface Water Quality Goal
30 ppb or 0.03 mg/L Total P
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
mgDRP/L
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
mgTP/L
Maitland Thames Essex
P Concentrations in Tile and Surface Runoff

27. Manure on Frozen or Snow Covered Soil

28. Winter Phosphorus Losses

29. Manure on Frozen or Snow Covered Soil

30. Zone of soil-water
interaction (1-5 cm)
Dissolved P from
soil solution
Particulate P from
eroded soil particles
Tile Flow
Infiltration / percolation?

31. Liquid Loading
frozen = no
infiltration
All soils have “High”
runoff potential

32. Solids Applied on Frozen/Snow Covered Soil
Water has to go somewhere……. 5 mm rain = 4,500 gal/ac
Beef manure @ 10 ton/ac = 206 N – 170 P2O5 – 178 K2O (total lbs/ac)
Biosolids pellets @ 3 ton/ac = 196 N – 285 P2O5 – 14 K2O

33. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement - a 40% reduction
of Phosphorus entering the western-central basins of
Lake Erie is needed to improve Lake health
• Thames River and Leamington tributaries are Canadian
priorities to reduce localized algal bloom issues
• The Premier of Ontario and Governors of Michigan and
Ohio signed a Collaborative Agreement on June 13, 2015
• 40% reduction of Phosphorus to western basin by 2025,
(interim reduction target of 20% by 2020)

34. Potential Nutrient Losses from Manure
Nitrogen (N)
Ammonium Volatilization
Nitrate Leaching
Nitrogen loss through preferential flow
Phosphorus (P)
Particulate P through soil erosion
Soluable P through surface runoff
Soluable and Particulate P through tile
Soluable P Leaching when soil test P is high (>~35 ppm)

35. P Losses from Manure Application
 P loss occurs through runoff and soil erosion
 P contributes to algae blooms – poor water quality
 P risk from manure is  from applications during non-growing
season
 High P fertility AND highly erodible soils  environmental risk
 Material incorporation reduces risk (can be minimum tillage)
 Winter surface application on frozen soils = high risk of P movement

36. Right rate
• Uniform application
• Frequent analysis - nutrient content (pH)
• Calibrate equipment - apply rate to meet crop needs
Right application timing
• Apply in spring or into growing crops
• After cereal harvest apply with cover crop
• After corn harvest manure should be incorporated
Right field
• Select crop that needs the nutrients
• Ensure field soil conditions maximize infiltration / minimize runoff
Right placement
• Rapid incorporation/injection to minimize ammonium-N volatilization
• Avoid concentrated deep placement to minimize leaching /movement to tile
Right storage management
• Permanent cover helps eliminate storage N losses
• Runoff management of temporary storages (fields)
BMPs (4Rs) for Manure Nutrient Management
Right rate
• Uniform application
• Frequent analysis - nutrient content (pH)
• Calibrate equipment - apply rate to meet crop needs
Right application timing
• Apply in spring or into growing crops
• After cereal harvest apply with cover crop
• After corn harvest (manure should be incorporated)
Right field
• Select crop that needs the nutrients
• Ensure field soil conditions maximize infiltration / minimize
runoff
Right placement
• Rapid incorporation/injection to minimize ammonium-N
volatilization
• Avoid concentrated deep placement to minimize leaching
/movement to tileRight storage management
• Permanent cover helps eliminate storage N losses
• Runoff management of temporary storages (fields)

37. 41
Ohio Current Ontario NMA
Who is restricted in
applying nutrients in the
winter?*
All agricultural operations in
Western Lake Erie Basin only
(regardless of size)
(Dec 15-Mar1)
Agricultural operations subject to
a NMP (generally large operations
generating ≥ 300 nutrient units
What is restricted?
All nutrients containing phosphorous
and nitrogen
Agricultural and non-agricultural
source materials (not commercial
fertilizer)
Application to frozen or
snow-covered ground
Allowed if applied to a living crop OR
with injection or 24 hr incorporation
OR with written consent from Dept.
of Ag.
Allowed with requirements for
injection or incorporation and
mandatory setbacks from surface
water
Application during
“restricted period”
when soil is not frozen
or snow-covered
(Dec 1-Mar 31 - Ontario)
Does not set out calendar dates for
additional restrictions
Allowed if applied to a living crop
or high crop residue OR with
requirements for injection or
incorporation & mandatory
surface water setbacks
Other Restrictions
No application - saturated top 2 inch of
soil No application when precipitation
forecast ≥ 50% chance of ≥ half inch
New restrictions also apply to
fertilizers.
No comparable restrictions
Ohio–Ontario Winter Appln Comparison

38. Regulatory Focus - Non-Growing Season
 Existing Regs (ASM, NASM,
GNFW)
 Despite ministry best efforts
there is evidence that
livestock manure is being
applied in winter
 MOECC compliance officers
indicate that roughly 25
formal public complaints are
filed in the province
annually with respect to
winter application
Manure applied to frozen and snow-covered soil 2017
 Application of nutrients on snow, frozen ground, or saturated soils
are not BMP’s and is strongly discouraged

39. T I M I N G M A T T E R S
R E S P O N S I B L E M A N U R E
A P P L I C AT I O N
Prepared by: Bruce Kelly & Amy
Reymer
Farm & Food Care

40. "Timing Matters is an Ontario initiative between
farm organizations and OMAFRA to promote
optimal timing of manure application throughout
the year. The goal is to promote a better
understanding of manure value, manure storage
options, application equipment, and timing."

42. THE GOALS
Explain options
available for
equipment, storage
and timing
Raise awareness
of manure
application timing
concerns
Explain the risks
of runoff when the
ground is frozen

43. Mapping Reports & Interviewing Farmers

44. Misperceptions about spreading on frozen ground:
•It is a good way to reduce compaction and ruts
•Solid manure holds its nutrients - does not
dissolve in water
•Yard scrapings are just bedding - therefore
cautions do not apply
•Long tradition of winter application - see no
problems

45. Beware of Late Winter Concrete Frost
+ =

46. MANURE ON OR IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDING SNOW
MELT CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON WATER QUALITY
Twitter: @timingmatters

48. Nutrient management / 4R practices to prevent
nutrients from contaminating source water
o Soil Health impacts water quality
o Amendments, cover crops and
o rotation can benefit soil and water quality
o N loss & P loss affect water quality
o management practices for protecting water
o Preventing N loss
o P-Index (PLATO)
o Value manure

49. Soil fertilization philosophies
(Olsen – sodium bicarbonate test)
ideal range between 15-20 ppm
Sufficiency (i.e. Rented fields) Build and Maintain (low fertility areas)
- “Feed the crop” - “Feed the soil”
- P & K applied for optimum return in
year of application
- Build to a critical level, then maintain it
- Little consideration of future soil test
levels
- Requires investment during build phase
- Can be used for both immobile and
mobile nutrients
- Cannot be used for mobile nutrients (e.g.
N, S)

50. From Tom Bruulsema, IPNI

51. Soil test levels and phosphorus loss
P Leaching ~ 35 ppm
P Runoff
Wang et al., 2012
Wang et al., 2010From Tom Bruulsema, IPNI

52. Build and maintain
<20 ppm P 20-25 ppm P
>25 ppm P

53. How and where does 4R fit in manure NMPs?
Nutrient Management Planning for Livestock:
o How much manure is produced
o How much storage is available
o How many acres will the manure be applied to
o Crop rotation
o Timing of application (using 4R standards)
o Better planning = opportunities to apply more often
during cropping season
4R and Manure

54. How and where does 4R fit in manure NMP?
Nutrient Management Planning:
 Most manured fields still need some commercial fertilizer
 Nutrient management plan info isn’t often shared with retail
 4R retail - role in  acres with nutrients applied using 4R
standards (could include livestock manure)
 4R retail could provide additional services to livestock farms to
improve manure management
 All livestock farms would be treated with same rules as crop farms
 Positive messaging for sustainability platforms

55. 4R Certification Standards where P-index will help
A2
Phosphorus injection, subsurface banding, or broadcasting with immediate incorporation are the
recommended placement methods unless the risk of phosphorus loss to surface water has been
demonstrated to be low according to a provincially approved P index risk assessment process
A3 No winter/frozen ground application.
A4 Total application of P not to exceed the quantity needed for the next 3 years of planned crops.
A5
Nutrients are applied according to a written nutrient recommendation that has been prepared within the
prior three years.
A6 All nutrient application equipment must be calibrated, at least annually.
A7
Broadcast applications of crop nutrients without immediate incorporation are neither made nor
recommended unless a documented local weather forecast (verifiable private or government generated)
indicates less than a 50% chance of a rainfall event involving more than 25mm (one inch) of rain beginning
in the next 12 hours.
A8
Where in-field variability in crop nutrient need or environmental risk is identified and variable rate
application is warranted, site specific nutrient application is used.
A9
Records of nutrient application include at minimum:
* method of application;
* time of application;
* field map showing locations of application; nutrient source & rate
* weather (temperature and precipitation) conditions at the time of application; P risk assessment?
A10 No fall N application except that co-applied with P sources or to meet fall crop N requirements.
Application Standards
A2
Phosphorus injection, subsurface banding, or broadcasting
with immediate incorporation are the recommended
placement methods unless the risk of phosphorus loss to
surface water has been demonstrated to be low according to
a provincially approved P index risk assessment process
A9
Record keeping – time, map, weather – P-loss risk?

56. How and where does 4R fit in manure NMP?
4R Record Keeping Standards that include Manure
Record Keeping Standards
R5 Manure nutrients
accounted for - analysis
R6 Nutrient recs account
for setbacks – sensitive areas
R7 Sensitive areas are
documented
R8 All nutrient sources are
accounted for including
manure, biosolids, legumes

57. ontario.ca/agrisuite
• Phone / Tablet / Computer
• English / French
• Metric / Imperial / US units
• Ontario data
N-P-K needs & crop nutrient
removal based on location, soil
test, previous crop & yield
Available N-P-K (and $$ after
application) & micronutrients from
applied manure /amendments
“Blending” fertilizer sources to
achieve the target fertilization rates

58. Crop Nutrient Calculator
Provides N-P-K needs and crop nutrient removal
based on location, soil test, previous crop & yield
(OMAFRA’s Corn Nitrogen Calculator)

59. Manure Calculator
Available N-P-K from applied
manure & micros, O.M.

60. Manure Calculator
Available N-P-K based on
management decisions

62. PLATO Field information - site characteristics
PLATO - Phosphorus Loss
Assessment Tool (Ontario)
Ontario.ca/agrisuite

63. PLATO
Soil Erosion (from USLE) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Soil Test P (Olsen) 32 32 32 32
Crop Type Row Row Row Small Grain
Soil Hydrologic Group C B B B
BMP Buffer<3 Buffer<3 Buffer<3 Buffer<3
Local Precipitation 1000 1000 1000 1000
Tile Drainage System Systemati Systematic Systematic Systematic
Average Tile Spacing 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’
Application Method surface Same day Frozen/sno surface
Month of Application October December December March
Rate 135 135 135 135
P-Index (PLATO)
Field Characteristic Index 64.1 55.9 55.9 54.3
APPLICATION P SUBTOTAL 81 2.6 321.2 76.8
FINAL P INDEX 144.6 58.5 377 131.2
Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool for Ontario
Very Low Low Moderate High
<60 60-110 110 - 220 > 220

64. Field management Ontario.ca/agrisuite

65. Using Ag Maps to find erosion potential
Markup and Printing →Create Map

66. Using Ag Maps to find erosion potential
Each pixel represents erosion estimate
from 10m x 10m (0.025 ac)
Markup and Printing →Create Map

67. Corn – fall plough

68. Corn, soybean, wheat rotation – strip till/no-till

69. Using Ag Maps to find erosion potential
Field characteristic index

70. Field characteristic index
Field characteristic index
Application loss index
Low
Field characteristic index
Particulate P through tile
Dissolved P through tile

71. Nutrient Applications – Adding fertilizer

73. Nutrient Applications – Adding manure

74. Nutrient Applications – Adding manure

75. P-Index Compared:
late fall surface vs spring injected

76. P-Index Compared:
late fall surface vs spring injected

78. https://aszczeci.github.io/crop_residue/
OR
https://bit.ly/2K0gnIR
For use on computer, smartphone
(including Blackberry) or tablet

80. Farmers Preventing N & P Loss

81. Incorporating European Technology
Manure Application on Growing crops
• Spring application on winter wheat
• After planting up to side-dress in corn
• Forages /pastures
• After wheat harvest with cover crops (slurry seeded)
Dribble hose /drag hose will allow higher volume application per day than shallow injection

82. Variable Rate Manure – Site Specific Rates?
 Rates based on N or P – usually P
 Opportunity to inject / co-apply commercial N
 Opportunity to “skim” un-agitated manure to apply low P-high NH4-N
material to fields closest to storage and high P to fields further from
storage

83. Strip Till and Manure Application?
• Reduce soil disturbance – increased residue between strips
• Incorporate nutrients (manure) in fall
• Plant into strips in spring
• Utilize GPS /GIS
• Utilize N-inhibitors?
Right Time-Right Place

84. Compaction from Spring Application
What does compaction cost in short and long-term yield?

85. Compaction

86. •Tire selection to minimize footprint
• Enough land base to stay off wet fields
•Tile drainage to eliminate the “80-20”
•European self-inflating tire system
Minimizing Compaction

87. Compaction Penalty
Scott Shearer – Ohio State University
Machine
Trafficked
Area (%)
Yield Reduction Prediction
(200 bu/ac No-Till corn Base)
Normal Wet
Trafficked
yield
Field Ave
Trafficked
yield
Field Ave
Grain Cart 14 175 196 148 193
36 row Planter 6.7 190 199 171 198
16 row Combine 17.1 176 196 150 192
Manure
Application
44.7 189 195 168 186
27 bu/ac x 45% x $4.50/bu = > $50/ac
Economics Oportunity: Wheat in rotation – opportunity for cover crops and manure plus
$50 compaction reduction and 5-15% yield increase in subsequent corn and soybean crops

88. Valuing the Resource – Manure in Storage
Finisher Manure - 1 year open liquid manure pit
~ 1.13 million Imp. Gal (1.56 mil US gal)
At capacity:
~ 26.8 Tonnes Urea @ $1,170/T ($31,350)
15.5 Tonnes MAP @ $1000/T ($15,500 P + $1,900 N)
25 Tonnes 0-0-60 @ $900/T ($22,500)
$71,250 Crop Available N-P-K + micros & organic matter
Analysis Finisher hog: DM 4.9 %, Total N 0.52 %, NH4-N 0.36%, P 0.15%, K 0.27%
How would these nutrients
be managed if they were
purchased at ag retail?
Do the fields need these nutrients?

89. ~$ 4,000 ↑ in value per year manure value - Finisher hogs by covering storage
Finisher Hog Example
Storage 1 - with
rainfall
Storage 2 -
Covered
Number of finisher hogs 2,000 2,000
Storage (Liquid circular 12’ x 145’) 136,439 ft3 181,643 ft3
Rain water (1 ft3=6.229 gal)
45,204 ft3
Considers evaporation
0
Days of Storage 373 500
Manure DM at application 5.2 % 7.0 %
Nitrogen lbs/1000 gallons
22 fall 31 fall
33 spring 46 spring
P2O5 lbs/1000 gallons 15.9 21.4
K2O lbs/1000 gallons 29 39
Value - NOT transporting H2O
@$15/1000 gal
0 $ 4,224
Net Value of covered Storage $ 44,785/year $ 48,798/year
Analysis for Finisher hog: DM 4.9 %, Total N 0.52 %, NH4-N 0.36%, P 0.15%, K 0.27%
$21,000 difference when comparing full covered storage tank
How long would it take to pay for covered storage?

90. Liquid – Solid Separation
Water is the most expensive manure “nutrient” to transport –
separating out water could solve some nutrient & logistical problems
Example: Average Liquid Dairy Manure:
8.5 % Dry Matter → liquid/solid separation to 90% DM
Low P, high K liquids can be summer applied to forages/corn close to storage
• easier to broker solid manure
• economics of storage

91. Presentation Name 109

92. Manure & Cover Crops
Vogelsang Dribble bar - 3,000 gal/ac on red clover
European Method – to apply larger volume of manure in uniform application
48 to 120 ft dribble tool bar on tanker or drag hose applying in 10 inch spacings

93. Organic Amendment Synergy
Cover Crops without manure
Cover Crops with digestate
- More top growth and root biomass

94. Biomass (dry wt) comparison – Oats with/ without Manure
With Digestate
~3.6 ton/ac biomass
No Digestate
~2.8 ton/ac biomass
Near Moorefield – Sept 25, 2015
Harvested Nov 3, 2015

95. Nitro Renovator
14% Nitro Radish
16% Crimson Clover
70% Oats
Broadcasting rate 30 lbs acre
With Digestate:
~ 2.85 ton/ac biomass (dry wt)
Without Digestate :
~ 1.83 ton/ac biomass (dry wt)

96. ~ Biomass Yield of Three Cover Crop Mixes with/ without Manure
Cover Crop
With Manure Without Manure Increase
from manure
Approximate Yield (ton/ac)*
Oats
3.6 2.8 33 %
Multi-Species Mix: Planted at 40 lbs/ac
33% Oats, 4% Nitro radish, 2% Brassica, 2%
Sorghum Sudangrass, 1% Phacelia, 2%
Sunflowers, 4% Sun hemp, 5% Turnips, 25%
Crimson Clover, 23% Austrian Peas
2.10 1.75 17 %
3 Species Mix: Planted at 30 lbs/ac
14% Nitro Radish, 16% Crimson Clover, 70% Oats
2.85 1.83 36 %
* biomass yield that includes top-growth and comparative root mass
The above data represents one site –one year
3,500 gal/ac digestate was applied in mid-August. Nutrient composition of digestate is similar
to hog manure.

97. 2017 yield Quality Y + Q $$
ton/ac lbs Milk/ton lbs milk/ac $$ milk/ac
Cc Oats 2.68 3,044 8,139 2,794
CC oats + OA 4.43 2,691 11,547 4,090
2 year side-by-side using dairy AD applied after wheat harvest with cover crops
2017 OM P2O5 K2O
lbs/ac uptake/removal
Cc Oats 4,908 35 129
CC oats + OA 8,122 64 230
OA contribution* 56 lbs N 46 lbs 78 lbs
* Available nutrients from 3,600 gal/ac application in early August
Taking Care of the Soil
Impact of Organic Amendments (OA)

98. Digestate only – 200 applications to ↑ SOM 1 %
Cover crop oats only - ~26 crops to ↑ SOM 1 %
CC oats + digestate ~15 times to ↑ SOM 1 %
Taking Care of the Soil
Impact of Organic Amendments

100. Right Time-Right Place

101. Drag Hose Application into Standing Corn –
Maximum Growth Stage for Application?
Between V3 and V4 (3-4 leaf collars) is maximum stage for drag-hose application

102. Dairy Solutions

103. Why Apply Manure to Forages?
Right time, Right place
Apply P and K that crop has removed
Save commercial fertilizer dollars
Reduce storage requirements
Spread out workload
Reduce spring compaction damage
increase yield and/or quality ?

104. Manure on Forages Study 2006-2012
SUMMARY - YIELD Comparison – 2006 – 2012
Manure vs Fertilizer Applied to Forages
Average of all Cuts After Application
Treatment Yield 2006 Yield 2007 Yield 2009 Yield 2010 Yield 2011 Yield 2012
tons/ac % Δ* tons/ac % Δ Tons/ac % Δ Tons/ac % Δ Tons/ac % Δ
Tons/a
c
% Δ
Manure 1.12 8.0 1.49 6.0 1.13 7.1 1.55 9.7 2.75 3.6 2.70 7.8
Fertilizer --- --- --- --- 1.09 3.7 1.47 4.8 2.64 (0.1) 2.55 2.4
Zero 1.03 --- 1.40 --- 1.05 --- 1.40 --- 2.65 --- 2.49 ---
* % Δ = percent change compared to zero treatment
Represents 5 locations – 2 or 3 cuts/site (~250 samples) each year
SUMMARY – YIELD AND QUALITY Comparison – 2006 – 2012
Manure vs Fertilizer Applied to Forages
Average of all Cuts After Application
Treatment Quality 2006 Quality 2007 Quality 2009 Quality 2010 * Quality 2011 Quality 2012
lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ
lbs milk /
ac
% Δ
Manure 1,714 13.4 3,028 4.8 3,352 11.7 2,977 12.4 3,103 0.6 3,048 8.0
Fertilizer --- --- 3,180 6.9 2,978 12.4 2,966 (3.9) 2,904 3.4
Zero 1,485 --- 2,884 --- 2,959 --- 2,608 --- 3,085 --- 2,805 ---
Represents 5 locations – 2 or 3 cuts/site (~250 samples) each year
*incomplete – represents 1st cut after application

105. • Ideal rates (between 3,000 to 4,000 gal/ac liq dairy)
provide ~ 50-45-90 lbs/ac available N-P205-K20.
• Analysis at time of application will allow nutrient crediting
Manure Applied to Forages

107. Ammonia Loss Measurements

108. Ammonia loss – up to 2/3 of the ammonia-N
highest in the 1st 24 hours – “pooled” areas
Rainfall after application reduces ammonia loss.

109. Manure Application to Wheat

110. Manure on Wheat - Field Scale Summary
2009 / 2010 Protein Summary
Full Fert Full manure
2/3 manure
1/3 Fertilizer check
Avg 12 sites 10.4 10.5
Avg 11 sites 10.4 10.5 10.4
Avg 10 sites 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.0

111. Neighbourhood Nutrient Management Planning –
“Managing Legacy P”
 Threat of regulations “stick” with economic “carrot”
 Moves manure from areas of high fertility to areas of low fertility
 developed cooperatively with livestock and cash crop farms with third
party 4R consultant - paperwork, (maps, crop rotation schedules, manure analyses
and soil tests)
 manure analyses would pre-determine value of available N, P205, K20
 explore opportunities
 community storages,
 pipe-lines (applying manure from central
location) to decrease transportation costs/
road issues
Nutrient Distribution

112. Selling Manure?
Manure Value – Application to Fields with High v.s. Low Soil Fertility
Manure
Dry
Matter
Nitrogen
P2O5
1 K2O
Net Value (after application)3
Fall
Applied
Spring
Applied
High Fertility
Field
Low Fertility
Field
Rate2
Liquid manure % lb/1000gal $/acre $/acre /acre
Cattle 8.6 12 18 16.5 27 ($ 33) $ 105 8,000 gal
Swine (SEW ) 1.7 8.5 16 11 12 ($ 58) $ 16 8,000 gal
Swine
(Finishers)
5 18 33 28 29 $ 6 $ 127 5,000 gal
Poultry (Layer) 10 28 48 50 31 $ 30 $ 139 3,000 gal
Solid Manure % lb/ton $/acre $/acre /acre
Cattle
(light bedding)
21 4.1 6.1 7.5 13 ($ 2) $120 15 ton
Cattle
(heavy bedding)
45 6.5 6.6 13 13 $ 15 $ 127 10 ton
Sheep/Goats 35 5.5 6.6 11.5 19 $ 6 $ 130 10 ton
Horse 37 3 - 2 5.5 9 ($ 16) $ 41 10 ton
Poultry
(Broilers)
66 31 38 52 39 $ 64 $ 184 4 ton
1Total available P O is shown in this table. At least half of the P will be available in the year

113. Summary
Manure and organic materials provide nutrients and SOM value
4-R approach will provide most economical nutrient utilization and
minimize environmental risk of contamination.
4-R approach will maximize manure application to growing crops
Maximum value does not always mean maximum nutrients -
compromise nitrogen for labour, soil quality, and other farm
priorities.

114. Christine Brown
Field Crop Sustainability Specialist
OMAFRA – Woodstock
519-533-3358 cell
christine.brown1@ontario.ca
Twitter: @manuregirl

117. HTTPS://ASZCZECI.GITHUB.IO/CROP_RESIDUE/
OR
HTTPS://BIT.LY/2K0GNIR
For use on computer, smartphone
(including Blackberry) or tablet