Panel Discussion

1. Nutrient Management Standards:
Making Them Work Where We Work
Panel Discussion
April 3, 2013
From Waste to Worth
Denver, CO

2. Moderators
• Erin Cortus • Nichole Embertson
Assistant Professor Nutrient Management
and Environmental and Air Quality
Quality Engineer, Specialist, Whatcom
South Dakota State Conservation District,
University Washington

3. Panel
• Laura Pepple, Livestock Extension Specialist,
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• Melony Wilson, Animal and Dairy Science
Public Service Representative, University of
Georgia
• Bonda Habets, State Resource
Conservationist, USDA-NRCS Washington
State
• James Sharkoff, State Conservation
Agronomist, USDA-NRCS Colorado State

4. Panel Extends Beyond This Room…
Panel or Moderator Representation
Email Correspondence

5. Panel Question
What role does the NRCS 590
Nutrient Management Standard
play in your state?

6. Panel Question
How did your state consider and
develop revisions to the
National 590 Standard?

7. Panel Question
What does your state use for a
P-index and why?

8. Panel Question
What does your state use for a
nitrogen leaching index, and
why?

9. Panel Question
Does your state have any
unique options for winter
spreading and why?

10. Panel Question
Does your state have any
unique plans for air quality?

11. Panel Question
What type of nutrient
management planning tool is
used by your state’s producers
and why?

12. Panel Question
What are the needs for the next
iteration of the 590? What are
the future issues that will come
up in the next 590?

13. Research Opportunities
Name
• Fill out post-it or card: Affiliation/State
Contact Email
• Put on topics/posters that you are
interested in collaborating work on
• You will be sent an email with other
interested contacts to start collaboration
on multi-state, regional, or national
projects

14. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT:
MAPPING OUT FUTURE
RESEARCH
OPPORTUNITIES
Informal Group Discussion
April 3, 2013
From Waste to
Wor th
Denver, CO

15. 590 RESEARCH TOPIC NEEDS
1.Phosphorous Index
2.Nitrate Leaching Index
3.Air Quality Assessment and
Planning
4.Winter Application
5.Matching the Tool with the User*
 National Project/Collaboration

16. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Name
Fill out post-it or card: Affiliation/State
Contact Email
Put on topics/posters that you are
interested in collaborating work on
You will be sent an email with other
interested contacts to start collaboration
on multi-state, regional, or national
projects

17. 1. PHOSPHOROUS INDEX
 Interpretation and implementation
 Better determination/definition of low, high, very
high, etc. based on Regions
 Need better area resolution between and within States
 What is the "no application" rate?
 In what cases is P not a problem?
 What about fields without water around? What is
threshold? Issues?
 P leaching? Should we be looking at this in certain
climates? Soil types?
 P analysis methods - not comparable, variable. Need
better consistency, guidelines on when to choose which
test, and limitations for each test value.

18. 2. NITROGEN LEACHING INDEX
Few individual State tools, most use RUSLE2
Need to add leaching to evaluation tools
Not sure how to evaluate leaching in planning
Need BMP options for leaching management -
work with NRCS on defining which practices
reduce leaching - bundle together
Need more science based information on
when and how leaching occurs in specific soil
types
Nutrient Trading? Is this viable? Is it a good
idea?

19. 3. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
AND PLANNING
Need Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
format and guidance
Easy to use inventory and evaluation tools for
planners
Need training of planners to identify AQ
concerns and BMPs
Prioritize pollutants to address
(i.e., dust, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc.)
Regional considerations vs. National
Air quality vs. climate change - Which do we
focus on and why?

20. 4. WINTER NUTRIENT
APPLICATION
 Tile drainage
 Application to snow covered, frozen ground
 What are impacts to runof f, leaching?
 More restrictions are anticipated in coming years
 Storage will become a bigger issue
 Alternatives to land application of manure?
 Solid vs. liquid manure application concerns
 Need to get custom applicators enrolled
 Integrate the 4 Rs (right source, timing, rate, placement) into
nutrient tools, research evaluation, and guidance
 Digestate: Pros and cons?
 Manure application setback distances - need more scientific
evaluation and consistency in how we make recommendations

21. 5. MATCHING THE TOOL WITH THE
USER
 Who is using the tool? Producer or planner? Both? Who should
be using tools?
 Need real-time decision tools
 Address responsible manure management
 Apps, web interface, excel? Which has most utility?
 Need to integrate producers into research as reviewers and
testers.
 Many States have no scientific advisors for issues. Regional
solutions?
 How do we keep planning tools and 590 from becoming
regulatory?
 Create a national committee to look at the best ways
to assess these issues and questions.