Defining and Analyzing Agricultural Production Systems -Joosse

1. Defining and analyzing Agricultural Production Systems to determine the Capacity to make Soil and Nutrient Management Improvements in the Canadian Lake Erie Basin Pamela Joosse, Donna Speranzini, Keith Reid , Ted Huffman and Natalie Feisthauer Science and Technology Branch Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Conference July 27 2015

2. Context • Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 2012 – Canada and US to develop phosphorus (P) reduction targets by 2016 and domestic action plans to reduce P loading to Lake Erie by 2018 • Abundance of US information – Risk that agriculture in Canadian Lake Erie basin is not accurately represented – Will have more effective and realistic action plans if have Canadian agriculture system information • Looking at soil and nutrient management

3. AAFC Lake Erie Project Goals • To identify agricultural production systems and landscapes where there is capacity to make improvements in nutrient and soil management • To conduct historical analyses to put future capacity for change in context with what has already occurred

4. Distribution of Corn in the Lake Erie Basin

6. Census Typology Methodology • Delineate agricultural production systems in Ontario from the perspective of soil, nutrient and water management characteristics • Developed rule-sets and Statistics Canada developed code to apply to the Census of Agriculture micro-data – Huffman and Saha (2009) methodology • Piloted iterations of rule-set • Ended up with a 3-level hierarchy that facilitates “rolling up” if there is suppression – 4 geographies – township, county, Lake Erie, Province, – 4 census years – 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011 – 85 output variables

7. Production System Ruleset Commercial Livestock (Farm AU ≥ 25) Layer poultry (dominant species 75% AU), Meat Poultry (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species), Mixed Poultry (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species), Dairy (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species), Beef Finishing (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species, (steers+slaughter heifers)/beef cows > 2 ), Beef Cow - Calf (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species, (steers+slaughter heifers)/beef cows ≤ 2 ), Hog (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species), Sheep/Goat (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species), Horse (AU ≥ 0.75 dominant species) Mixed/ Other Livestock (Other and mixed livestock AU≥ 25) Specialty (Any Specialty Crop) Sod (Only), Mushroom (Only), Ginseng (Only), Tobacco (Only), Nursery (Only), Greenhouse Flower (Only), Greenhouse Vegetable (Only), Greenhouse Flower and Vegetable (Only), Mixed Specialty (Combination of all specialty ha) Fruit (Fruit Crop ha/ Cropland ha ≥ 0.6) Grape (ha ≥ 0.75 of fruit crop ha), Tender Fruit (ha ≥ 0.75 of fruit crop ha), Berry (ha ≥ 0.75 of fruit crop ha), Apple (ha ≥ 0.75 of fruit crop ha) Mixed Fruit (All other fruit system ha) No Cropland (Cropland ha = 0) No Pasture (Cropland and Pasture ha = 0) Pasture (Cropland ha = 0 and Pasture ha > 0) (with and without AU) Vegetable (Any Vegetable Crop- includes potato and sugar beet) Potato (ha ≥ 10ha), Intensive Vegetable (Vegetable Crop ha / Cropland ha ≥ 0.75), Mixed Vegetable (All other vegetable crop ha) (with and without AU) Field Crop Perennial (ha ≥ 0.75), Corn - Soy (ha = 100%) , Soy - W Wheat (ha = 100%), Corn - Soy - W Wheat (ha = 100%), Corn - Soy - Spring Grain (ha = 100%), Dry Beans (ha > 0), Canola (ha > 0) (with and without AU) Mixed All other farms

11. Overview of Lake Erie Production Systems 2011 Production System # Farms % Farms ha Cropland % Cropland # AU % AU Commercial Livestock 5,003 28% 473,765 33.2% 800,214 96.4% Specialty 1,078 6% 44,164 3.1% 533 0.1% Fruit 206 1% 3,134 0.2% 59 0.0% No Cropland 960 5% - 0.0% 5,572 0.7% Vegetable 1,076 6% 143,357 10.0% 1,214* 0.1% Field Crop 7,628 42% 607,434 42.6% 13,731 1.7% Mixed 2,164 12% 154,675 10.8% 8,691 1.0% Lake Erie Total 18,115 100% 1,426,529 100% 830,074 100% *Italicized numbers in tables indicate the value includes a suppressed value set to 0

12. Overview of Lake Erie Production Systems 2011 Production System # Farms % Farms ha Cropland % Cropland # AU % AU Commercial Livestock 5,003 28% 473,765 33.2% 800,214 96.4% Specialty 1,078 6% 44,164 3.1% 533 0.1% Fruit 206 1% 3,134 0.2% 59 0.0% No Cropland 960 5% - 0.0% 5,572 0.7% Vegetable 1,076 6% 143,357 10.0% 1,214* 0.1% Field Crop 7,628 42% 607,434 42.6% 13,731 1.7% Mixed 2,164 12% 154,675 10.8% 8,691 1.0% Lake Erie Total 18,115 100% 1,426,529 100% 830,074 100% *Italicized numbers in tables indicate the value includes a suppressed value set to 0

13. Proportion of Lake Erie Cropland in Different Production Systems 2011 Production System % Farms Percent of Lake Erie Hectares (%) (Crop Perspective) Cropland Pasture Forage Grain Corn Silage Corn Soybean Winter Grain Spring Grain Specialty Crops Fruit Crops Veg Crops Commercial Livestock 28% 33.2% 62.1% 71.2% 33.2% 88.0% 22.4% 26.4% 60.2% 2.2% 4.3% 7.5% Specialty 6% 3.1% 1.6% 0.5% X 0.3% 1.9% X 1.6% 88.9% 2.0% 6.8% Fruit 1% 0.2% 0.3% X X 0.0% X X 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 0.1% Vegetable 6% 10.0% 2.7% 1.1% 10.8% 1.2% 7.8% 7.8% 5.2% 0.0% 17.4% 76.7% Perennial 8% 1.3% 9.2% 13.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% X 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% Corn - Soy 14% 8.2% 3.6% 0.0% 14.2% 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Soy - W Wheat 9% 7.8% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Corn - Soybean - W Wheat 9% 19.4% 1.8% 0.0% 23.8% 0.0% 24.8% 26.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Corn - Soy - Spring Grain 1% 1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dry Beans 1% 3.4% 0.2% 0.3% 4.8% X 2.1% 3.9% X 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% Canola 0% 1.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% X 1.2% 2.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mixed 12% 10.8% 8.8% 13.2% 9.1% 10.3% 12.3% 11.7% 14.6% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% % Unsuppressed Lake Erie Total 95% 100.0% 94.1% 99.9% 97.8% 99.9% 100.0% 96.7% 99.3% 91.1% 92.6% 91.1% Note: The No Cropland system is not included in this table ‘X’ indicates the value is suppressed by Statistics Canada for confidentiality

14. Land Preparation Method by System 2011 Production System # Farms Hectares % of Cropland (Crop Perspective) Cropland Tillage Incorporat es Residue Tillage Retains Residue on Surface No-Till No Land Preparation Tillage Incorpor ates Residue Tillage Retains Residue on Surface No-Till No Land Preparation Commercial Livestock 5,003 473,765 167,883 109,031 120,826 76,025 35.4% 23.0% 25.5% 16.0% Specialty 1,078 44,164 15,840 12,529 9,726 6,069 35.9% 28.4% 22.0% 13.7% Fruit 206 3,134 180 72 X 2,882 5.7% 2.3% X 92.0% Vegetable 1,076 143,357 57,647 49,072 34,216 2,422 40.2% 34.2% 23.9% 1.7% Perennial 1,416 19,006 1,625 630 1,164 15,587 8.5% 3.3% 6.1% 82.0% Corn - Soy 2,549 117,356 34,069 42,533 40,712 42 29.0% 36.2% 34.7% 0.0% Soy - W Wheat 1,580 111,012 23,664 21,100 66,238 10 21.3% 19.0% 59.7% 0.0% Corn - Soybean - W Wheat 1,593 276,298 69,184 84,790 122,336 - 25.0% 30.7% 44.3% 0.0% Corn - Soy - Spring Grain 229 15,741 4,373 4,265 7,126 - 27.8% 27.1% 45.3% 0.0% Dry Beans 207 49,136 20,469 13,151 15,254 262 41.7% 26.8% 31.0% 0.5% Canola 54 18,885 7,078 7,096 4,436 275 37.5% 37.6% 23.5% 1.5% Mixed 2,164 154,675 46,805 42,742 51,413 13,715 30.3% 27.6% 33.2% 8.9% Lake Erie Total 18,115 1,426,529 448,827 387,036 473,635 117,031 31.5% 27.1% 33.2% 8.2%

15. Distribution of Vegetable Systems, 2011

16. Manure Type and Incorporation Production System # Farms Manured ha Manured ha Cropland ha (Livestock Perspective) #AU % Solid or Composted % Liquid Manure Applied % Incorporated or Injected % Not Incorporated % Cropland Manured % Cropland Incorporated Manure Layer Poultry 85 15,133 73% 27% 66% 34% 30% 19% Meat Poultry 327 51,873 93% 7% 83% 17% 28% 24% Mixed Poultry 101 57,189 88% 12% 83% 17% 39% 32% Dairy 1,342 222,494 39% 61% 58% 42% 57% 33% Beef Finishing 574 109,509 82% 18% 76% 24% 37% 28% Beef Cow - Calf 1,035 77,479 91% 9% 63% 37% 21% 14% Hog 614 156,763 8% 92% 77% 23% 49% 38% Sheep/goat 119 7,291 86% 14% 55% 45% 32% 18% Horse 120 5,535 95% 5% 38% 62% 30% 11% Mixed/Other Livestock 686 96,947 60% 40% 65% 35% 48% 31% Specialty 1,078 533 92% 8% 93% 7% 6% 6% Fruit 206 59 100% 0% 58% 43% 1% 1% Vegetable w Livestock 211 1,214 78% 22% 76% 24% 11% 8% Field Crop w Livestock 1,657 13,731 78% 22% 55% 45% 16% 9% Mixed w Livestock 910 8,691 88% 12% 73% 27% 13% 10% Lake Erie Total 18,115 830,074 51% 49% 68% 32% 18% 12%

17. Assimilative Capacity of Manure Nutrients • Inspired by Kellogg et al. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal trend for the United States. USDA. • Look at manure nutrients produced on farm and compare to field crop removal of nutrients – Grain corn, silage corn, alfalfa, hay, canola, spring wheat, mixed grains, dry beans, soybeans, winter wheat • Field crop removal balance = Manure N/P – Crop Removal N/P – Negative values = fertilizer deficit/demand for field crops – Positive values = manure nutrient excess

18. Storage Pasture N Losses Excre ted No pasture – All excreted to storage Yes Pasture Recoverable Manure N & P Manure Spread AcresManure Spread Acres Field CropsField Crops Other cropsOther crops Assume only 1 manure application to an acre/year – mutually exclusive, addititive Allocate manure spread acres first to field crops , then pasture, then other crops Allocate N and P according to proportion of manure spread acre proportions Exported off farm if no manure spread acres

19. Production System % Recoverable P 2011 (Livestock Perspective) # Farms Mg Recoverable P Spread on Field Crops Spread on Pasture Spread on Other Cropland Exported Mg Field Crop P Balance Layer Poultry 85 755 32% X X 64% 7 Meat Poultry 327 2,241 43% X 6% 51% 96 Mixed Poultry 101 2,830 56% X X 44% 1,428 Dairy 1,342 2,869 92% 0% 3% 5% - 2,095 Beef Finishing 574 1,411 93% 0% 1% 5% - 330 Beef Cow - Calf 1,035 697 85% 1% 1% 14% - 1,159 Hog 614 3,798 79% 0% 3% 18% 1,020 Specialty 1,078 12 X X 12% 15% - 601 Fruit 206 1 X X 30% 66% - 3 Vegetable w Livestock 211 16 53% 3% 15% 28% - 165 Field Crop w Livestock 1,657 146 58% 1% 1% 39% - 923 Mixed w Livestock 910 112 78% 0% 1% 21% - 1,010 Lake Erie Total 18,115 16,725 72% 0% 3% 25% -26,332 Fate of Manure Phosphorus

20. Conclusions • Considerable difference in soil and nutrient management between systems • Benefit of entire farm population included • Demonstrate ability to use census data to calculate system metrics against which to compare individual farm performance

21. Next Steps • More detailed analysis of nutrient balance • Histograms available for some variables to look at distribution of measures at farm level • Decadal analysis

22. Acknowledgements • Technical Assistance – Statistics Canada – Anne Munroe, Allesandro Alessia – AAFC Staff – Jillian Smith, Evan Gravelly, Kelly Chu • Funding – Growing Forward 2 – Agro-ecosystem Productivity and Health Portfolio • References – Huffman, T. and Saha, B. 2009. Farming system changes in the prairie grassland ecoregions of Canada, 1991 to 2006. in A.J. Franzluebbers, ed. Farming with grass: Achieving sustainable mixed agricultural landscapes. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA – Kellogg, R.L., Lander, C.H., Moffit, D.C. and Gollehon, N. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States. USDA. 93 pp.

23. Questions?

Defining and Analyzing Agricultural Production Systems -Joosse

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

More from Soil and Water Conservation Society

More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Defining and Analyzing Agricultural Production Systems -Joosse

Editor's Notes