Download to read offline
Uploaded bySoil and Water Conservation Society
Land grant university nutrient management guidelines
This document summarizes a presentation on land-grant university nutrient management guidelines and whether crop production and environmental quality goals can be met. The presentation discusses the need for nutrient guidelines to be science-based, transparent, local, and updated over time. It provides examples of nutrient rate, source, and application timing research for corn production in Minnesota. While 4R nutrient stewardship practices are moving in the right direction, the presenter argues they are not sufficient on their own to fully meet nitrogen loss reduction goals and that engineering solutions and shifting away from annual cropping systems may also be needed.
More Related Content
Similar to Land grant university nutrient management guidelines
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
Land grant university nutrient management guidelines
- 1. Land-Grant University NutrientManagement Guidelines: Can We Meet Crop Production And Environmental Quality Goals? Fabián G. Fernández Nutrient Management & Water Quality Specialist Department of Soil, Water, and Climate fabiangf@umn.edu 73rd Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Conference 1-3 August 2018, Albuquerque NM
- 2. Nutrient Management Outline • Universityguidelines for crops, soils AND the environment? • Rate • Source • Time of application • Summary and thoughts
- 3.
- 4. Nutrient Management Nutrient guidelines •Need to based on science. • Need to be transparent. • Need to be local. • Need to be “alive.” – There is nothing static about crop production and the environment. Guidelines should reflect this fact and be updated as needed.
- 5. Nutrient Management Region SpecificBMPs for N More than 600,000 tons of N are applied for corn each year in Minnesota alone.
- 6. Nutrient Management The CornNitrogen Rate Calculator http://cnrc.agron.iastat e.edu/ Currently: 87 c-s sites 58 c-c sites
- 7. Nutrient Management MRTN Rate 108(120) 133
- 8.
- 9. Nutrient Management May-June 75%of drainage and 73% of load 98% load 34% load 88% load 98% drainage 41% drainage 86% drainage 45 lb/a 19.7 mg/kg 19 lb/a 8.8 mg/kg 23 lb/a 10.6 mg/kg
- 10. Nutrient Management Potential MineralizableN Arvilla sandy loam: 4.6% OM CEC 16.1 meq/100g, (70% sand, 17% silt, 13% Clay), pH 7.1
- 11. Nutrient Management 20% reductionreduced yield by 4% and NO3-N leaching by 9%. 25% reduction reduced yield by 6% and NO3-N leaching by 11% CSb no relationship between N rate and N loss CC CSb N rate Grain yield NO3 - -N Leached N rate Grain yield NO3 - -N Leached lb ac-1 bu ac-1 lb ac-1 lb ac-1 bu ac-1 lb ac-1 EONR 223 199 77 179 199 95 20% Reduction 179 191 70 144 194 91 25% Reduction 167 188 68 135 193 90 N Rate Reduction is Not a Solution
- 12. Nutrient Management Yield, nitrate-Nconcentrations and losses in tile water as affected by rate and time of N on C-S rotation at Waseca 4-Yr Yield FW 2000-2003 N application Avg. NO3-N NO3-N Lost Rate Time N-Serve Conc. C Sb Total lb N/A bu/A mg/L -- lb/A/4 cycles - - 111 80 Fall Yes 144 11.5 115 90 205 120 Fall Yes 166 13.2 121 99 220 160 Fall Yes 172 18.1 142 139 281 120 Spr. No 180 13.7 121 98 219 Source: Randall & Vetsch
- 13. Nutrient Management End ofSeason Soil N Marna silty clay loam and Nicollet silty clay loam
- 14. Nutrient Management Time ofN Application
- 15. Nutrient Management Yield, nitrate-Nconcentrations and losses in tile water as affected by rate and time of N on C-S rotation at Waseca 4-Yr Yield FW 2000-2003 N application Avg. NO3-N NO3-N Lost Rate Time N-Serve Conc. C Sb Total lb N/A bu/A mg/L -- lb/A/4 cycles - - 111 80 Fall Yes 144 11.5 115 90 205 120 Fall Yes 166 13.2 121 99 220 160 Fall Yes 172 18.1 142 139 281 120 Spr. No 180 13.7 121 98 219 Source: Randall & Vetsch
- 16. Nutrient Management Becker, MN;sandy soil
- 17. Nutrient Management Waseca, MN;clay loam soil
- 18.
- 19. Nutrient Management 4-Yr nitrate-Nresults across distinct hydrological years Crop N Nitrate-N Rotation Rate Time 4-Yr Avg. Conc. 4-Yr Total lb/A mg/L lb/A C-S-Corn 0 -- 6.1 37.7 “ 60 + 40 SPL 7.8 44.8 “ 120 PP 8.2 52.1 S-C-Corn 0 -- 4.6 34.0 “ 60 + 80 SPL 7.9 64.2 “ 160 PP 8.8 62.8 C-C-Soy 0 -- 5.5 30.5 “ 0 -- 8.4 40.9 “ 0 -- 8.7 38.3 Source: Randall and VetschGrain yield and N uptake N/S
- 20.
- 21. Nutrient Management Product CCCSb SbC CC CSb SbC mg NO3 --N L-1 lb NO3 --N ac-1 Urea (Split) 30.3a 43.6a 18.8a 63a 95a 43a ESN 27.1a 42.0a 19.2a 64a 85a 47a ESN/Urea 28.2a 45.5a 21.6a 60a 99a 46a SuperU 33.2a 52.4a 21.2a 67a 104a 52a Source Rate Yield PFP AE lb ac-1 bu ac-1 Urea (Split) 160 198a 62a 29a ESN 190b 59b 26b SuperU 188b 58b 26b ESN/Urea 80/80 185b 58b 25b Partial Factor Productivity = Yield (rate) / N rate Agronomic Efficiency = Yield(rate) - Yield(control) / N rate Data averaged for Pope CC, CSb & Dakota Co. CC
- 22. Nutrient Management Treatment 20152016 2017 _____lb/ac_____ Urea 6b 23a 24a ESN 4b 17a 15a Urea/Urea+ 10a 22a 19a ESN/Urea+ 5b 15a 22a
- 23.
- 24. Nutrient Management Effect ofCROPPING SYSTEM on drainage volume, NO3-N concentration, and N loss in subsurface tile drainage during a 4-yr period (1990-93) in MN. Cropping Total Nitrate-N System discharge Conc. Loss Inches ppm lb/A Continuous corn 30.4 28 194 Corn – soybean 35.5 23 182 Soybean – corn 35.4 22 180 Alfalfa 16.4 1.6 6 CRP 25.2 0.7 4 Source: Randall & Vetsch
- 25. Nutrient Management Rye inCC fall 2016 Soybeans in Kura 2017 Mechanical Suppression 2017 Rye spring 2017
- 26. Nutrient Management Spring 2016,Rye biomass lbs/ac % N lb N/ac CC 391 2.9 11 CSb 2573 2.4 62 SbC 518 3.2 17
- 27. Nutrient Management Rye biomass Fall2016 Spring 2017 lb/ac CC 100 327 CSb 152 1358 SbC 334 327
- 28.
- 29.
- 30. Nutrient Management 2017 CCCSb SbC Cover Rate Yield Load Rate Yield Load Yield Load lb/ac bu/ac lb NO3/ac lb/ac bu/ac lb NO3/ac bu/ac lb NO3/ac Rye 0 63 31 0 118 34 60 66 No Rye 0 70 47 0 95 91 64 70 Kura 0 39 4 0 44 8 47 12 Rye 225 195 87 180 224 58 60 134 No Rye 225 191 80 180 228 78 62 100 Kura 225 142 8 180 152 8 51 12
- 31. Nutrient Management Conclusions • Fertilizerguidelines are research based and include environmental as well as agronomic benefits. • Optimizing N rate is key and will continue to receive major research and regulatory focus. • N application timing and source are important, but the results are inconsistent with the current emphasis placed on them as an strategy to improve water quality.
- 32. Nutrient Management Final Thoughts Willthe 4R approach to N management be successful in reducing nitrate-N losses to surface and ground water to meet the goals of Nitrogen Loss Reduction Strategies being established? •They are directionally correct but insufficient to fully accomplish the goals. •Engineering options can be helpful but dependent on landscape and other geographic considerations. •Shifting ag land away from annual cropping systems with high N requirements can help, but need to balance the need for sustainable food production and environmental protection and profitability
- 33. Nutrient Management When andwhere food is plentiful, there are many problems; when and where there is little or no food, there is only one problem.
- 34.