 

 

.\ 2.1..
. 1:19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. a
91.”. ,
.. ,.
ﬁzmmuaéwdbiéumw.
; #5.» a use
6.5... I. a...
. .ﬁ... :33.
.911. .3 a 3?...
:15. .
....$r...z.£. .3.....:ﬂ
#9....3-{I‘1a‘ﬂmfwﬁunﬂ
3.2 k...
:1...
z.
l. i5
.1 I i...
‘ alt..-
.u 1:

:3
. 521::

.34 Ali; 01...!

I a. V i

N...“ maxi...
i hut. 2:.

5.. .....S......
LI!!.I. 1.la‘ ‘
«:30; e:

.
I... i.
Ed. 52:!
al :1: A 5

I... .v !

3 .

.1
u .342:

.Waenr
2.... z 4
It I 4.! . 1
2.393....“ hark .. 2.:
24:3. 22. . . i. ..
($.25: .12»..- :u
i4... 1.: is
itii
. :6. 1.

 

 

x.

3} \v'» A?
It? lavivi
.1}: .tuq‘Jr.

3;... hawhfrhui

 

l 2 LIBRARY
100 (a Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A COMPREHENSIVE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ON
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FARMS

presented by

ANN MARIE SHATTUCK

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Agricultural Technology and
Systems Management

 

 

ﬂea/a“?

Major Professor’s Signature

[2/15/03

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.lndd-p.1

A COMPREHENSIVE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ON MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY FARMS

By

Ann Marie Shattuck

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Agricultural Technology and Systems Management

2003

ABSTRACT
A COMPREHENSIVE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ON MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY FARMS
By

Ann Marie Shattuck

The increased intensiﬁcation of the livestock industry and the segregation from
crop production farms has left a nutrient imbalance. Nonpoint source phosphorus is the
primary source of pollution degrading water quality (Kerr et a1, 2001). Implementation
of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) assists in balancing phosphorus
(P) inputs with phosphorus outputs. The development and implementation of a CNMP is
one way Michigan plans to improve water quality and decrease P problems in waterways.

Michigan State University is part of the group that developed and supports the use
of Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices, GAAMPS. GAAMPS
encourages manure management system plans. The development of a CNMP on MSU
farms revealed an imbalance of P production by animals to P removal by plants.
Analyses of ﬁeld soil test levels for the previous ten years revealed an overall increase in
Soil Test Phosphorus (STP) levels, reﬂecting an unbalanced nutrient system. Because of
the vast information and the differing management techniques on the individual facilities
development of the CNMP was a challenge.

Two software programs being utilized in Michigan to assist in CNMP
development were assessed for user friendliness and data output. The Purdue Manure
Management Planner (MMP) and the MSU nutrient management program (MSUnm)

both have beneﬁcial aspects dependent upon the needs of the producer.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to send a note of thanks to everyone who assisted in gathering and
analyzing the data, as well as those who persisted in the gentle urging for progress on this
paper.

I would like to thank Dr. von Bemuth for all of his assistance and understanding,
as well as my other committee members, Dr. Kurt Thelen, Dr. David Beede, Dr. Maynard
Hogberg, and Bary Darling for their patience. A special note of thanks to the Land
Management ofﬁce, Kevin, Bary and Ben, for all of their assistance in collecting
information for this paper, as well as to my family for their understanding, patience and
continued prodding. I would also like to send a special note of thanks to my mom for her
assistance throughout the entire project.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my husband, Ron, for all of his love and

support during the ﬁnal stages of my paper. Thank you.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 3

CNMP BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 4

NUTRIENT PRODUCTION ON MSU FARMS ............................................... 24
CHAPTER 5

COMPARISON OF TWO SOFTWARE PROGRAMS ....................................... 27
CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................. 32
CHAPTER 7

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF A CNMP ON MSU FARMS ................ 37

CHAPTER 8 ......................................................................................... 39
CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER 9

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MSU FARMS .................................................. 41
APPENDth CNMP ................................................................................. 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 65

iv

TABLE 1:

TABLE 2:

TABLE 3:

TABLE 4:

TABLE 5:

TABLE 6:

TABLE 7:

TABLE 8:

TABLE 9:

TABLE 10:
TABLE 1‘ 1 :
TABLE 12:
TABLE 13:
TABLE 14:
TABLE 15:
TABLE 16:
TABLE 17:

TABLE 18:

LIST OF TABLES

ANIMAL INVENTORY (2001) ................................................. 69
ANIMAL UNITS BASED ON ANIMAL INVENTORIES (1996-

2001) ................................................................................ 71
ANIMAL UNIT FACTORS ...................................................... 74
PHYSICAL AND QUANTITATIVE FEATURES OF FARM

FIELDS .............................................................................. 75
MSU FARM FIELDS BEST FIT FOR WINTER APPLICATION OF
MANURES ........................................................................ 78
MANURE APPLICATION RISK INDEX SUMMARY ................... 79
FARM FIELDS WITH CROPS AND YIELD GOALS ..................... 80
NUTRIENT PRODUCTION FOR 2001 USING 1985 MWPS-18
VALUES ........................................................................... 83
NUTRIENT PRODUCTION FOR 2001 USING 2000 MWPS—I 8
VALUES ........................................................................... 84
MANURE SPREADERS USED ON FARM ................................. 85
2001 MANURE TOTALS HAULED .......................................... 86
MANURE ANALYSIS ........................................................... 87
NUTRIENT PRODUCTION: MANURE ANALYSIS ...................... 88
CROP NUTRIENT REMOVAL ................................................ 89
NUTRIENT BALANCE ......................................................... 90
PHOSPHORUS CHANGE ...................................................... 91
SOIL TEST PHOSPHORUS LEVELS (1992-2002) ......................... 92

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MSUNM AND PURDUE MMP IN
DEVELOPMENT OF A CNMP ............................................... 102

FIGURE 1:

FIGURE 2:

FIGURE 3:

FIGURE 4:

FIGURE 4A:

FIGURE 5:

FIGURE 6:

FIGURE 7:

FIGURE 8:

FIGURE 9:

FIGURE 10:

FIGURE 11:

FIGURE 12:

FIGURE 13:

FIGURE 14:

FIGURE 15:

FIGURE 16:

FIGURE 17:

FIGURE 18:

LIST OF FIGURES

PHOSPOHRUS CYCLE ...................................................... 103
NITROGEN CYCLE ......................................................... ; 104
PHOSPHORUS CHANGE ................................................... 105
UNIVERSITY FARM FIELDS .............................................. 106
CHANGE IN ACRES ......................................................... 107
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF MSU FARMLAND ....................... 108
TOPOGRAPHY MAP OF MSU FARMLAND ............................ 109
SOILS MAP OF MSU FARMLAND AREA ............................... 110
ANIMAL UNITS GRAPH .................................................... 112
SOIL TEST ANALYSIS GRAPH ............................................ 113
MAP OF FARM FIELDS CODED BY PHOSPHORUS LEVEL ....... 114
DAIRY NORTH AND SOUTH PITS, DIMENSIONS AND

CAPACITY ....................................................................... 115
DAIRY HEIFER PIT, DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITY ................ 116
DAIRY MILKHOUSE AND PARLOR PITS, DIMENSIONS AND
CAPACITY ...................................................................... 117
BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH CENTER PIT, DIMENSIONS AND
CAPACITY ...................................................................... 118
OLD SWINE FARM PITS, DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITY .......... 119
NEW SWINE FARM SLURRY TANK, DIMENSIONS AND
CAPACITY W/ FACILITY LAYOUT ....................................... 120
EMERGENCY PHONE LIST .................................................. 121

BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH CENTER FACILITY LAYOUT AND
FLOW DIRECTION ............................................................ 122

vi

FIGURE 19: DAIRY FARM FACILITY LAYOUTAND FLOW DIRECTION. . . . . 123

FIGURE 20: HORSE RESEARCH FACILITY LAYOUT ................................ 124
FIGURE 21: PAVILION FOR AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK

EDUCATION ..................................................................... 125
FIGURE 22: POULTRY RESEARCH CENTER ........................................... 126
FIGURE 23: SHEEP RESEARCH CENTER ................................................ 127
FIGURE 24: OLD SWINE RESEARCH CENTER ......................................... 128

FIGURE 25: PUREBRED BEEF FACILITY OR COW-CALF FACILITY. . . . . . . 129

Vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The once picturesque scene of cattle grazing in open pastures has been greatly
transformed over the last 30 years. The onset of technology has brought many changes in
all aspects of the industry, especially in agriculture. The farming system has gone from
diverse, open range production to more industrialized conﬁnement facilities designed to
increase production while decreasing production cost. This has been accomplished by
improving efﬁciency with larger animal conﬁnement operations that allow for the
production of more animals on less land. Because of the additional amount of manure
being generated in smaller areas, producers must develop new manure handling and
distribution systems.

The trend toward larger livestock operations is driven primarily by economies of
scale (Michigan Agricultural Commission, 2002). Industrialization of the livestock
industry has allowed for increased efﬁciency, producing more head per unit of time, feed
or space. Increased productivity allows for more animals to be run through the system,
resulting in greater proﬁt because of a larger output. AS a result, the number of livestock
units per livestock operation has increased over the last thirty years. Approximately
450,000 livestock operations conﬁne animals in the United States. As of 1992, 6,600 of
these livestock operations contained more than 1,000 animal units (AU) (Uniﬁed
National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, 1999). The trend of increasing
operation size is likely to continue.

Michigan State University (MSU) farms, located south of campus in East
Lansing, are a large sprawling complex system of cropland and livestock facilities. MSU

farms consist of nine individual facilities with six different species of animals, horse,

poultry, sheep, mink, swine and cattle, totaling 6,684 head or 1,798 AU in 2001.
Approximately 1400 acres of land are utilized by MSU farms for crop production and
manure applications. A wide variety of crops are grown primarily to feed the MSU farms
livestock. The management of nutrients from livestock manure with crop requirements
requires a high degree of management and can be accomplished by implementing a
CNMP.

A CNMP includes a full accounting of the phosphorus (P) contained in livestock
manure or imported as fertilizer. An operation that meets the goal of P balance will have
equal amounts of P inputs, such as manure and fertilizer and P removal by harvested
crop. Ultimately, maintaining soil test P levels in compliance with GAAMPS further
requires that STP levels remain below 300 pounds/acre if manure is to be applied.

Maintaining this level demonstrates the test of balance.
The objectives of this project are to:
0 Determine the total manure P generated by animals at the MSU farms

campus, and to estimate the P removed by the crops to which the manure

is applied;

0 Analyze the past 10 years of soil test data to see if soil P levels are
within the limits established in the GAAMPS and whether there is any

change in levels;

0 Develop a CNMP for MSU farms; and,

0 Compare the two most popular soﬁware packages used for CNMP

development in Michigan.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The farming system has changed over the years, from diverse, open range
production to more industrialized, conﬁnement facilities. Conﬁnement operations allow
for the production of more livestock per acre of land, resulting in cheaper food prices at
the market. With this change in farm operations also comes a change in manure handling
and management. The once picturesque scene of cattle grazing on open pastures has
been transformed dramatically over the last thirty years.

Because of the change in livestock farm operations to more conﬁned conditions,
the management of manure nutrients has become a large environmental concern.
Conﬁned animal feeding operations typically import a majority of their livestock feed;
while that helps to maximize production, it results in a net input of nutrients. Efﬁciencies
of feed conversion to animal product are not 100% and thus manure is produced
(Mullinax, et al., 1998). Manure contains a large percentage of the nutrients fed to the
animal. Depending on the species of animal, 70-80% of the nitrogen (N), 60-85% of the
phosphorus (P), and 80-90% of the potassium (K), fed to animals will be excreted as
manure (MDA, 2002). Since many conﬁnement operations do not produce all of their
own feed and are located in grain deﬁcit areas, feed nutrients are imported while manure
nutrients are not always exported to the location of crop production where the nutrients
could best be utilized (Wood, et al., 1996). Agricultural production systems are
specialized. Specialization separates crop production ﬁom livestock production (J anzen,
et al., 1999). The geographic separation and the cost to transport manure to the ﬁelds
exacerbates the manure management problem. Instead, manure is applied to the parcels

of land available, often exceeding crop nutrient requirements (USDA, EPA, 1999).

Continuous application of manure beyond crop requirements leads to P buildup in the
soil. A survey of farms on the east coast found that nine out of ten farms surveyed have
high soil test phosphorus (STP) levels (Comis, 1999). High STP levels are a result of
nutrient applications greater than nutrient removal in crops.

Sustainability of a farm requires both ecological and economic considerations to
be in balance. A phosphorus balance developed for 33 Nebraska conﬁnement livestock
farms found 17 with signiﬁcant P imbalances (Koelsch and Lesoing, 1999). They
observed that nutrient inputs in the form of feed and fertilizer were 2 to 4 times greater
than nutrient outputs. Phosphorus has no gaseous state, so when applied to soil in excess
of the removal rate, it accumulates. The phosphorus cycle shows the movement of
phosphorus in the environment (Figure 1). As the amount of accumulated P increases, so
does the potential for surface water pollution from erosion and runoff. It has also been
established that in high concentrations P will move with water ﬂow through the soil,
inﬁltrating groundwater systems (Busman, et al. 2001). Nitrogen, on the other hand,
easily volatilizes into the atmosphere in several different gaseous compounds, or readily
leaches through the soil proﬁle, but tends not to accumulate in soil (Figure 2).
Furthermore, most non-leguminous agricultural crops use approximately twice as much
nitrogen as phosphorus during the growing cycle. As the crop residue decomposes,
almost all phosphorus returns to the soil, while only a ﬁ'action of the nitrogen is returned.
The disproportionate level of P to N applied and maintained in the soil are likely to cause
more signiﬁcant nutrient imbalances in the future.

Farm nutrient imbalances continue to be a hindering issue in the livestock

industry. A potential resolution is to transport nutrients greater distances to areas of need.

Specialized livestock production systems must be in contact with their crop production
counterparts in order to complete the cycle or balance the production system. In some
cases, this requires manure nutrients to be transported long distances, even beyond the
break-even distance where manure nutrient value meets the cost of transportation

(J anzen, et al., 1999). Transportation will become an even greater issue as regulations are
expanded and strengthened.

The continuous over application of manure nutrients has brought many soils to the
point of P saturation. Over fertilization of P causes the availability or solubility in soils
to increase and in turn increase P mobility with water (Jacobs, 1995). Phosphorus
saturated soils do not have the ability to bind or ﬁx additional nutrients, thus P is free to
move with water in runoff or to percolate through the soil proﬁle. When soil is eroded,
the P absorbed to the soil particle is also transported. STP levels greater than 150 parts
per million (ppm) are categorized as high and are likely to lose some nutrients to the
surrounding landscape, via runoff, erosion or leaching. Over application of P will
increase potential economic loss and environmental degradation.

To maintain sustainability, manure nutrients should be applied at crop removal
rates. This is difﬁcult due to the disproportion of manure nutrients to crop needs.
Manure nutrients are typically expelled from the animal at a ratio of P: N of 1:1, crop
requirements of P: N are typically in a ratio of 1:2, however when the ratio of manure
nutrients when applied are P: N of 2:1 (Powell, et al., 2001). The imbalance of manure
production concentrations to crop needs creates a problem when trying to meet all crop
requirements with only manure. Also, depending on the manure handling technique of

the farm, the proportion of manure nutrients, P: N can be even greater. This increased

difference is primarily due to the volatilization of nitrogen (N) gases to the atmosphere,
which decreases the nitrogen content of the manure, complicating the nutrient balance
issue even further. The over application of manure has led to the buildup of manure
nutrients in soils, and increased the risk of environmental problems.

Phosphorus contamination comes from point sources, sewage treatment plants and
factories and non point sources such as agriculture and urban runoff. Over the last two
decades, point sources of contamination have markedly decreased due to the ban of
phosphorus in detergents and the onset of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, requiring permits for discharging into water resources. The Federal Clean Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 implemented the use of permits to control the discharge of
pollutants into surface waters (Department of Environmental Quality, 2002). However,
nutrients in surface waters continue to be a major problem.

Several water quality problems have been linked to nutrient enrichment, primarily
from agriculture (EPA841-F-96-004A, 2001). Prior to intensiﬁcation of livestock, many
states based manure application rates on nitrogen. Balancing for nitrogen typically
resulted in the over application of phosphorus, even though farms were more diversiﬁed,
and manure was spread over larger areas. Phosphorus levels increased from years of over
application, although increases may not have been as dramatic as seen today in some
conﬁnement facilities. The current excess of P inputs over exports indicates a need for
adjustment in P management to further reduce the imbalance (Bundy, 1998).

Agriculture is the primary contributor of nonpoint source pollution in the United
States today (EPA841-F-96-004A, 2001). Non point source pollution implies that there

is not a point source location that can be identiﬁed which is directly responsible for the

contamination, however the source of pollution is dispersed, sometimes over thousands
of miles (U SGS, 2001). The National Water Quality Inventory indicates that agriculture
is the leading contributor to water quality impairments, degrading 60 percent of the
impaired river miles and half of the impaired lake acreage surveyed by states, tenitories
and tribes (EPA841-F-96-004A, 2001). The primary reason for the degradation of water
resources from agriculture is due to the over application and stockpiling of manure
nutrients. Estimated annual P losses in runoff and erosion represent approximately 1.6%
of the P applied each year or an average loss of 0.3lb P per cropland acre (Bundy 1998).
Applying P beyond production requirements is detrimental from both environmental and
economic viewpoints (Waskom, 1994). Some farms have elected the quickest approach
to manure hauling and consistently haul manure to the ﬁeld closest to the source, which
results in enrichment of soil P.

Excessive manure loading can cause excessive nitrate levels in groundwater and
phosphorus accumulation in the upper soil proﬁle, increasing the incidence of nonpoint
source pollution (Jacobs, 1995). Many water quality problems are the result of
phosphorus buildup in soils and the mismanagement of manure. Today, many states have
evolved to a more phosphorus restrictive approach for manure and nutrient applications.
However there continue to be water quality concerns due to P-enrichment.

Phosphorus enrichment of waterways causes aesthetic, recreational, and water
utilization issues. Phosphorus is generally the limiting nutrient, the nutrient lacking for
organic production, for plant grth in most water resources. Thus when phosphorus is
added, plants grow rapidly. The accelerated plant growth reduces light and can hinder

the quality of the reservoir’s natural food chain (Waskom, 1994). As the vegetation

begins to decay, aerobic or facultative organisms utilize a large amount of dissolved
oxygen in the water, diminishing available oxygen for other organisms, such as ﬁsh. In
many instances, these ﬁsh will move to other areas or suffocate and die from
asphyxiation (USDA, 1992). The excess plant growth and diminished dissolved oxygen
leads to the early aging or eutrophication of surface water resources, reducing the quality
and quantity of natural surface waters. Another problem being linked to phosphorus is
the occurrence of pﬁsteria in the Chesapeake Bay area. There has been no other link
found for the pﬁsteria outbreaks except the rising levels of P in soils (Comis, 1999). This
means high manure applications, loading of phosphorus in soils, and the subsequent
runoff and erosion of those soils may cause health concerns for humans and animals from
increased bacteria in the water. There is a link between high STP levels in soils and
subsequent P levels in runoff (SERA—l7, 2000). The instance of high STP levels,
especially in water sensitive areas, will result in the movement of P and degradation of
nearby water sources. There are issues and consequences with enriching the nation’s
surface waters with phosphorus.

In 1997, Senator Harkin introduced a bill initiating regulations on management of
phosphorus. The data show applying manure to meet the crop nitrogen requirement
creates excess phosphorus loading resulting in numerous water quality issues, especially
in sensitive areas (Copeland, 1997). Until the introduction of the Harkin bill, many states
based manure application on crop N needs. Some states continue to base manure
applications on N, however, many have changed to a phosphorus-based standard. Since
1988 Michigan has based manure application rates on phosphorus except for soils with

low (<75 ppm) soil test phosphorus levels (MDA, 2002).

Michigan, known as the Great Lake State, has set voluntary regulations for
producers. The Great Lakes comprise the largest system of fresh surface water on the
planet and provide over 10,000 miles of shoreline (EPA, 2002). In its attempt to reduce
phosphorus enrichment of water sources Michigan has adopted a zero discharge policy of
nutrients into water resources (Manure Management, 2001). Application of nutrients
beyond crop requirements has no beneﬁt to the crop but can be detrimental to natural
resources. In 1987 The State of Michigan, amended the Right -to —Farm Act (R to F) to
include generally accepted agricultural management practices (GAAMPS). There are
several sets of GAAMPS, but the most applicable to livestock operations are for manure
management and for citing of new and expanding livestock operations (MDA, Site
Selection GAAMPS, 2002). In 1988, GAAMPS established phosphorus as the base upon
which manure would be applied. In special circumstances where soil phosphorus levels
are low (below 150 lbs Bray P1 per acre [75 ppm]), manure application to soil is limited
by plant nitrogen needs. Where soil phosphorus is high (above 300 lbs Bray Pl per acre
[150 ppm]), manure may not be applied. In most cases, the soil P is between 150 and 300
lb per acre, and the amount of manure applied is limited to the amount of P the plant will
remove from the land (MDA, Manure GAAMPS, 2002). These are speciﬁed soil test
phosphorus ranges for manure application rates dependent upon the soil test phosphorus
level of a ﬁeld. Most recently, in 2002, the State of Michigan came to an agreement with
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U SEPA) that all livestock
operations with 1000 or more animal units must take one of two avenues for
environmental assurance. The producer must either seek environmental assurance

through the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP), or seek

a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permit (Scott
Piggott, 2000). In either case, a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP)
must be developed for the livestock operation. The smaller livestock producer can utilize
the standards set by GAAMPS as a guideline for manure management. However, a more
complete analysis for potential P-movement would be to utilize a soil phosphorus index,
which takes other potential factors of phosphorus loss into consideration. A soil
phosphorus index takes more factors into account when predicting the potential for
phosphorus movement than just a soil test level and several versions have been adopted
in other states.

A phosphorus index includes factors that assess the potential for P delivery from
ﬁelds. Some factors used in this assessment include, soil erosion, slope gradient and
length, soil runoff class, distance to water drainage, tillage, vegetation, as well as the soil
phosphorus level (Mallarino, et al., 2000). When all of these factors are analyzed, each
ﬁeld is given a rating on its potential for phosphorus loss. This rating can be utilized to
determine which ﬁelds have the highest risk of phosphorus loss. High-risk ﬁelds should
be used as a last resort for manure application or only in ideal weather and soil
conditions. The implementation of a soil phosphorus risk index requires an individual
assessment of each ﬁeld. However it gives a more accurate analysis of which ﬁelds have
the highest potential for P-movement.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and Dr. Robert von Bemuth
developed the Manure Application Risk Index (MARI) in 1998 as a part of the CNMP
process (http://www.maeap.org/mari_oct02.xls). MARI is a modiﬁed version of the P

index being utilized in Michigan as part of the CNMP process for manure application.

10

MARI is used to identify ﬁelds with high P movement potential. The Michigan
Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) has adopted MARI to address
water quality concerns from P enrichment. The goal of MARI is to maintain a voluntary
approach to meeting the national water pollution non-point standards. It is a tool for
assessing the relative risk of applying manure and is useful in determining the order in
which manure is applied to the ﬁelds (Grigar, Jerry, and Jay Blaire, 2001)

The movement of nutrients into surface water is a preventable concern of animal
production. According to 3 Census Report and survey done in Michigan, manure could
provide 19% of the nitrogen, 37% of the phosphorus, and 25% of the potassium, for
Michigan’s primary crops (von Bemuth & Salthouse, 1999). Phosphate production from
manure is in deﬁcit by 24Kg/Ha before fertilizer. When fertilizer is considered, the state
is in excess by 15Kg/Ha. Sixty-nine of Michigan’s 83 counties are in excess by 25
Kg/Ha or more, and most are lakeshore counties. The excess areas tend to be
geographically separated from the areas in need of nutrients (von Bemuth & Salthouse,
1999). Michigan as a whole is not much different from the national perspective.
Although Michigan is not in excess of manure nutrients, problems exist because of
uneven distribution of the nutrients. Nationally this is the root of the problem as well; the
geographic segregation from where nutrients are produced to where they are deﬁcient for

crop production.

Phosphorus in Soils
The Bray P1 soil test is the primary analysis of soil phosphorus levels adopted in

the Midwest. Bray P1 measures only a portion of the phosphorus in the soil. Although

11

the Bray Pl does not give the exact level of soil phosphorus in acid soils, it gives a much
more representative sample than that of the other two primary soil tests used, Olsen P and
Melich III. The Olsen P soil test is used primarily in calcareous soils, and the Melich 111
soil test is considered universal across any pH soil for phosphorus and other nutrients.
The Bray P1 test is most widely used in the acidic soils of the Corn Belt because it is
better adapted to soil pH less than 7.4 (Sawyer et al., 2003).

As mentioned, Bray P1 only measures a portion of the phosphorus in soils. Most
of the phosphorus not measured by this test is bound by other elements in the soil.
Phosphorus, typically taken up by the plant as phosphate ions, HzPO4' and HPO42',
readily binds with positively charged cations in the soil proﬁle. Minerals such as Al3+
and Fe2+ readily absorb the phosphate ion in acid soils, making them unavailable for plant
uptake. In Calcareous soils, Ca3+ is the primary binding site for phosphate. Soil pH
plays a large role in the availability of phosphorus to the plant. A pH range of 5.5-6.5 is
the pH of maximum plant phosphorus uptake (Garcia, 1999). When the soil pH is above
or below this range, phosphorus uptake is reduced. Another factor affecting phosphorus
availability is soil type. F inc-textured or clay soils typically have the capacity to absorb
or ﬁx more phosphorus than coarse or sandier soils (Garcia, 1999). The capacity to
absorb large quantities of P is due to the increased surface area of the soil to attach
phosphate'ions. In coarser soils, less surface area results in fewer binding sites, and a
reduced ability to ﬁx large amounts of soil phosphorus. The soil type and pH are the two
primary factors when determining the availability of phosphorus to the plant and the

phosphorus concentration reported on the Bray P1, soil phosphorus test.

12

Various soil types will respond differently to manure applications and soil test
levels because different soil types absorb different amounts of P. Thus when a farmer
applies the same manure to two different ﬁelds, soil test levels could show very different
levels. Some soils bind phosphorus to the extent that very little P is available for crop
uptake (Tisdale, et a1, 1993). These soils require larger amounts of nutrients to meet the
crop needs, primarily because soil minerals and soil particles bind most of the phosphorus
applied. On the other hand, because coarser textured soils have fewer binding sites, more
phosphorus is likely to be available to the plant. All soils have the potential to become
saturated, resulting in the soils’ absorption sites being ﬁlled. The point of saturation
varies with each soil and its respective mineral content and texture. Nutrients applied
beyOnd the point of saturation do not become ﬁxed, but move freely with water (Jacobs,
1995). In most instances, phosphorus moves with runoff or water moving laterally over
the surface. However, there is the potential for phosphorus to leach through the soil
proﬁle and into shallow aquifers. This phenomenon has a higher likelihood of occurring
in sandier soils, where there are few binding sites, or when organic matter is high.
Organic matter occupies potential phosphorus binding sites, allowing P to leach further
into the soil proﬁle (USDA, 1992). The potential for phosphorus leaching occurs when
there is an absence of available absorption sites. The range of soil types and minerals
present will alter the predictability of phosphorus in soil. Predicting the soil test
phosphorus level aﬁer phosphorus additions is difﬁcult and variable.

Interactions of soil P are complex. The rate at which soil P levels change when
phosphorus is added as manure or extracted by the plant depends on several factors. The

factors to consider when dealing with soil phosphorus change are, soil pH, soil texture,

13

initial P soil test value, type of soil, crop removal, soil P buffering capacity, etc. Each of
these factors plays an important role in the amount of P to be added or removed to change
soil test P values. The general rule for the midwestem states is 18-201bs/acre of P205
added or removed to change the Bray P1 soil test by llb/ac. (Vitosh et al, 1995). In a
paper from the Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis (Ontario), the
average increase in P soil test was about lppm on the Olsen test for every 35kg/ha
(~351bs/acre) of added P205 (Bates, 1997) found that an application of 4kg/ha
(~4lbs/acre) was required to raise the extractable P of a medium textured Mollisol and
Alﬁsol lkg/ha (2.29lb/acre P205). For sandy to clay loam textured Utisols, an application
of 5-6kg P /ha (11.45-13.74lbs/acre P205) was required to raise the extractable P 1kg/ha
(1 lb/acre or 2.29 lb PzOs/ac). But on clayey textured soils, 12kg P/ha (121bs/acre or 34.8
lbs P205/ac) was required to change the soil test values 1 kg/ha (Zenter et al).

The P absorption characteristic of the soil and the initial P soil test value play a
large role in how much phosphorus is extractable (Sera-l 7, Minimum P losses). Soils
with strong sorption capacity will release less dissolved P at a given soil test value than
those that have a weak sorption capacity. Strong sorption capacity soils will tend to bind
P within the soil, not allowing it to be extracted, and thus not showing up on the soil test
or being removed by the plant. Utilizing the general rules of P change will give guidance
when looking at soil tests and deciding whether to add P or not, as well as when trying to
reduce STP levels. These are general guidelines; each farm must be assessed on an
individual basis to ﬁnd speciﬁc phosphorus change levels.

The initial level of P within a soil also plays an important role when trying to

predict soil test P changes and applying nutrients. The greater the initial soil test P level,

14

the more the soil test level will change after application of a P source. Results have been
obtained with absorption isotherms, which indicate that the increases in soil solution P
are a curvilinear ﬁmction of P addition rather than a linear function. When P
applications are doubled and tripled, the relative increases of soil test levels were
approximately 3 to 6 times greater. Information from both Gary M. Pierzynski,
Professor, Soil and Environmental Chemistry Department of Agronomy at Kansas State
University, and Bill Thom, Department of Agronomy, at the University of Kentucky have
found similar results (communication via e-mail 10-27-2000). According to Pierzynski
of Kansas State University, if initial STP is low, then it takes more P to raise the STP 1
lb/acre, than if the initial STP is high.

Kansas State University has also done work on phosphorus extraction and the
results are a bit more variable. Generally, however, if STP levels are high they decrease
rapidly with crop removal. As you remove more P ﬁ'om the system, eventually STP
levels off, despite the fact that you continue to remove P. As STP becomes low, the soil
buffering capacity comes into effect. This means that at a certain level even though P is
still being removed, STP levels remain stationary. Phosphorus is being mineralized ﬁom
ﬁxed soil compounds or organic phosphorus is being released when STP is low. The soil
P buffering capacity has also been seen in a 24-year study in Western Canada where the
initial level of Olsen P was 19kg/ha and after 24 years of cropping without any
phosphorus fertilizer application, the P content of the 0-15cm depths on a medium texture
Orthic Brown Chemozemic soil, did not change. The phosphorus removed (exported
from the system) in the grain of the wheat-averaged 3.5kg/ha/yr. It was believed that the

P was being released from organic and inorganic P sources within the soil (Zetner et al).

15

Thom’s work has shown similar results. His study also looked at both soil test
increase and soil test decrease related to P additions and removal, for a Belknap soil in
western Kentucky (e-mail conversation 10-27-00). Table 16 and Figure 3 show the soil
test phosphorus changes with the addition and extraction of phosphorus from the Belknap
soil. Both the change in phosphorus levels with the addition and extraction are
curvilinear functions, making phosphorus prediction complicated.

The ideal of using one number to predict how much soil test values will change
when a quantity of fertilizer is applied, gives us an estimate of where a ﬁelds’ levels will
be the following year. Agriculture should be aware, however, that when Soil test levels
are already high adding small amounts of P to that ﬁeld will cause large increases in STP

levels.

Environmental Issues

Many environmental clubs and associations believe laws for conﬁned animal
feeding operations (CAF Os) are too lenient. In 1995, a lagoon in North Carolina burst,
obliterating aquatic life in the New River, due to the 23 million gallons of raw manure
that was discharged (Sierra Club, 1999). This spill was catastrophic to the life that once
inhabited the river. A major manure spill occurred in February of 2002 by Maple Ridge
Dairy in Wisconsin. The Dairy applied 250,000 gallons of manure on 32 acres of frozen
ground, causing manure to run off the ﬁeld and disperse in unnamed tributaries of the
Eau Pleine River (Sierra Club, 2002). The application of manure onto frozen ground
greatly increases the risk of runoff. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(DNR) has listed the Big Eau Pleine River as having too much bacteria and too little

l6

oxygen since the winter 2002 spill. Both lack of oxygen and too many bacteria can lead
to ﬁsh kills. Cargill Pork, Inc., in Missouri discharged hog waste directly into surface
water, violating the Clean Water Act and killing more than 50,000 ﬁsh (Bomestein,
2002). Spills involving large volumes of manure from livestock facilities result in the
degradation of water resources and cause the death of thousands of ﬁsh and aquatic
species

Some actions have been taken to try to minimize the issues created by large
conﬁnement operations. New regulations require producers to meet either Environmental
Assurance through MAEAP guidelines or to obtain pollution permits; both require the
development of a CNMP.

As farms grow and number of livestock in conﬁnement increases, water quality will
be of greater concern unless action is taken to promote balanced farm systems and
minimize soil and P-losses. The development of a CNMP can beneﬁt producers by
meeting nutrient requirements with manure rather than expending on commercial
fertilizers. Meeting crop needs with available manure nutrients can save capital for the
producer while reducing the potential for environmental degradation due to excess
loading of nutrients to ﬁelds. Crop and livestock producers will beneﬁt from the

development and implementation of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans.

17

CHAPTER 3: CNMP BACKGROUND

The concept of manure management and manure management plans is not new. It
amounts to little more than an accounting for nutrients available through manure
application that has been utilized for centuries. F onnalization in Michigan ﬁrst came
through the Manure Management GAAMPS. Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plans were described in the March 9, 1999, Uniﬁed Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations issued jointly by EPA and USDA (USDA, EPA, 1999). Section 3.2 of that
document states the following:

In general terms, A CNMP identiﬁes actions or priorities that will be
followed to meet clearly deﬁned nutrient management goals at an
agricultural operation. Deﬁning nutrient management goals and
identifying measures and schedules for attaining the goals is critical to
reducing threats to water quality and public health from AF 0 ’s (animal
feeding operations). The CNMP should ﬁt within the total resource
management objectives of the entire farm.

CNMPs should address, as necessary, feed management, manure handling
and storage, land application of manure and management, record
keeping, and other utilization options. While nutrients are often the
major pollutants of concern, the plan should address risks from other
pollutants, such as pathogens, to minimize water quality and public health
impacts from AF Us.

In addition to protecting water quality and public health, CNMPs should

be site-specific and be developed and implemented to address the goals

and needs of the individual owner/operator, as well as the conditions on

the farm...

In August 2000, the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program
(MAEAP) Steering Committee approved CNMP’s as a component of MAEAP
(http://www.maeap.org/). They deﬁned a CNMP as “the production practices,
equipment, and structure(s) that the owner/operator of and agricultural operation now

uses and/or crop production in a manner that is both environmentally and economically

18

sound (MAEAP).” The CNMP is a planning tool, record of decisions, and documentation
of land used for manure application. The basis for the CNMP as deﬁned by MAEAP was
the manure management system plan as developed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) with modiﬁcations as appropriate to the MAEAP program.
A complete CNMP contains the following components:

- Overview

Farm Headquarters Map

0 Animal Outputs

0 Conservation Practices on Fields Used for Land Application
0 Land Application Management

0 Record of CNMP Implementation

0 Inputs to Animals--Feed Management (where applicable)
0 Alternative Utilization Activities (where applicable)

- Inspection, Operation and Maintenance, Training

0 Schedule of Implementation

0 Emergency Action Plan

- References

- Appendices

For the purposes of this study, perhaps the most signiﬁcant section is the land
application management. The three key elements of this section are nutrient budgets for
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium; the determination of application rates; and the
application schedule. Much of this study will focus on the nutrient budget for

phosphorus because phosphorus is generally the limiting nutrient for manure application

19

on MSU farms. The driving force for nutrient budgeting is the production of manure as
addressed in the animal outputs section. For that reason, the ﬁrst analysis will be in
animal outputs. Following are the MAEAP components and information that should be
contained within each section.

Overview

An overview is a brief statement outlining the farm operation including goals, enterprises,
and long-term plans for resource management.

Farm Headquarters Map

A site map showing locations of farm buildings, animal housing, manure storage
structures, other sources of manure and wastewater, feed storage, farm house(s) and any
other relevant physical features.

Animal Outputs

Record and assess all aspects of manure handling, including production, collection,
storage, treatment, and transfer for application.

Conservation Practices on Fields Used for Manure Application

Evaluation of potential for nitrogen or phosphorus transport off-site includes evaluation
of such faCtors as: soil, water quality, surface cover, and manure. Identifying sensitive
areas, conservation and management practices needed for erosion control and water
management to control off-site transport of nutrients, feasibility of winter manure
application, maps showing sensitive areas, setbacks and locations of practices/activities.
Land Application Management

A nutrient budget for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from all sources should be

assessed.

20

Calibration of application equipment and planned application schedule and application
rates by ﬁeld based on crop, yield goal, crop nutrient needs, soil test results, previous
crop and if any nitrogen credits are applicable, manure and wastewater nutrient content,
whether applying based on phosphorus or nitrogen, and special considerations need to be
given for ﬁelds potentially used for winter spreading. At time of application, ﬁeld-
speciﬁc conditions (wet, dry, frozen, snow covered) should be considered and application
rates adjusted accordingly.

Record of CNMP Implementation

Records should be kept by ﬁeld and include: soil test reports, dates of manure/wastewater
applications, sources and rate of all nutrients applied, dates of incorporation, method of
application, acres and area of ﬁeld applied, weather and ﬁeld conditions during
application, recommended nutrient application rates, previous crop grown and yields,
plant tissue sampling and testing reports (where applicable), and pre-side dress nitrate test
(PSNT) reports (where applicable). Other records such as manure/wastewater quantities
produced and nutrient analysis results, inspection and maintenance reports, records of
rental agreements or other agreements for application of manure/wastewater on land not
owned by the producer and record of manure/wastewater sold or given away to other
landowners (where applicable) should be kept. The Strategy establishes a national
expectation that all animal feeding operations develop and implement comprehensive
nutrient management plans by the year 2008 (Salazar, 1998)

Inputs to Animals- Feed Management

The management of animal diets that result in:

- Optimum production and/or animal body maintenance

21

- Best economical use of feed materials

- Minimize the amount of (recoverable) nutrients contained in manure.
Alternative Utilization Activities (where applicable)
Transport and environmentally sound off-site utilization, including such processes as
power generation and conversion to value-added products (e. g. compost).
Inspections, Operations & Maintenance Training
This section should include: 1) schedule for inspection of structural and vegetative
practices and equipment, and operation and maintenance practices/activities; 2) schedule
for a review of management practices/activities to ensure implementation of plan; 3) a
plan for training employees how to follow CNMP, including when training will be
provided, such as: training new employees hired, new processes, procedures or
equipment, and employee responsibilities.
Schedule of Implementation
The Schedule of Implementation includes new components that are planned and the
implementation schedule for each new component as well as an annual review and update
of plan as necessary.
Emergency Action Plan
An emergency action plan should include actions to take in the event of a spill, discharge,
or failure of a collection, storage, treatment or transfer component as well as telephone
numbers to report and seek assistance in the event of an emergency, and the anticipated
ﬂow paths in the event of a spill, discharge, or failure, shown on a site map.
References

Sources of information cited/used in the development of the plan

22

Appendices
Copies of pertinent references cited in the plan, environmental documentation, as

appropriate and other appropriate supporting documents not included in other parts of the

plan (i.e., worksheets, forms, etc).

23

CHAPTER 4: NUTRIENT PRODUCTION ON MSU FARMS

There are three generally accepted methods for estimating the nutrient production
from animals. The ﬁrst method, and likely the most accurate if adequate data are
available, is mass balance. In this method, an accurate account is kept of the nutrients
contained in the feed that the animals consume. In some cases this is done per animal per
ration formulation, in other cases it is done per herd, and in a few cases it is done on a
whole farm basis. This generally is easiest with P because no gaseous losses occur.
Hence the amount of P consumed by the animal less the amount retained in the animal or
excreted in milk and eggs equals the amount lost in the waste product. This requires
careful maintenance of records, but is the best method for long term planning.

Method 2 used to estimate animal outputs is to measure the quantity of manure
produced and analyze manure samples to get a representative concentration of the
nutrients contained within the manure. Knowing the amount of manure produced and the
respective concentrations of nutrients, total nutrient production can be estimated. The
shortcomings of this method are two-fold: 1) it is difﬁcult to obtain truly representative
samples, and 2) estimates of total volumes of manure are impacted by weather, bedding
and accuracy of determination methods. This method is essential for determining load-
by-load application rates.

Method 3 of estimating animal outputs is by using representative average values
known as book values. In this method reference charts such as shown in the GAAMPS
for manure management, adopted from the 2000 Midwest Plan Service (MWPS-18,
2000) are used to estimate the total volume of manure and the amount of the individual

nutrients produced. This method is probably the least accurate method, but does not

24

require as much testing or record keeping as the other two. This method does not account
for various feed management strategies such as diets or supplements, but is currently
acceptable if the other two methods are not available.

MSU farms involve 36 sources of manure from nine different livestock facilities
(Table 10). Because it is a research facility, there are innumerable diets fed for varying
lengths of time, so attempting to compute a mass balance would be very difﬁcult for the
entire MSU farms. Hence, the determination of animal outputs will be based on the
second and third methods.

Method 2 utilizes manure analysis and tons or gallons hauled. The volume of manure
hauled from each facility was calculated (Table 11). A representative manure sample was
taken from each of the manure sources and analyzed (Table 10). The concentrations for
each nutrient from analysis were then multiplied by the volume of manure hauled from
each source to calculate the total nutrient production for N, P205 and K20 production
from each of the manure sources. Utilizing manure analysis from the individual manure
sources allows for speciﬁc farm management practices and feed differences to be seen,
rather than simply basing production levels from book values. However, a precise record
of manure volumes hauled must be kept in order to result in accurate production levels.
Because of unrecorded manure applications, a close estimate was developed for the dairy
barn.

Method 3, book values, although the least speciﬁc for individual farm
management practices, does give an estimated nutrient production level. Utilizing book
values requires livestock numbers, species and production level, and a book value data

source. There are two versions of the most commonly used source MWPS-18. The 1985

25

edition is signiﬁcantly different from the 2000 edition. For this study, both editions were
used and compared along with manure analysis values (Table 15). Because of the
multiple livestock species and production levels, each facility was determined separately
and then added as a whole. This method also required some estimation because mink and
ferrets are not included as a livestock species. Production levels for these species were
ﬁgured as 4-pound chicken layers. Quail body weights of 0.5 pounds and pheasants at 3
pounds were ﬁgured as 2-pound broiler chickens. Only one production weight is given
for sheep and horses, in MWPS-18, so overestimation is likely because young animals
were counted. Total P205 production estimates were 153,700 lbs by Method 2 (Table
13), about 143,000 lbs for method 3 using 1985 MWPS values (Table 8) and 128,000 lbs

for method 3 using 2000 MWPS values (Table 9).

26

CHAPTER 5: COMPARISON OF TWO SOFTWARE PROGRAMS

There are two primary software programs being utilized in Michigan to assist
producers in the development and implementation of a CNMP. The two are the Manure
Management Planner (MMP) developed by Purdue University and associates and the
MSU Nutrient Management Program (MSUnm), developed by Michigan State University
Faculty and Staff. Each program was designed with a speciﬁc use in mind and is being
continuously updated. There is a large amount of data associated with a CNMP, and
changes in the programs seriously complicate the process.

The Purdue program was set up as a planning tool; it is not designed to be a
record keeper. This program was to plan for manure generation, crops, animal number
changes, and other planning aspects of an operation. MMP allows for manure
management planning for 1-5 years. This allows for the opportunity to look at future
goals and the probability of reaching them.

MSUnm was designed speciﬁcally for record keeping, and not as a planner. This
program designed to manage nutrients, was designed speciﬁcally for Michigan producers.
MSUnm was designed to keep track of the information while allowing for some analysis
and planning for the following year. This program keeps track of all aspects of the farm
activities, including: manure spreading, pesticide management, crop yields, manure and
soil test labs, fertilizer management and livestock information. All of this information
can be stored and added to the MSUnm program.

Both programs have aspects, which are beneﬁcial to a producer. There is a lot of
overlap between the two programs, and because each involves a large amount of data,

producers should decide which program will best suit their needs and utilize just that one.

27

Data Differences/Errors

MSUnm utilizes MWPS-18, 1985 manure nutrient values with in the program,
while reports are reported using MWPS-18, 2000. Also in the Nutrient Balance Report
there is a decimal error for the P205 production of a 1,000 lb lactating dairy cow, making
the phosphorus production 1,000 times less than it should be. Fertilizer recommendations
and crop nutrient needs for both programs appear to be very similar.
Purdue uses MWPS-18 2000 manure nutrient values.
Personal likes and dislikes

The Purdue program is self explanatory and easy to utilize. Upon opening,
program tabs appear across the screen, highlighting only those available, until a farm is
set up. The MSUnm program is not especially difﬁcult, but it is a DOS based program
and takes a little longer to become acquainted with in the initial format. When beginning
a new plan, MSUnm assumes the plan is developed for use by a Michigan farmer and has
all relevant information speciﬁcally and exclusively for Michigan farmers. The Purdue
program, on the other hand, was developed for use by the Midwest and thus contains
information for the Midwest region. This requires the user to indicate the state and
county for which the plan applies, in order to get soil information. The plan can be made
from 1 to 5 years. The Purdue program is more versatile within the Midwest area and
allows more ﬂexibility for planners.

A problem arises with MMP if a plan involves more than one county. Soil types

may be missing from a plan in such an instance.

28

In the MSUnm program, crops to be grown must be selected. Unlike the MMP
program, MSUnm has the ability to select ﬁeld crops as well as fruit, vegetable and turf
crops. This is an asset to ﬁ'uit and vegetable farmers.

The MSUnm has an area to input all fertilizer and liming materials used and the
nutrient analysis of each. Included in the liming and fertilizer section is the ability to
record nutrient costs. This allows a producer the ability to estimate fertilizer expense or
to ﬁgure the cost- beneﬁt analysis from efﬁcient use of manure nutrients. MSUnm has
also implemented the ability to record the soil-testing laboratory used and download the
soil test levels directly from the web. This can be a tremendous time saver for farmers
compared to manually inputting the data. Once a testing lab is selected, units are
automatically given.

The pesticide/herbicide section is another record keeping aspect of MSUnm,
allowing producers to track where, when and what chemicals were applied and who
applied them. This allows for accountability in the instance of a problem.

Another beneﬁcial aspect of MSUnm is the section for tillage information. This
area allows for the input of different tillage practices used on different ﬁelds. However,
when a type of tillage is speciﬁed, a message comes up saying that the acres are incorrect,
acreage should be between zero (0) and zero (0), please enter correct acreage. This is
likely a glitch in the program that has not been worked out at this time, although it is a
concern for producers currently using this version.

One feature that is found in both programs is the ability to make notes and
comments. This allows some freedom for descriptions, special notes and explanations if

needed. This feature is handy, especially on a large or widely variable farm system.

29

MSUnm requires a sub ﬁeld ID, where MMP does not. While MSUnm will use
the last available soil test level entered, MMP does not accept soil test levels older than
start of the plan. This is an issue if a producer is just beginning the planning process and
soil tests only a portion of his ﬁelds every year. GAAMPS allows for soil tests every
three years as long as ﬁelds are not in excess of 300 lbs of P/acre. Not accepting a soil
test older than the start of the plan can be discouraging when trying to plan for a ﬁeld that
does not have a new soil test. Another aspect of MMP that is worrisome is the lack of
restriction on yield goals for crops. Yield goals can range from 0-500+ for any crop.
Fertilizer recommendations will increase with the yield goal, except in the case of fallow
ground where no fertilizer recommendations are given, no matter what the yield. This
feature can allow a producer to overestimate yield goals and achieve apparent nutrient
balance. MSUnm, on the other hand, is more realistic in their range of yield goals for
different crops.

The programs were designed to be used differently, however either of the
programs has the potential to meet the needs of different producers for manure and
nutrient management.

Some other useful items in the MMP program are the automatic default nutrient
recommendations for N, P and K, when crop information is input. This is beneﬁcial if
the farmer is strictly crop farming, and needs fertilizer projections, or when trying to
match nutrient needs from livestock manure with crop needs. Also useful is the manure
application section. This section can be confusing at ﬁrst however it is a great planning
tool, showing approximately when pits will become full. This allows for some pre-

planning. For example, if the pits are predicted to be ﬁll] at the current ﬁll rate in

30

February and there is good weather in December, it is worth hauling some of the manure
early to prevent overﬁll or having to haul manure in adverse weather. The color-coding
of manure storage facilities allows for a quick and easy assessment of manure levels.
Green means that the pit is low and has available capacity. The color Purple reveals a pit
that had more manure removed from the pit than what should have been produced based
on animal manure generation levels from animal numbers.

The manure application section of MMP calculates the acres that should have
been covered when manure load is applied. This allows the producer to see if a ﬁeld was
completely covered with each manure source, if applied correctly or if there are areas that
did not receive some manure.

MMP does not have enough space for all of the animals to be listed for MSU
farms. However, most production facilities are not likely to have the variability in
species that MSU farms maintain. It would be better if the set-up for animals present to
be every two weeks instead of every month. Producers who buy or sell, or have
newborns regularly would have animal numbers continuously changing. This could be a
crucial issue for producers in close balance on manure.

A desirable additional feature for MMP would be a record-keeping function for
dates of manure applications. This would reduce confusion if the same manure and
number of loads were applied to the same ﬁeld, but on different dates. Otherwise there is
the potential for a ﬁeld to appear to have been completely covered on twice on the same
day. It would be useful to print different sections of the plan for records or to take to the

ﬁeld as a reference.

31

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Michigan State University Farms is facing several challenges in the development
and implementation of a CNMP. First, the removal of farmland from production is
creating problems when attempting to balance nutrients for MSU farms. The decrease in
spreadable acres over time is shown in ﬁgure 4A. In 1996, MSU farms utilized 1,455
acres for crop production and manure applications. Some ﬁelds have been developed and
that acreage has been taken permanently out of University farm use. This includes the
building of the Livestock Pavilion, the Spartan football ﬁeld’s grass turf growing area,
the Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory, and the new or south swine farm. In 2001, the
usable acres totaled 1,377. The reduction in land available has been further complicated
with an increase of animals that are now housed in the new facilities.

The new swine farm and the livestock pavilion increased the production of
manure nutrients due to this addition. This complicates an already difﬁcult situation by
reducing the land base and increasing the generation of manure nutrients. An average
crop removal rate of 51.1 lb/ac times 1,377 acres gives a total of 69,535 lbs P205 taken up
on MSU farms cropland. This divided by the yearly production of P205 from one animal
will total the number of head that can be sustained on MSU farms. Based on this
information and the production values from MWPS-18, 2000 edition, 453.5 mature
lactating dairy cattle, 907 Mature 1,100 lb beef cattle, 1,465 lactating sows weighing 375
lbs, 9,525 mature sheep at 100 lbs or 1,731 mature 1,000 lb horses can be sustained on
MSU farms. Sustainable animal numbers are based on total available acres and do not
take into account acres which should not receive manure application due to high soil test

levels.

32

While the land base is decreasing, overall animal numbers are increasing,
heightening the problem even more. Animal units (AU) have increased over the last ﬁve
years as shown in Table 2. In 1996 MSU farms housed 1,480 animal units. The animal
numbers vary due to research projects, newborns and production. In 1999 the number of
animal units heightened to 1,796, then decreased in 2000 to 1,678 (Figure 8). Many of
the livestock are kept for production and not always used for research purposes. As of
2001, animal units are at their peak of 1,798. The current equation of animal unit change
over time is: y=77.486x+1336.5, indicating an increase of 77 animal units per year.

The decrease in acreage without the subsequent reduction in livestock exacerbates
the problems faced by the MSU farm system and a subsequent accumulation of P. For
every piece of land lost from production, there should be an equivalent reduction in
livestock to balance for the phosphorus that would typically have been recycled on the
land area. For example, Powell et al., found that approximately 0.71 ha or 1.75 acres is
required to properly recycle the phosphorus excreted by a lactating cow fed a P adequate
diet. Adding supplemental P beyond the feed requirement increases the cropland area
required to recycle the manure P. Thus, if the initial system is balanced, one lactating
cow or an equivalent source of phosphorus, should be taken out of production for every
1.75 acres lost. Thus when the Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory was built on ﬁeld
E38, a 9-acre ﬁeld, just over 5 lactating cows should have been taken out of production.
However, this has not been the trend seen on the MSU farms. While acreage has been
decreasing, the overall trend of animal units is increasing without increasing nutrient

exports.

33

The lack of compensation for reduction in land-base has led to the concentration
of manure nutrients on less acreage and a subsequent build up of soil phosphorus levels.
To adequately recycle nutrients, removal rates must be equivalent to production. The
average rate of P205 removal based on the 2001 crop plan is 51.1 lbs/acre (Table 7).
Production levels for the three different assessments of nutrient production, each resulted
in a different P205 value. Mid West Plan Service-l8, 1985 edition predicted 142,577 lbs
for 2001(Table 8). Based on a removal rate of P205, 2,790 acres are required to
adequately recycle P. Mid West Plan Service —18, 2000 edition estimates a production of
127,961 lbs of P205 (Table 9), requiring 2,504 acres to properly recycle P. Manure
analysis assessment revealed the highest estimate of P205 production at 153,721 (Table
13) and requiring 3,008 acres based on average crop removal data to adequately recycle
the P nutrient. MSU farm’s currently maintains 1,37 7 acres for manure application and
nutrient recycling, obviously resulting in the over application of nutrients.

The application of more manure on less land has increased the nutrient application
per acre. Because of the increased nutrient application, the soil test phosphorus levels of
the MSU farm ﬁelds have increased. Soil test phosphorus levels over the last 10 years
show a yearly increase of approximately 4.5 lbs of Bray P/acre/year (Table 17, Figure 9).
Soil test phosphorus levels were taken from the last 10 years and weighted according to
the number of acres that had been tested for each year. The weighted average was then
utilized to look at the overall trend of soil phosphorus levels. At this rate, if the farms
were to become compliant with GAAMPS and manure applications ceased to ﬁelds which
tested 300 lbs of P or more, it would be a short time before all ﬁelds were beyond the P

threshold level for manure application.

34

The soil test phosphorus results show there is reason for concern. However not
all ﬁelds are tested every year, and some ﬁelds have not been tested at all in the last 10
years, thus more analysis needs to be done. Utilizing the Mid West Plan Service-18, and
crop removal values, a balance was done to see if, according to book values, MSU farms
are generating more phosphorus than can be utilized by the crops. The balance shown in
Table 15, looks at the 1985 version, the 2000 updated edition of MWPS-1 8 and manure
analysis levels. All three balances revealed nutrient P production in excess of what was
utilized by the crop rotation for 2001. However, it has been noted that the book values of
nutrient content can be different from true excretion levels due to different diets and
management practices and thus manure analysis results were compared against the book
values to account for potential feed management differences. The comparison of book
values with manure analysis levels saw nutrient predictions of book values actually lower
than the manure analysis results. In other words, P production is greater than originally
predicted by book values. This also means P is likely being supplemented beyond
livestock requirements, which will increase the amount of land required to adequately
recycle manure P from each animal. A closer look shows that there is a signiﬁcant
difference in the manure analysis levels over the book values. The manure analysis
shows P production is 62% higher than what was predicted by book values.

This research project has shown that MSU farms produce between 127,000 and
154,000 pounds of P205 annually. In 2001 there were approximately 1798 animal units
(see table 2) on the farms and there were about 1377 acres in crop production.
Furthermore, soil test data over ten years shows that the weighted average soil test

phosphorus is about 150 pounds of Bray P1 per acre and it is increasing by 4.5 pounds

35

per year. Average P205 removal by the crop produced is 51.1 pounds P205 per acre. In
2001, animal on MSU farms produced more than 58,000 pounds of P205 in excess of
crop removal.

MSU farms are an unbalanced system, and the problem is getting worse. MSU
farms have a deﬁnite manure P excess issue. This has been seen with the increase in soil
test levels over the last ten years, the balance of crop removal versus book values and
manure analysis levels. The imbalance will continue unless some action is taken to

reduce P production or some exportation of nutrients out of the system occurs.

36

CHAPTER 7: LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF A CNMP ON MSﬁU
FARMS

Throughout the development of this plan, many communication barriers were
encountered. Improvement in communicating plans of facility expansion, changes in
livestock numbers or animal management, would greatly improve efﬁciency of planning.
Leaking water for example, decreased available storage time in the structure and should
be brought to the attention of the facility management. Signiﬁcant changes in animal
numbers should be made known to the land management as well, as changes affect the
volume of manure produced. Livestock numbers will vary depending on research,
reproduction rates, and farm management of each facility. Numbers in some facilities
ﬂuctuate signiﬁcantly throughout the year, as in the case of BCRC. All of the livestock
facilities undergo some ﬂuxuations throughout the year; but the extent of the change is
unknown. Typically, one person oversees a farm. MSU farms’ has 9 individual people
making decisions about the goal of their livestock facility without conferring with the
other farm managers as to their plans. Changes occurring at one facility are not likely
known by the others, but Land Management must deal with whatever changes occur in
manure production and crop management.

Planning for manure application and crops to be grown is also difﬁcult. Each
facility requests a volume of feed that will be needed for the following crop year, but
acreage is limited and yield goals are not always met. In a typical farm setting, if feed is
limited, animals are sold to compensate. The problem arises as to which farm has to sell
animals and how many must go. This can be challenging when each facility has already

set goals and plans for the year.

37

Implementation of a CNMP can be challenging. The sources of manure on MSU
farms are many and varied. Some facilities have long-term storage and some require
daily haul. The labor form includes students and professionals, and the plan is not always
well communicated. It has not been unusual for some land to be double applied and
some to be skipped. Nonetheless, the key to implementation of the plan is good
communication at all levels.

Ultimately, decisions affecting the farms are made at levels much higher than
farm management yet have signiﬁcant impact on nutrient balance. There are more
animals on the farms than the land can support. The managers have no control on the
number of animals or the land on which to apply manure. In order to balance nutrients,
the animal numbers need to be reduced or nutrients must be exported or a combination of

the two must be implemented.

38

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS

MSU farm system will beneﬁt from the implementation of a CNMP. The plan
shows that the problems are, primarily with the Dairy, Swine, and Poultry facilities.
There are phosphorus issues on MSU farms. The rising STP levels over the last ten years
are one indication that P is out of balance. The overall increasing STP trend is
approximately 4.5 lbs PzOs/acre/year. The rising STP levels are due to the
overproduction of manure P nutrients beyond crop P removal rates.

Objective 1: An estimate of total P production and P removal for MSU farms has
been presented. The estimate of P production was done using 3 different methods and
they range from 128,000 lbs (MWPS-2000) to 154,000 (manure analysis). Removal for
2001 was estimated to be 69,535 lbs P205. This is an imbalance of 58,426 lbs (MWPS-
2000) to 84,186 lbs (manure analysis) P205.

Objective 2: Soil Test Phosphorus levels were determined for MSU farms by
analyzing existing data. The weighted average level is between 130 and 150 lbs/A and it
is increasing 4.51b/A/year.

Objective 3: A CNMP for MSU farms is presented in Appendix A.

Oiﬁective 4: Two Software programs were compared. The intended purpose of
the programs differs, and consequently there are advantages and disadvantages based
upon the use to which they are put.

All three P-balance methods reveal excess P production. MWPS-18, 1985 edition
shows an excess of 73, 042 lbs P205; MWPS-18, 2000 production levels are in excess by
58,426 lbs PzOs/year and manure analysis results reveal P production in excess by 84,186

lbs P205,

39

The trend of increasing animal units and decreasing land area foretells an even
greater future P imbalance for MSU farms. Limited crop varieties are grown on the MSU
farms in an attempt to meet livestock nutritional needs, which ﬁrrther constrains the
system. MSU farms are unable to produce all livestock feed required to meet livestock
needs and thus there is a need to import feed.

At this time MSU farms are an unbalanced system, and the problem continues to
deteriorate as land is removed ﬁom production and livestock numbers continue to rise.
This trend will only increase the phosphorus levels of the farm ﬁelds and the potential for

non point source pollution.

40

CHAPTER 9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MSU FARMS

There are several methods that MSU farms could utilize to reduce the imbalance.
Most likely, a solution consists of a combination of several solutions. The ﬁrst is to
reduce the production of nutrients. This can be done by reducing the nrunber of livestock
present on MSU farms, and reducing the nutrient content of the feed that is being fed.

Reduction in animal numbers would reduce production of nutrients as a whole.
The potential removal of livestock below sustainability numbers for a period of time
would permit ﬁelds above the allowable manure application threshold an opportunity to
recover and move to a lower threshold range. Once all ﬁelds have recovered and are
within allowable manure application range, animal numbers could be brought up to
sustainability levels, but not beyond, in order to maintain a balanced system.

Livestock diets should be made to meet the NRC (National Research Council)
basic dietary requirements for grth and production. Reduction in feed nutrient content
will also reduce the nutrient excretion content of the manure.

Application of manure over a larger area will reduce the nutrient concentration
level being applied in any one area. Acquisition of land may not be feasible, but another
possibility is to haul manure to other MSU farms land, off campus. This raises the cost
of manure handling, and would have to be assessed. There is the potential of applying
nutrients to other farmer’s land nearby, but there are few farms within a close proximity
of MSU campus. Also this option would require the adherence of that farm’s schedule
and guidelines.

A more sustainable solution is to compost some of the manure, especially that

which is hauled daily, and sell or give the compost away. Exporting the nutrients through

41

a value added product is a potential long-term assistance to the P balance issue. However
it is not likely solve the entire P problem. The potential market for compost could be
huge, if connections can be made and kept. Exporting of nutrients in the form of compost
could result in increased public relations with individuals and businesses, while reducing
the nutrient problem on MSU farms.

An additional way to balance the P-budget is by maximizing P removal from crop
uptake through the intensive management of cr0p type and rotations. Although this

method is also not likely to solve the P issue, it can help to increase removal of soil P.

42

APPENDIX: CNMP
Farm Details

Michigan State University is a major agricultural research institution with various
types and numbers of animals on its farms. Much of the land and many of the animals
are located at the MSU campus in East Lansing, MI. It has experienced a substantial
grth of non-agricultural population adjacent to its agricultural land. Okemos High
School, a $35 million structure completed in 1995, is just 0.5 miles from MSU farms. A
proposed $200 million golf course and up-scale housing development is proposed
directly across Hagadom Street from the farms and about 0.25 miles from the beef cattle
research center. The encroachment of non-agricultural population in close proximity
with University farms has a high potential of increasing scrutiny and conﬂicts.

MSU farms are located south of the MSU campus, in East Lansing, Michigan.
MSU Farms are bounded by Collins road to the West, Hagadom road to the East, Mount
Hope road to the North and Sandhill road to the South. (Figure 4 map of farm, Figure 5
aerial photograph of farms, and Figure 6 topography map of farms).

MSU land base is utilized for the application of manures, crop production for the
purpose of livestock feed, and some grain for export. Crops grown on MSU farm ﬁelds
are primarily dictated by the amount of feed needed by each of the livestock facilities.
However, some feed is also brought in from off-campus to meet the nutritional
requirements of all the livestock facilities.

University farm contains eight different research, teaching and production
livestock facilities. These facilities include, poultry/mink, sheep, swine, dairy, beef

cattle, cow/calf, equine and veterinary farm. Animals included within these facilities are:

43

r (at... '

 

mink, ferrets, turkeys, chickens, quail, pheasants, sheep, donkeys, swine, dairy cattle,
beef cattle, and horses.

The MSU livestock pavilion, located on the comer of Forest road and Farm Lane,
must also be included in this plan. The pavilion, typically rented out for weekend
livestock shows, is a large contributor of nutrients in the form of manure, feed, and
bedding materials. These nutrients are applied to University farmland and thus contribute
nutrients to the system.

Animal numbers vary throughout the year at each of the facilities depending on
birthing times, buying and selling of animals, or as in the case of the pavilion, date of
shows and number of participants. These factors contribute to ﬂuxuations of manure
production volumes.

Each year animal inventories are taken from the farm facilities around June 30m;
these numbers will be utilized for manure generation purposes throughout the year,
except for the Beef Cattle Research Center (BCRC) and the pavilion. The BCRC tends to
be at a low point for the year at the time inventory is taken, so an average number of
animals for the year will be used. This will give a more accurate head count to determine
yearly manure production for the BCRC. The pavilion manure generation will be
calculated using the number of days animals are present and the average number of
animals present at the shows. Based on animal inventory data (Table 1), MSU farms
consisted of just over 2100 total animal units (Table 2), in 2001.

Pavilion numbers were calculated using the number of show days with an average
count of animals at each show. There were 54 days when shows were occurring, and an

average of 250 head at each show, which averages out to approximately 37 head per day

44

for one year. This accounts for the animals present, however the majority of material
being hauled out of the pavilion is bedding material. Nutrients contributed ﬁ'om bedding
were not accounted for in this table.

Overview
MSU farms are primarily used for the purpose of teaching and research, but

'operate similar to a production facility. The seven different livestock facilities operate as
separate units, but are all connected by the University farmland base. While each farm
operates as a single unit, the University land managers connect with them for the purpose
of hauling manure and crop production for livestock feed purposes.

The University land manager utilizes projected feed requirements from each of
the farms, to produce the collective feed needed for the livestock facilities. The goal of
university farms is the development and maintenance of a balanced livestock/crop
system; attempting to maximize livestock feed production, with manure generated

nutrients while minimizing potential environmental and human health problems.

Farm Headquarters Map

Attached is a map showing the individual livestock farms and ﬁelds as labeled by
MSU farm’s Land management (Figure 4). As well as an aerial photograph of the
University farm ﬁelds and facilities (Figure 5).
Animal Outputs

An animal inventory list is attached showing species, weight, production level and
number of livestock (Table 1). Amount of manure generated was calculated using the
animal inventory and Mid West Plan Service 2000 for Manure Characteristics for total
manure production per day and per year. Also included is the total amount of manure

45

hauled from each facility, as calculated by University farms land management (Table 11).
The loads of manure taken from each facility were counted and periodically weighed to
verify the approximated mass value. Total gallons hauled were based on capacity of the
spreader and liquid level.

Water control measures

The new swine and horse facilities both have rain gutters to direct rain to each

., 1,1

side of the barn. The dairy farm has a sewer drain at the low spot in the ﬁ'ont of the
facility, this water is sent to the East Lansing Sewage Treatment Plant, but may contain

manure nutrients from the barns. All liquid pits are covered or enclosed, to prevent

 

excess precipitation from ﬁlling the pits early and diluting the nutrient content of the 1m
manure.
Animal Mortalities

Swine farm composts animals that die. The Dairy, Horse and Sheep farm each
render dead animals.
Veterinary Wastes

Veterinary wastes are disposed of in sharpies containers or trash depending on
contents. However, some veterinary wastes have been found in pits at the dairy farm.
Collection

Method of collection varies between facilities. There are several liquid storage
pits; most of the facilities have some manure pack or solid manure with bedding and

some manure directly deposited on pastures by grazing livestock.

46

Daig Barn

The dairy barn has several different ways of handling manures. Tie stalls have a
gutter system that is cleaned three times per day on a regular basis, except for three
months when some of the animals are out on pasture. When animals are on pasture the
gutter system is cleaned twice daily. The Dairy North, Dairy South and Dairy Heifer
pens are grated ﬂoors with pits underneath, bags with sand are available in stanchions for
the cattle to lie on, and no other bedding material is used. The parlor is sprayed down
with water and ﬂushed into a pit. The maternity pens, where calves are born are bedded
with straw. The manure pack from the maternity pens is added to the daily haul material
as the barn is cleaned. The calf pens are also bedded with straw and handled the same as
the matenrity pen material.
Egg

The BCRC has two manure handling systems. The majority of the cattle are kept
on grated ﬂoors with a large manure storage pit below. The other cattle are kept in the
wings or pens bedded with shavings.
COW/calf

The cow/calf facility rotates animals on pastures for most of the year. Cows are
brought inside around December for calving. Animals calve in pens bedded with
shavings, and are put out to pasture. Most of the cattle are back out to pasture by the end
of April. Manure is handled as a manure pack at this facility.
SE2

The sheep facility is very similar to the Cow/calf facility. Manure is handled as a

manure pack, with straw bedding. Animals are kept on pasture for most of the year, and

47

brought in for lambing in early spring. More straw is added to the pens as needed and
cleaned when lambing is ﬁnished.
ﬂog;

The horse farm only collects manure as a manure pack with bedding. Most of the
manure is not collected, but spread by the grazing animals. Horses are rotated through

pastures throughout the year. Horses foaling and some horses used for show or

 

.—
equitation classes are kept in stalls. Stalls are cleaned daily and manure is hauled to a V
pile in the woods where it will undergo some composting and volume reduction. '
Occasionally dairy parlor water is added to the horse pile to increase composting rate. g
The pile is hauled 1-2 times per year. E‘—

Poulty

The poultry unit has two different manure handling methods. Most poultry are
housed in cages and litter falls through to the ﬂoor. Some animals are in open ﬂoor
bedded pens and manure is scraped when the animals leave. There is one liquid pit
where turkeys are typically housed; this is pumped one time per year.

One other manure handling system is used with mink. Pens are stacked under a covered
structure, and pans are kept under each pen to collect the mink and ferret manure. These
are cleaned as needed.

m

The old or north swine farm has six different pits under different production areas.
The pigs are on slotted ﬂoors and the manure is collected in the pits below.

The new or south swine farm has a liquid-solid isolation system. Liquids are drained

with the use of gravity and pumps into the slurry storage tank. The nursery is a pull plug

48

system and the total slurry is sent to the slurry storage tank. Solid manure is scraped to
one of two covered buildings, from where it is transported to a covered cement slab,
mixed with pavilion bedding material, and composted. Some compost materials are
utilized to assist in the composting of dead animals.
P_avi_li2n

Most of the pavilion manure is bedding material and is collected as solid manure.
The soiled bedding and manure are taken to an allotted ﬁeld and spread. Bedding
material with little or no soiling is transported to the BCRC where it will be reused as
bedding for the cattle.
Storage
Daig farm

Dairy North pit, located on the north side of the main barn is an anaerobic pit with
outside fans with dimensions: 136’ X 27’ X 10’, total volume: 36,720 cu ft. The total
manure volume this pit can hold is 274,000 gallonswith 4-5 months storage capacity.
Dairy South Pit, located on the south side of the main barn is an anaerobic pit with
outside fans with dimensions: 136’ X 27’ X 10’, total volume of 36,720 cu ft. (Figure 11)
The total volume this pit can hold is 274,000 gallons with 4-5 months storage capacity.
Dairy Heifer pit, located under the dairy heifer barn to the south of the main barn is an
anaerobic pit with fans with dimensions: 112’ X 30’ X 10’, total volume of 33,600 cu ft.
The total capacity of the dairy heifer pit is 250,000 gallons and is hauled approximately

every 6 months. (Figure 12)

49

Dairy Parlor pit, located under the dairy parlor has dimensions: 40’ X 18’ X 8’, and total
volume of 5,760 cu ft. Capacity of the parlor pit is 43,000 gallons and must be hauled
about every 2 weeks (Figure 13).

The Dairy Milk house is adjacent to the parlor pit but is not connected. It has
dimensions: 20’ X 18’ X 8’and total volume of 2,880 cu ft. Total volume of the milk
house pit is 21,000 gallons; the milk house is only occasionally ﬂushed, and thus only has

to be hauled about once a year (Figure 13). The maternity pens and calf pens are cleaned

"‘1‘:

as needed; this manure is added to the daily hauled manure from the tie stall area. The tie

stall area has a gutter system that is cleaned 2-3 times per day, depending whether

 

animals are on pasture or not. This area has no storage time. Some of the manure item
the tie stall area has been composted in the past, however the composting area is not
covered and the manure is exposed to the elements.

The size of the storage pits seems to be adequate for the number of animals
present at this time with 4-6 month storage time. Some manure could be applied late in
the summer or early fall if needed to give ample storage capacity if necessary. The parlor
pit does not contain adequate storage capacity for winter. Spreading liquid on frozen
ground during winters is not recommended and an alternative method or increased pit
size is advised. There is no storage f or the tie stall manure necessitating hauling 2-3
times per day. This is risky and deﬁnitely not recommended. The idea to compost this
manure is ideal, however the compost area should be covered, and have some sort of
solid footing or structure underneath to deter leaching and minimize rutting when ground
is soft. The amount of manure being hauled on a daily basis may still be a problem

because of the time it takes to compost, and the structure will need to be large enough to

50

handle the volume of manure being generated on a daily basis. Composting will reduce
the volume being hauled on a daily basis.
B_CB_C_

The BCRC pit is an anaerobic pit located beneath the BCRC barn. The pit
dimensions are 200’ X 40’ X 10’, totaling 80,000 cu ft (598,400 gallons). The BCRC pit
is hauled about every 6 months, which gives ample planning time for spreading, and
enough storage for the winter. (Figure 14)

The BCRC wings are cleaned about every six weeks. This gives some time to work
around the weather, but not enough to make it through the whole winter. Another
strategy or plan should be set up to better manage the solid manure at the BCRC. One
possibility may be to add it to the dairy compost pile, or start a composting area at the
BCRC.

m

The horse barn stalls are cleaned once a day and the manure is hauled to a manure
pile hidden from site by surrounding trees. The manure will self-compost, reducing the
total volume of the pile. The pile is hauled as needed. However, there is no barrier
beneath the pile to prevent movement of nutrients downward, and there is no cover
directly above the pile thus exposing it to the elements and allowing for potential runoff.
Manure has been piled in this same location for many years, so the potential of downward
movement is high. The plan of action is a good one, except a structure or barrier of some
kind should be kept beneath the manure to prevent or reduce the potential of leaching.

All horse manure is handled as a solid (Figure 20).

51

Sheep

The sheep barn is cleaned after lambing and all of the animals are put out to pasture,
usually in May. This is a good time to apply the manure where needed at planting time.
All manure is handled as a solid for the sheep farm (Figure 23).
292m

The poultry unit hauls about half a load per month. There is no storage area
during the winter months, and thus manure is applied year round or stockpiled when
ﬁelds are wet or in production. The poultry unit also maintains a turkey liquid tank,
which holds 3,000 gallons and is typically hauled 1-2 times per year (Figure 22).
The turkey tank seems to be adequate for the number of turkeys present. Although a very
small amount of volume produced each month, some method of storage should be
developed to maximize use of the nutrients.
Cow-Calf

The cow-calf facility maintains animals on pasture for the majority of the year.
Animals are brought inside in December, where they are kept until calving and then
returned back to pasture after calves are born, typically in April. Pens are cleaned after
the animals are put back out to pasture. All manure is handled as a solid or manure pack.
m

The old swine farm still houses some pigs, but all are on pits. There are six pits at
the old swine farm.
Pit 1- F arrowing barn small pit, capacity 2,000 gallons
Pit 2- Farrowing barn large pit, capacity 10,000 gallons, and dimensions: 12’ X 12’ X 12’

Pit 3- New F arrowing, has two 1,000-gallon pits.

52

Pit 4- New Finishing, capacity of 30,000 gallons, dimensions: 10’ X 8’ X 54’.
Pit 5- Lane Septic, capacity 13,000 gallons, and dimensions: 12’ X 12’ X 12’.
Pit 6- Breeding Septic, capacity 8,000 gallons.
Each of these pits is hauled about every 6 months.
(Figure 15)
(Dimensions of Slurry Storage Tank or capacity)(Figure 16)
The new swine farm has a large slurry storage tank that must be hauled about every 5
months, and a separate solid covered area where solids which are composted on a
concrete covered structure, or taken straight to the ﬁeld depending on time and space
availability. There are some problems. The compost tends to take longer than planned,
causing excess solid manure to be stockpiled outside the covered area or ‘hot’ compost to
be applied to ﬁelds.
mg

The pavilion is rented out for weekend shows; amount of manure generated varies
depending on the number of shows and animals present at each show for the year. The
pavilion has small concrete bunkers where manure is dumped when the pavilion is
cleaned. This allows for some storage of manures, but it is open to the elements.
Leaching is prevented by the impermeable concrete surface. However the potential for
nutrient rich runoff ﬁ'om draining gutters and the concrete surface risk penetrating the
nearby drainage ditch (Figure 21). Manure generation from this facility varies
signiﬁcantly over the year and from year to year.

One management strategy that has been implemented is the recycling of some of

the pavilion bedding. This greatly reduces the volume of material that has to be hauled

53

onto the ﬁeld at any particular time. The bedding material that is not soiled or only
slightly soiled is being reused by the BCRC.
Treatment

Generally, treatment to the manure prior to application is minimal. The primary
form of treatment is physical agitation to all of the liquid storage pits prior to pumping.
The other treatment done to some of the solid manures or manure packs is composting.
Although some ozonation has been done on a small amount of swine manure. The
majority of the solid fraction of the swine manure at the new facility is composted.
Minimal composting is being done at the dairy farm, however lack of overhead cover
from the weather is a detriment to the speed and consistency of the material. There is
also concern of runoff from the composting area.
Transport

Equipment used for manure transport (Table 10).
Method of application

Both solid and liquid manure are typically surface applied or broadcast.
Generally this is followed by incorporation within 3 days for liquid manures and within 7
days for solid manure. Injection of dairy manure has been attempted and was somewhat
successful, there were some problems with plugging hoses, additional agitation was being
utilized to help reduce particle size.
Frequency of Hauling

The University land management workers apply most of the manure hauled onto
the University farm ﬁelds. However, facilities that require frequent hauling will haul the

manure themselves. Land management allocates ﬁelds for the individual farm workers to

54

apply. frequently hauled manure in order to prevent the overapplicaton of manure to the
same ﬁelds.

Dairy Regular: gutter manure ﬁom the dairy tie stalls is hauled 2-3 times per day.
Workers ﬁom the MSU dairy farm haul this manure regularly. The Dairy North, and
Dairy South: pits are hauled out every 4-5 months. The Dairy Heifer: pit is hauled about
every 6 months. Dairy Parlor: is hauled about every 2 weeks. The Milk house: is only
hauled about 1 time per year.

Beef Cattle Research Center: pit is hauled every 6 months, while the bedded
wings are cleaned out about every 6 weeks.

Horse stalls: are cleaned on a daily basis and a horse farm worker takes it to the
pile and dumps the load. The pile is hauled as needed, and at least once a year is
completely cleaned by the land management workers.

Sheep pens: are cleaned once a year.

Half a load of Poultry manure is applied once a month by the poultry farm
manager. The turkey tank is pumped and applied by the land management workers 1-2
times a year.

Conservation Practices on Fields used for Manure Application

MSU farms use several methods of conservation to conserve soil and minimize
any nutrient movement. Buffer and or ﬁlter strips near and around areas of standing or
moving water and along ditch banks. No-till is used in several ﬁelds to minimize soil
loss and maintain soil structure and moisture. Incorporation of manure within 1-3 days

also reduces potential for nutrient movement.

55

Table 4 shows soil types, slopes, and soil test phosphorus value.
Most of the soils present on MSU farms are medium textured with a range of 0-6%
slopes. Soil test values vary around the farm with the highest ﬁelds (300+) all located on
the east side of College Road. There are a few water bodies present on the MSU

farmland area, and dispersed areas of wet ground.

Water Qualig
Topography (Figure 6)

University Farm ﬁelds have dispersed areas of wet spots where water may stand
after a rainstorm for short periods of time. Areas of concern when trying to minimize
potential of nutrient runoff and erosion include the Banta Drained area and areas that
appear to drain toward the Herron Creek which eventually drains to the Red Cedar River.
These are the primary areas where nutrients have the potential to be moved off-site. The
Banta Drain drains the section of ﬁelds on the comer of Jolly and Collins Rd. This area
includes ﬁelds W70-W80 and ﬁelds W56-W58. The area is drained toward the comer of
Jolly and Collins Rd where a large grated area ﬂows into a drainage ditch. There is a 10’
area around the drain where grass is kept in place to reduce nutrient loss into the drainage
ditch. However the rest of the drained area is farmed. In average or dry growing seasons
this practice may be acceptable, but in the case of a wet and rainy season, it is likely that
some nutrients are lost to the drainage ditch.

The area south of the Sheep farm, encompassing ﬁelds E62, E82-l and E82-2

drains toward the Herron Creek area. Herron Creek empties into the Red Cedar River.

56

The area south of the sheep farm that drains toward the Herron Creek is in pasture, and it
is always covered by vegetation, minimizing nutrient losses.

Another area of concern is south of Jolly Rd, ﬁelds E124, and E126, where a
drain runs along the west side of these two ﬁelds. A buffer area should be implemented
to minimize any potential loss of nutrients from these ﬁelds.

There are several water bodies present on University farmland area. The main
water areas are south of Jolly Rd, on the East and West Side of College Road. These
areas are not farmed, but are most often used for research purposes. These areas are
shown as W98, E90-1 and E90—2 in Figure 4. Another small water body present is
located behind the BCRC between ﬁelds E27-1 and E27-2. Both of the ﬁelds are
extremely high in phosphorus and pose a large threat to the quality of this water body.
Surface Cover

A large portion of the University farm ﬁelds are planted into pastures utilized by
the beef cattle, sheep, horses and dairy cattle. These pastures are seldom tilled for the
purpose of row crops. It is also the practice of the farm managers to leave crop residues
or stubble in the ﬁeld as long as manure is not applied; when manure is applied, the
schedule is to till the manure into the soil within 3-7 days to prevent nutrient loss. This
leaves several ﬁelds tilled and susceptible to winter erosion because of the manure that is
applied after harvest but prior to frozen ground and snow.

Winter spreading is occurring on University farms. There are several ﬁelds that
should not be utilized for winter spreading due to potential water issues or already high
soil test phosphorus levels (Figure 10). Fields E90-1 and E90-2 do not receive manure

applications at any time. E27-1 and E27-2 already have high phosphorus levels and a

57

water body is present, so the potential of runoff and erosion of phosphorus exists. The
Banta Drain area includes ﬁelds W70-W80, as well as ﬁelds W56-W58. The area south
of the sheep farm drains toward Herron Creek, ﬁelds E62, E82-l and E82-2. Fields E124
and E126, should also be exempt ﬁ'om winter spreading due to the drainage system to the
west of these ﬁelds.

Fields that are fairly level and do not contain drainage or wet areas and are not
already high in phosphorus are better suited for potential winter spreading events. (Table
5) These ﬁelds suit the speciﬁcations of ﬁelds utilized for winter spreading, however they
may not suit the needs of the farm to spread manure on. Many of these ﬁelds are
allocated for pastures, and some are planted to alfalfa that restricts these ﬁelds from the
list of possible ﬁelds to spread manure on.

Manure P application

Phosphorus generation levels for 2001 were assessed with three different tools,
MWPS-18, 1985 book values, MWPS-18, 2000 book values and manure analysis test
values.

Total manure P205 generation as calculated with MWPS-l 8, 1985 is approximately
142,500 lbs of P205. Total manure P205 generation as calculated with MWPS-l8, 2000
approximately 128,000 lbs of P205. Manure P205 generation as calculated with manure
analysis results total approximately 153,700 lbs of P205

As shown by the different analysis assessment for phosphorus production, MWPS-18,

1985 is very close to the manure analysis results generated at MSU farms.

58

Manure N application

Utilizing the same methods as were used for calculating phosphorus levels,
manure N levels can also be assessed.
MWPS-l 8, 1985 calculated an estimated Nitrogen production of 225,000 pounds.
MWPS-18, 2000 resulted in approximately 273,000 pounds of Nitrogen being produced.
Manure Application Methods

Manure application methods consist of broadcasting the solid or liquid manure,
followed by incorporation within 1-3 days. Injection of some liquid dairy manure has
been partially successful.
Land Application Management

Nutrient Budget: a nutrient budget is a method of predicting the amount of
nutrients that will be required for a crop plan. For 2001 crop plan, 274,587 lbs of
Nitrogen, and 70,585.4 lbs of P205 were required by the crops.
Calibration of equipment

In most cases no calibration is done. The rate of manure application is set by the
Power Take Off (PTO) speed and tractor speed. Personnel need to be mindful of both
parameters. The end of each load should be marked so spreading the next load begins in
the right place. One method uses an orange cone. Every time the employee hauling the
manure ﬁnishes spreading a load they are supposed to move the cone so the next
employee knows where to begin spreading their load so as not to overlap or miss areas.
Application schedule

There is not an actual application schedule. Manure sources are hauled as they

become ﬁlled or just before planting or shortly after harvest. Most pits have an

59

approximate time frame but there is not an exact date. Schedule varies depending on
animal numbers, health, feed wastage, bedding materials, and technical problems, such as
water faucets leaking.

Application rates by ﬁeld:

Application rate is variable depending tractor speed and the Revolutions per
Minute (RPMs) of the tractor. Unfortunately, this can cause the nutrient concentration
level to vary between ﬁelds and even within a ﬁeld if the operator chooses to change
speeds or RPM levels. Not knowing the application rate is probably the greatest
shortcoming in accomplishing effective management of manure nutrients. (Jacobs, 1995)

Driving at a higher gear is likely to reduce application rate unless RPMs are high.
Traveling at a lower gear with higher RPMs will increase the application rate per acre
and thus the concentration of nutrients that are being applied.

Emergency Action Plan

MSU farms’ does not have a written Emergency Action plan in place. What is
presented here is a rudimentary plan.

The ﬁrst step is an assessment of a situation. Determine the severity of the
situation. How much manure has been lost? Holding tank capacities range from 3,000
gallons at the poultry unit (Figure 22) to 587,000 gallons at the BCRC (Figure 14).

Secondly, control the situation. Stop manure pumps. Close any valves that
remain open. Transfer manure liquid to another tank, storage facility. Plug any holes or
shut off the water in case of a waterline break. On most of MSU farm pits the pump is
not on site, thus, these facilities need to be in contact with MSU land management to get

the proper equipment to manage the spill or leak. They have access to pumps and

60

transport vehicles to remove overﬂowing materials as well as large dirt moving
equipment if necessary.

Next, contain the spill. Build a containment dam, ditch or stream to stop or
minimize any further movement of the contaminant, especially in sensitive areas. Tile
drainage areas should be sought out and preventive measures taken to minimize ﬂow into
tile drains. The containment basin should be down slope from the affected area. Limit
the area impacted. The use of absorbent materials, such as sawdust and old feed, will
also help to reduce impact and ﬂow of spillage. The availability and use of a dirt pile to
barricade ditches or sensitive draining areas will improve reaction time and greatly
reduce the size of the affected area.

MSU farmland management has taken into account sensitive sites as well as
potential for damage from large storage facilities. Due to the large volume of the new or
south swine farm and the potential ﬂow site into a sensitive wetland area, a dirt mound
has been put into place in the case of an emergency situation. In the case of a spill, the
ﬂow would be directed into the ditch, from which it can enter directly into tile lines that
ﬂow into the Okemos wetland area. Also, the south swine facility is an above ground
storage, so it has the capacity to unload a large volume of manure in a very short period
of time.

The old or north swine facility has two small lagoons at the test station area.
These primarily contain water but can receive runoff from the upland facilities. The
lagoons are presently left and allowed to overﬂow onto the surface. Any breaches that
occur at the north swine facility would ﬂow in an easterly direction from site of breech

and into the nearby ditch.

61

The Dairy bam pits would tend to ﬂow to the east if any breach or spill were to
occur. The primary concern is the manhole, which dumps directly into the East Lansing
Waste water treatment facility. The occurrence of spill would cause an inﬂux of ﬂow to
the treatment facility and potential overﬂow at that site. To the west of the barns are two
other manholes, which also ﬂow to the north. In the instance of a spill or silage leachate
that entered either of these areas, a shut off valve is available just south of the dairy
pasture area and can be shut off. The ﬂow from the north manholes does come above
ground for a short distance in the pastures to the north. This is another potential point of
interception before the material goes off site.

BCRC has a very large underground storage pit. If the pit were to breech the
waste would travel to the south and into a drainage ditch. The scale house pit would have
the same ﬂow route, but the volume is much smaller. There is not a nearby sensitive
area, which is a direct route of concern, however tile drains run nearby and inﬁltration
into tile drains is always an issue. Because the pit is below ground level, a catastrophic
failure is unlikely.

The poultry unit contains one small 3,000-gallon tank. In an event it was to leak
it would ﬂow to the south under the expressway. This pit is small, however the nutrient
concentration is high and thus precautions need to be taken.

After assessment, controlling, and containing the spill has occurred, the spill or
leak should be properly reported to the necessary agencies. If the release reached any
surface waters, streams, well casings or other sensitive areas it needs to be reported
immediately to the state environmental management agencies. Any manure spills on

public roads should be reported immediately to the local authorities, such as the county

62

sheriff. Other spills, which did not affect sensitive or water reservoirs, should have a

summary report prepared and ﬁled for future reference and to document the actions

taken. In the case of MSU farms, the order of contact in the case of a spill would be:

1.

6.

Individual Farm Manager of the facility

Swine: 355-7485; Sheep: 355-7477; Dairy: 355-7473; BCRC: 353-2245;
Poultry: 355-0360; Horse: 355-7484; Pavilion: 432-5566; Purebred: 355-
7452.

Land Management Manager: 719-2153

Department of Police and Public Safety: 911

ORCBS: 355-6651

Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Pollution Emergency
Hotline: 1-800-405-0101

Michigan Department of Natural Resources: 1-800-292-4706

See Figure 17 for an Emergency Contact form.

Finally, Clean up can begin. Assess the full impact and restore the affected area

or areas. Collect spilled manure and apply it or return it to storage. Restore damaged

areas. Prepare a summary report.

Summary

MSU farms have some problem areas. First are the high soil test phosphorus

levels of several ﬁelds. The higher P level ﬁelds are closest to the farms, which

contribute the greatest concentration of nutrients. The three prime areas are the swine

farm, the Dairy farm and the poultry farm. This is risky when water sources are nearby

or the potential of runoff to tile drain exits. An even larger issue is the continued

63

application of manure to ﬁelds already in the high phosphorus level category of
GAAMPS. The University farm system is not in phosphorus balance. The number of
livestock present is greater than sustainable levels on the farmland base. This imbalance
contributes to rising STP levels in the ﬁelds.

Daily haul at the dairy barn is a potential problem. The lack of storage for this
facility is critical in Michigan due to the varying weather conditions. Applying manure
to frozen or snow-covered is not an acceptable continued practice. A storage faCility

needs to be put into place in order to give a greater window for application.

64

BIBLIOGRAPHY

l.

10.

ll.

12.

Bates, Tom. Prediction of Phosphorus Availability ﬁ'om 88 Ontario Soils
Using Five Phosphorus Tests. Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis, 21 (13-16), pp1009-1023. April 1997.

Bomestein, Seth. Feedlot Perils Outspace Regulaticm Sierra Club SgLs.
August 13, 2002. http://www.ranchwest.com/bec$gzhtml

Bundy, Larry G, Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin. A
Phosphorus Budget for Wisconsin Cropm. A report submitted to Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 1998.
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/pubs/pdf/pbudgetpdf

Busman, Iowell; Lamb, John; Randall, Gyles; Rehm, George; Schrrritt,
Michael. The Nature of Phosphorus in Soils. Phosphorus in the Agricultural
Environment, 2001. University of Minnesota Extension Services.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsvstems/DC6795.htrnl

Comis, Don. Protecting the Chesapeake Bay, Agricultural Research;
Washington. January 1999. Volume 47: Issue 1. Pgs 4-8.

Copeland, John D. Senator Harkins Animal Ag Reform Act. Dec 1997.

Department of Environmental Quality. National Pollution Discharge
Eliminations System. http://wwwmichigapgov/deq/O,l607,7-135-
3313 3682 37l3---.00.html

EPA841-F-96-004A. Nonpoint Source Pollution: The Nation’s Largest Water
Quality Problem. May 12, 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/facts/point1 .htrn

Garcia, Rudy. Phosphorus. http://taipan.nmsu.edu/mvpfpp/phosphor.htm.
Regional Precision Farming Pilot Project, 1999.

Grigar, Jerry and Jay Blair, Soil and Water Conservation Society. Nutrient
Management in Michigan. USDA-NRCS. 2001.
http://www.swcs.orth publicaffairsgrtmgmt michig_an.htrn

Jacobs, Lee. Manure Management, Michigan State University Extension.
Bulletin MM-2, April 1995. Utilization of Animal Manure for Crop
Production Part II. Manure Application to Croplan_d.

Janzen, R.A., McGill, W.B., Leonard, J.J., Jeffrey, S.R. Manure as a
Resource- Ecological and Economic Considerations in Balance, 1999.

65

13.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Kerr, John, Da Ouyang, and Jon Bartholic. Targeting Watershed
Interventions for Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution, 2001.
http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/doc/stonyhtm

Koelsch, R, Lesoing, G. Nutrient Balance on Nebraska Livestock

Conﬁnement Systems. J -animal science. Savoy, IL: American Society of
Animal Science. 1999. V.77 (suppl. 2) p. 63-71.

Lorimar, Jeff, assistant professor and extension agricultural engineer, Iowa
State University; Wendy Powers, assistant professor, Department of Animal
Science, Iowa State University; and Al Sutton, professor, Department of
Animal Science, Purdue University. Manure Chagacteristics, MWPS-18, SI,
2000.

Mallarino, Antonio P; Stewart, Barbara M; Baker, James L; Downing, John
A; Sawyer, John. Background and Basic Concepts of the Iowa Phosphorg
m. A support Document to the NRCS Field Ofﬁce Technical Note 25.
October 2000.

Manure Management: How MSU is addressing the Michigan Challenge. v. 2,
No. 2, Summer 2001.

 

MAEAP Homepage: http://www.maeap.org

Michigan Department of Agriculture. Michigan Agriculture Commission,
Adopted by. Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for
Manure Management and Utilization. Lansing Michigan. February 2002.
http://www.michig_an.gov/mda/0.1607.7-125-1567_1599_1605---,00.htm1

Midwest Plan Service-18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, 1985.

Mullinax, Denise D.; Meyer, Deanne; Gamett, Ian. The Economic Merit of
Animal Manures as a source of Plant Nutrients or Energy Generation, 1998.

Nebraska Cooperative Extension G98-1369.
http://www.ianr.un1.edu/pubs/water/g1369.htm#prev. Drinking Water: Nitrate
and Methemoglobinemia ("Blue Baby ” Syndrome) Sharon Skipton, Extension
Educator; DeLynn Hay, Extension Water Resources Specialist

Piggott, Scott. Michigan Farm Bureau, 2000.
http://www.michigapfarmbureau.com/press/2000/20001005.php#l

Powell, J.M., Wu, Z., Satter, L.D. Dairy Diet Effects on Phosphorus Cycles
of Cropland. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 56: no 1. 2001.

66

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34

35.

36.

Reid, Keith. Conversation via e-mail on 12-21-00.
@th.reid@omafra.gov.on.ca Thru the Sera-17 list serve.

Salazar, Roger, EPA- Stephanie Cutter. 1998. Release No. 0372.98. USDA.
USDA, EPA Announce Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/l 998/09/03 72

Sawyer, J.P., A. P. Mallarino and R. Killom, Department of Agronomy,
USDA, Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service Iowa
State University Extension and The Department of Agriculture, Iowa State
University. Interpretation of Soil Test Results. March 2003.
http://www.exten_s_ion.ias_tate.edu/Publiczﬂor§/PMl310.pdf

SERA-l7, Minimizing Phosphorus Losses ﬁom Agriculture,
http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/sera17/issues.htm Threshold Soil Phosphorus
Levels, 2000.

 

Sierra Club. Breaking News and Views for Progressive-Thinking Americans.
News Center.
http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/march99/030899m.htm March
8, 1999.

Sierra Club. Wisconsin Clean Water News. Citizen_s Act to Stop Manure
Spill into Bigﬁru Pleine River.
http://www.wsn.org/factoryfann/MapleRidgespill.pdf April 12, 2002.

Thom, Bill. Conversation via e-mail on 10-27-00. wthom@ca.ul_<v.edu Thru
the Sera-17 list serve.

Tisdale, Nelson, Beaton, and Havlin. Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Phosphorus.
Chapter 6, Phosphorus. 5th edition. 1993.

USDA, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Role of Plants in
Waste Management. Chapter 3 & 6. 4/92.

USDA and EPA. Uniﬁed National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.
March 9, 1999. USDA and USEPA.

US. Geological Survey, US. Department of the Interior. The Quality of our
Nation’s Water. US. Geological Survey Circular 1225 Nutrients and
Pesticides. 2001.

Vitosh, M.L., MSU; J .W. Johnson, The Ohio State University; D.B. Mengel,

Purdue University; Co-editors. MSU extension bulletin E-2567. Tri-State
Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat and Alfalfa, 1995.

67

37.

38.

39.

40.

von Bemuth, R.D., Salthouse, G. Manure apd Fertilizer Nutrient Balance: A
Methodology Applied to Michigaa Applied Engineering in Agriculture,
1999. Copyright 1999American Society of Agricultural Engineers; Vol.15
(6): 695-700.

Waskom, Reagan M., Colorado State University Extension, August 1994,
Bulletin #XCM-l75. Best Management Practices for Phosphoru_§
Fertilization.

 

Wood, C. W., Mullins, G. L., Hajek, B.F.; Phosphorus in Agriculture. Soil
Quality Institute Technical Pamphlet No. 2. Department of Agronomy and
Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 1996.

Zenter et a1. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. Response of Soil and Grain to
Regular P Applications.

68

 

TABLE 1. ANIMAL INVENTORY
typel of head vg Weight
Farm Phase head
1
horn Adults 11

 

week Tu
otal

errets
otal
us Calves
us Herd Bulls
us Y Heifers
us Cows
us Leased Bull
Calves
Yearl Bulls
Herd Bulls
Y Heifers
Cows

Cows Leased
Bull Leased
all Calves

Cows
Bulls
otal
Rams
Rams
Lambs
ether Lambs
Ewes
earli Ewes
we Lambs
1 Lambs
easer Ram
otal

Gilts

69

TABLE 1

of head vg Weight
head

211

itional Y
otal

Cows
Calves
Cull Cows

otal
lt Arabs
Arabs

ium Adults
ium Newborns 1
laneous 1
otal

Pavilion hd 54 show 1
Table 1: Animal inventory numbers were taken June 30 , 2001. Numbers are a
head count of animals present and are used as an estimation of total number for
the year, except the Pavilion and Beef Cattle Research Center numbers, which
are variable, thus the yearly average was used. Weight is the average weight in
pounds for each production phase group. Number of livestock was totaled for
each facility.
*Animal numbers here are the yearly average for the Beef Cattle Research
Center facility and Pavilion
hd= head; yr= year

 

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 a F 8 RF 8 a: ma 2F mm F m»

N NF a 9 N NF m «N NF o o m FF 2:

N F. N o o o o o o o o o o 82

N 9 m o m o m o o o o o o 88

N NF o e a N F NF o 8 N .8 a 08

N NF m 8 NF =NIN FF NF m on FF TIN NF 8F
F FF 9 mF F «F F NF 2 NF NF =m m 9% 8.8262
F NF NF FF FF F FF M: S F F F NF 08 23 5.58,
N NF mm 2 an E m 8 mm mm. N m N 82 «.82 :22
:< .02 :< .02 3. .02 :< .02 :< .02 :< .02 232$ 33:
8.3 83394. 8.: NNNF 2.9. 3.9. 98 8F» 2N». EN». .23
Fo.o 8.0 a o o o o o o o o o F. 3
mod 3F 8F 3:: N3 Nd NF 33 N o o o o ON a
Foe 8.0 o. o o o o o o c o o o m ecmmmmca
Foo m 08 .m 8m. 3. a. m3 m8 3. F SF F. e 9e m :80
Foo 8.: mo: =N§ m3 N.oF FNoF Foam mem N 88 SN vFFN F. 932 5253
mood o o 98 S .o SF No on moo 8F o o no 9.25
Foe a. F 8F NmN NmN SN «.8 oN EN EN 8N N m Nm. N 29.25
2 .02 :< .oz 3 .02 :< .02 :< .oz__ 3 62 £925 .539".
a; 3N4 8m 33 Ne «NF. «.8 FF”. 2" Near. own .28
F m o N N N N N OF 8 w m 88 $8 :5
4F N N N.mN NF mNF o o o o o o 83 38 mean
no N NF 0 o o o .N m o o F N 8m 2:55 m3
2.0 o o 3F NF mg a .2 NF o o m; m 8F lama
4. F o o Ne w v.8 N o N.mN NF o o 8: 2.5
2.0 on? at 3F 2: N9: SF NF 3: mNF 3F .mFF SF of 925:
F..F NNVN 2F noeN NFF 5N SF .FFN «NF QBN 2F 8N 8F 8: 258
.28“. 3. .oz 3. .oz 3, .02 :< .02 :< .oz 3. 62 Eu; bin
3. Saw ooom 82. 32. 33 32. x0069:

 

 

 

 

 

Cocwéma 5 mm_mOth>z_ i_<s=z< ZO me<m whz: ._<_>=z< .N m._m<.r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FoN SN NF.F NF.F =FmN F.FN FF F.NF 8F 9:. «N N
F N NN o o _m m N F mF F N mm 8:
F 8N 8N FNF FNF NF NF NF. NF. ONF ONF :3 E 9k
no o o o o o o o NF 0 o 8m
F o o =NN NN F.mF SF No No o o NF NF 8F
D< .02 :< .02 :< .02: :< .02 :< .02 D< 62 Elmo;
.an v3 .an FNF. mean 3..” .SN 3... SN 8" EN EN
F o o e o o o o N N N N 88
F m N a m m n F” N F. v m m 8:
F on 8 Fe Fe 2 Q. 2 B 8 8 Fe Fe 2: F
F on 8 N N N N o o o o o o 8:
F N N N N o o F F F F 8:
F F.FF F.FF 8F 8F 8 8 mm 8 8 3 Fe Fe 8:
F N N mm mm mm mm 9. 9. N N 5 B 02
F o F F F. F. o o _w m F. F. 8:
F N N m n F. F. m m F. F. F. 8F
no new 2F .8 N: .Fe 2: .8 BF .8 SF m Fe 8m
3. .oz 3 .02 :< .oz 3. .02 :< .02 :< .02 £925
.qu NSF .mFm 32 .48 $2 FFF. FNNF FF" 3: .an 8F
to F.F 3F v.8 NF N.mN 8 N. Fm «NF .8 NON F..F.m 8F 8N
F..o we: NN FNF mm #NN Fm NNFF 8N .NF Nm v.8. 2F 8:
4.0 F..F.m F FN Nam NF.F =N. FF N F..8l SN .3 FN m3 F.FN SF
No N.F.m FNF. 98 8F. c wNm. EN .8 F.FN .2 mm 9.
F..o .3 F N m Jﬁd N m...” a ﬁ o .N r 08
F..o a o o o QmNN F.FN o o o 8F
N.o NdN FoF ﬁve F.Nm .2 En NNN 8F .8 Q: NSF. NN oF.
F..o F.Fw FN __N.F NF .F. NF F. 2 F. S N 8m
to NE 8F mNm Ne 98 8 N.mN 8 NFm E New Fe mFN
F..o v.8 FNF =N.NF Q: E 8F ﬁat. F.FF Fe mmF (gm NF.F Em
56$ 3 .oz__ 3 .02 :< .02: 2 .oz 3 dz: 3 .oz 29.. as;
2F 38 88 82 82 32 83 23:03 N wimp

LonEsz u.0z .LoEoo 50.0003. 0.300 Foam Homom .mucson. H...
.80.. 05 .8 .90. 0 mm :03 mm 3500. E9 some .8 5.6% 0.0 0.0F0H 8 050: com. 0:... .05 09.9.0 05 F0

.00. 0F 50> some .8 uoEEzm 995 2:5 .mE.:< .EoﬁEsm we; :0me FREE boEo>£ .0300 2: :00.» come 0E: oEmm
05 F0 :0me 90 8:00.52. 0050 0:0 60.83005 E053: onscmE F0: 0:... 55 EE: .mEEm :. omcmco 9... E 95.00..
00o.» F0 0E: mEF Fm 00:953. mm mm; .950 coumomom 0.300 Foam .0. 902:0: of. 0:00.. .09. 350E 0:: E 00.02
F0: 00 0.02.2.0 0:0 30: 2.5 0. 9302.0 30: och .c0___>mn. 0F... .8 09030.00 F0: 903 etc... .mE.:< .mFE: .mEEm F0
LonEsc 0.05000 0.0:. 0 002m .903 05 mas—.903 .F F0 58$ 0 0>mc 0. 09590.5 003 00.9. a. com 0 0:5 .N F0 .908 0
mm: 020: n. coo.F .0. .2903 0.00.002. 5.; 5.5005 E 00390.5 003 .903 on. 08:90:. 0E8 c. .3020 5.83005
was 3.0on EoBEU .6 3E: .mEEm .8 L903 9.0.8.000 9.00am. .955. L0... .6995 .08sz 005:: 05 :0 0002
09030.00 902, BED .mEE< .boEoE. .mEEm :0 0809 58-89 E0: mELmF :ms. c0 .585 2:5 .mE_c< .98 .N 0.00..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8: 2.8 on: SE EFF 83 FEB 02%

F0.» F3. mug... one um.” .06.. 8.9 n8 5.... Row Fwd Km .30...

5.0 3% mwv mod mow mmh mam Now mom Nod No... and 95 N 9.x
5.0 Non mom vm. F «.9 mod mam Fm. F X: mod mom va wvm F. 0.5.). F_:0<
3. .oz 3. .oz 3. .oz 3 .oz 3. .oz 3. 62 2925 .52

Raw 03 mwﬁm mmn nmdu 0mm «.9. van mmdw nun mvdw hvm .20....

mod m0 omF mﬁo mNF an mFF FNF Nvm mwo an ﬁn mFF om 2E3 _m_0LoEEoo
mod N 0v F.m No mod FF. mnF mm mvd a .F mm cm 8&3 e.sm.
F.o No mm FN Fm F..m vm QmF mmF 0F. 9. :vb vo Q. 83m. 95.00}
F.o m.NF mNF N.mF NmF F..NF va m. FF mFF NF NF. WA: SF 09 83m. m0.5.0.).
mod mod «F o o No 3 9.0 m NM .3 Nd m on mnEmn .0502,
mod moF Fm No .F.F ﬁe 9 No FNF mmd m m0 w on BEE. Emm
F.o No N F.o F v.0 F. No N od o v.0 F. 3 mEmm m:_:mm>
F.o No R md m No N No N md m No N 00F 9:01
558 .2 .oz 3 .oz :< .02 :4. .oz :< .02 2 .oz 29.. moose
2F 88 88 82 ”8F 32 82 22:8. N 223

TABLE 3. ANIMAL UNIT FACTORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Livestock Type AU Equivalency Factor
Slaughter and Feed Cattle 1

Horses 2

'Mature Dairy Cow 1.4

Swine (>551b) 0.4

Sheep 0.1

Turkeys 0.02
Chickens (broiler or layer) 0.01

 

 

 

TABLE 3. The animal unit factors used to calculate the number of animal units in Table
2. Factors were calculated using the Uniﬁed National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations 1000 animal unit equivalent factor. The number of animals equal to 1,000
animal units was divided by 1000 to get the factor for 1 individual animal unit.

74

TABLE 4. PHYSICAL AND QUANTITATIVE FEATURES OF FARM FIELDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field SubfieldTAcres Soil Type % Slope Soil Test P STP year
E14 6 4 Capac 0-3 181 2001
E27-1 7 5 Riddles 2-6 61 8 2002
E27-2 8 5 Riddles 2-6 636 2002
E30 9 22 Riddles 2-6 217 2002
E32 4 5 Spinks 2-6 543 2002
E34 10 14 Riddles 2-6 181 2001
E36 1 1 20 Riddles 2-6 471 2002
E40 1 3 4 Marlette 2-6 69 2002
E42 14 18 Marlette 2-6 275 2002
E44-1 1 5 1 3 Riddles 2-6 275 2002
E44-2 16 13 Riddles 2-6 224 2002
E46 1 8 4 Riddles 2-6 224 2002
E47 19 4 Riddles 2-6 325 2001
E48 20 3 Riddles 2-6 **
E49 21 4 Capac 0-3 **
E50 22 22 Capac 0-3 148 2002
E51 23 24 Capac 0-3 60 2002
E52-1 24 18 Capac 0-3 149 2000
E52-2 25 18 Riddles 2-6 143 2002
E53 26 1O Marlette 2-6 386 2001
E54 27 6 Marlette 2-6 1 38 2002
E55 29 0 Marlette 2-6 1 05 2002
E56 30 16 Capac 0-3 128 2002
E57 31 12 Capac 0-3 43 2002
E58 32 12 Riddles 2-6 174 2002
E59 33 12 Capac 0-3 262 2000
E61 34 16 Capac 0-3 78 2000
E62 35 16 Riddles 2-6 149 2000
E64 36 7 Riddles 2-6 148 1996
E65 37 7 Houghton 0-2 116 1996
E66 38 9 Houghton 0-2 217 2001
E67 39 9 Riddles 2-6 69 2001
E68 40 11 Capac 0-3 42 1998
E70-1 41 11 Capac 0-3 46 2002
E70-2 42 1 2 Capac 0-3 69 2002
E72-P 45 6 Colwood 0-3 86 2002
E73 44 1 3 Ma rlette 2-6 55 2002
E74-1 46 22 Capac 0-3 86 2002
E74-2 47 23 Colwood 0-3 124 2002
E75-1 48 1 8 Riddles 2-6 300 2002
E75-2 49 18 Colwood 0-3 108 2002
E75-3 5O 19 Capac 0-3 190 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

TABLE 4 (Contd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field Subfieldl Acres Soil Type % Slope Soil Test P STP Year
E76 53 8 Ma rlette 2-6 62 2002
E77 54 10 Marlette 2-6 38 2000
E78 55 5 Ma rlette 2-6 31 1 995
E79 56 12 Marlette 2-6 112 2002

E82-1 57 1 7 Ma rlette 2-6 1 16 2000

E82-2 58 1 7 Houghton 0-2 1 54 2000
E84 59 26 Houghton 0-2 1 39 2000
E85 60 16 Riddles 2-6 254 2000
E86 61 20 Houghton 0-2 1 31 2000
E87 62 16 Colwood 0-3 181 2000

E90-1 63 45 Udorthents 0-3 **

E90-2 64 40 Udorthents 0-3 **

E90—3 65 15 Udorthents 0-3 217 2002

E90-4 66 5 Capac 0-3 248 2002
E92 67 8 Palms 0-2 428 2002

E1 16 68 20 Capac 0-3 76 2002

E124 69 10 Marlette 2-6 57 2002

E1 26 70 34 Capac 0-3 60 2002
W24 71 18 Gilford 0-3 69 2002
W30 72 23 Aubbeenaubbe 0-3 39 2002
W31 73 7 Ma rlette 2-6 40 2002

W33-1 74 1 7 Aubbeenaubbe 0-3 254 2000

W34 75 17 Aubbeenaubbe 0-3 247 2000
W35 76 20 Ma rlette 2-6 33 2002
W36 78 20 Ma rlette 2-6 50 2002

W40 80 9 Ma rlette 2-6 65 1 995
W41 81 6 Marlette 2-6 26 1 995
W42 82 9 Capac 0-3 36 1 995

W44-1 83 8 Riddles 2-6 25 1995
W44-2 84 12 Riddles 2-6 66 2002

W46 85 15 Sisson 0-3 36 1996
W47 86 1 3 Sisson 0-3 53 1 996
W48 87 25 Sisson 2-6 57 2002
W50 89 5 Capac 0-3 1 20 2001
W51 90 34 Capac 0-3 43 2002
W52 91 1 8 Riddles 2-6 43 2002

W53 92 18 Capac 0-3 64 2002
W54 93 4 Marlette 2-6 80 2002

W56-1 94 9 Capac 0-3 1 54 2002
W56-2 95 9 Capac 0-3 160 2002

W58 96 6 Capac 0-3 50 1994
W60 103 8 Riddles 2-6 128 2002
W70 1 04 14 Capac 0-3 1 08 2002
W71 1 05 1 2 Capac 0-3 224 2002

W-72-1 1 06 14 Capac 0-3 224 2002
W72-2 107 14 Capac 0-3 1 90 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

TABLE 4 (Contd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field Subfieldl Acres Soil Type % 5M8 Soil Test P STP Year
W73-T 108 3 Riddles 2-6 95 2002
W75-1 109 14 Capac 0-3 86 2002
W75-2 1 10 14 Capac 0-3 95 2002
W75-3 11 1 14 Capac 0-3 73 2002

W76 1 13 1 1 Colwood 0-3 131 2000

W77 1 14 1 5 Marlette 2-6 20 2002

W78 1 15 12 Capac 0-3 1 12 2001
W80-H 118 5 Marlette 2-6 167 2002
W80-J 121 8 Capac 0-3 66 2002
W90-1 122 16 Aubbeenaubbe 0-3 167 2002
W90-2 123 17 Owosso 2-6 148 2002
W90-3 124 17 Capac 0-3 88 2002
W94-1 1 25 9 Marlette 2-6 64 2002
W94-2 126 9 Marlette 2-6 78 2002

1377

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Physical and Quantitative Features of farm ﬁelds gives a list of MSU farm ﬁelds
as labeled by MSU farm management with subﬁeld, current acreage of each ﬁeld, most
prominent soil type in each ﬁeld as well as average slope for the prominent soil type and
the most recent soil test phosphorus level for that ﬁeld. STP year column indicates the
most recent soil test taken within the last ten years.

*STP= Soil Test Phosphorus

** No soil test available for these ﬁelds within the last ten years.

77

TABLE 5. MSU FARM FIELDS BEST FIT FOR WINTER APPLICATION OF
MANURES.
FIELDS FIELDS
RES ELD RES
24
30 1
31
35
36
44-2
48
50
51
52
53
54

60

T
5-1
5-2
5-3

8
82-1 80-J
90-3

86 94-1

1 16 94-2

1 24 1
Table 5. Lists ﬁelds best suited for winter manure application based on MARI. These
ﬁelds have phosphorus loss ratings of low potential for phosphorus movement, making
these ﬁeld locations the best ﬁt for winter manure application.

 

78

TABLE 6. MANURE APPLICATION RISK INDEX SUMMARY

TOTAL ACRES BY
”MARI” RISK 0 771 17 4 792

 

 

Total Low and
CATEGORY: V. LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH TOTAL 771 Very Low

TABLE 6. Manure Application Risk Index (MARI) Summary is a Phosphorus loss risk
assessment of potential of Phosphorus movement. MARI was used to evaluate the P loss
potential from winter manure applications. Physical and Quantitative Features (Table 4)
of the farm ﬁelds were used for the assessment. All ﬁelds assessed have a potential for
phosphorus movement based on MARI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

TABLE 7. FARM FIELDS WITH CROPS AND YIELD GOALS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001 Crop Plan P-rem Total P
Field Ac Crop YG Units Lblac Lbs/field
E14 4Wheat 75 Bu/ac 52.5 210
E27-1 51Corn silage 16 Ton/ac 45 225
E27-2 5lCorn silage 16 Ton/ac 45 225
E30 ZZCorn silage 16 Ton/ac 45 990
E32 SICorn silgge 16 Ton/ac 45 225
E34 14|Corn silage 16 Ton/ac 45 630
E36 20Alfa|fa 6 Ton/ac 60 1200
E40 4Com silgge 16 Ton/ac 45 180
E42 18|Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 864
E44-1 13ICorn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 624
E44-2 1ﬂCorn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 624
E46 4ICorn 120 Bu/ac 68 272
E47 4Com 120 Bu/ac 68 272
E48 3[Pasture, ext. ggazed 3 Ton/ac 55 165
E49 4lPasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 220
E50 ZZGrass maintenance 2 Ton/ac 20 440
E51 24Corn 120 Bu/ac 68 1632
E52-1 18|Pasture, ext. gazed 3 Ton/ac 55 990
E52-2 181Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 990
E53 10IPasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 550
E54 QCorn silag 14 Ton/ac 41 246
E56 16lCorn 120 Bu/ac 68 1088
E57 12Alfalfa 4 Ton/ac 40 480
E58 L21Pasture, ext. gra_zed 3 Ton/ac 55 660
E59 12]Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 660
E61 16[Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 880
E62 16iPasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 880
E64 7Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 385
E65 7Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 385
E66 9IPasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 495
E67 9Trefoil hay 4 Ton/ac 55 495
E68 1 1 Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 605
E70-1 11Alfa|fa 6 Ton/ac 60 660
E70-2 12Alfalfa 6 Ton/ac 60 720
E72P BICorn 130 Bu/ac 75 450
E73 13A|falfa 6 Ton/ac 60 780
E74-1 2 heat 80 Bu/ac 54 1188
574-2 23IWheat 80 Bu/ac 54 1242
575-1 18IWheat 80 Bu/ac 54 972
575-2 18IWheat 80 Bu/ac 54 972
575-3 19Wheat 80 Bu/ac 54 1026
E76 8ICorn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 384
‘E77 101Pasture, ext. grged 3 Ton/ac 55 550
E78 5{Pasture, ext. grgzed 3 Ton/ac 55 275

 

00
O

 

Table 7 (contd) Lblac Lbs/ﬁeld

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field Ac rop YG Units P-rem Total P
E79 12A|falfa 6 Ton/ac 60 720
E82—1 17Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 935
E82-2 17Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 935
E84 26|Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 1430
E85 161Pasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 880
E86 20IPasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 1100
E87 16lPasture, ext. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 880
E90-1 45(3rass maintenance 2 Ton/ac 20 900
E90-2 40iGrass maintenance 2 Ton/ac 20 800
E90-3 15ICorn silagg 14 Ton/ac 41 615
E90-4 SlCorn silage 14 Ton/ac 41 205
E92 8lCorn silgqe 1 Ton/ac 41 328
E116 ZOICorn silage 14l Ton/ac 41 820
E124 1dCorn 110 Bu/ac 65 650
E126 34Corn 110 Bu/ac 65 2210
W24 1810rchard grass Ton/ac 64 1152
W30 23lA|falfa 6 Ton/ac 60 1380
W31 7A|fa|fa 6 Ton/ac 60 420
W33-1 17Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 935
W33-2 17Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 935
W35 20ACP Grass-legume imp 2 Ton/ac 20 400
W36 20ACP Grass-legume imp 2 Ton/ac 20 400
W40 91Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 495
W41 6Pasture, int. gazed 3 Ton/ac 55 330
W42 9lPasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 495
W44-1 8|Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 440
W44-2 121Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 660
W46 1iPasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 825
W47 13|Pasture, int. grazed 3 Ton/ac 55 715
W48 25 Ifalfa 6 Ton/ac 60 1500
W50 SSoybean 50 Bu/ac 48 240
W51 34Trefoil bay 3 Ton/ac 55 1870
W52 18Alfalfa 6 Ton/ac 60 1080
W53 18A|falfa 6 Ton/ac 60 1080
W54 4Com silage 16 Ton/ac 45 180
W56-1 9A|fa|fa seedinL 6 Ton/ac 60 540
W56-2 9A|fa|fa 6 Ton/ac 60 540
W58 6{Corn 120 Bu/ac 68 408
W60 8ICorn 120 Bu/ac 68 544

 

 

 

81

Table 7 (contd)

Lbs/ac Lbs/ﬁeld

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field Ac Org YG Units P-rem Total P
W70 14Corn silag 18 Ton/ac 48 672
W71 1ZCorn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 576
W72—1 14Corn silgge 18 Ton/ac 48 672
W72-2 14Corn silgqe 1 Ton/ac 48 672
W73 Corn silgge 16 Ton/ac 45 135
W75—1 14Corn silgqe 18 Ton/ac 48 672
W75-2 14Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 672
W75—3 14Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 672
W76 11Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 528
W77 15A|falfa seeding 6 Ton/ac 60 900
W78 12Corn 130 Bu/ac 75 900
W80-H 51Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 240
W80-J 8iCorn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 384
W90-1 161Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 768
W90-2 17Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 816
W90-3 17Corn silage 18 Ton/ac 48 816
W94-1 9100rn 120 Bu/ac 68 612
W94-2 91Corn 120 Bu/ac 68 612
137 vg rem 51.1 70297

 

 

Table 7. 2001 crop plan for MSU farm ﬁelds. Crops grown and respective expected
yield goals for that crop are indicated in this table. P-rem is the P205 removed by the
crop per acre. Total P is the Total phosphorus removed per ﬁeld (P-removed/acre

*number of acres in ﬁeld)
bu/ac= bushels per acre

Ext.- extensively

Int- intensively

Ton/ac= ton per acre yield

82

TABLE 8. NUTRIENT PRODUCTION FOR 2001 USING 1985 MWPS-18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VALUES
1 985 MWPS-18 Yearly Nutrient Production
iNutrient Production N P205 K20 Tot N P205 K20
Livestock Wt. No. Ibld Ibld Ibld lbs lbs lbs
Beef Feeder (HE) 1 100 179 0.37 0.28 0.32 24173 18293 20907
Beef Feeder (HE) 750 235 0.26 0.19 0.22 22301 16297 18870
Beef Feeder (HE) 500 186 0.17 0.13 0.15 11541 8825 10183
Beef Feeder (HF) 1100 243 0.37 0.28 0.32 32817 24834 28382
Beef Feeder (HF) 750 28 0.26 0.19 0.22 2657 1941 2248
Beef Feeder (HF) 500 173 0.17 0.13 0.15 10734 8208 9471
0-18 months Dairy 500 18 0.213 0.09 0.17 1399 591 1116
D-Lact Cow 1400 1 78 0.595 0.24 0.48 38657 15592 31 185
D-Heifer 750 178 0.319 0.13 0.255 20725 8446 16567
D-dry cow 1400 2 0.595 0.24 0.48 434 175 350
Cull Cows 1000 6 0.425 0.17 0.34 930 372 744
Horse“ 1 000 95 0.3 0.1 61 0.301 10402 5582 10437
Chickens 2 190 0.0017 0.0009 117 62 0
Poultry-Layer 4 1 165 0.0029 0.0025 0.0014 1233 1063 595
Poultry-Turkey* 20 790 0.01 16 0.01 0.0056 3344 2883 1614
Quail/Pheasants 3 509 0.0023 0.0017 0.0007 427 315 130
8wk turkey 4 9 0.0029 0.0025 0.0014 9 8 4
Mink/Ferrets 4 791 0.0029 0.0025 0.0014 837 721 404
Sheep“ 100 400 0.042 0.02 0.039 6132 2920 5694
Sows 275 369 0.07 0.05 0.05 9427 6734 6734
Swine boar 350 22 0.09 0.064 0.064 722 513 513
Mixed Nursery 50 572 0.025 0.017 0.0175 5219 3549 3653
Swine-Grow/ﬁnish 100 21 1 0.04 0.03 0.032 3080 2310 2464
125-200# Feeder 163 289 0.075 0.058 0.058 791 1 61 18 61 18
200# + Feeder 250 185 0.085 0.06 0.065 5739 4051 4389
Pavilion 1000 37 0.3 0.161 0.301 4051 2174 4065
7060 225018 142577 186837

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*All animals for these species assumed as adults at respective weights.
TABLE 8. Shows Nutrient production of nutrients based on Mid West Plan

Service (MWPS) 18, 1985 edition values for livestock manure production. Yearly

production levels were calculated by multiplying the number of animals by the

daily nutrient production by 365 days per year. Yearly nutrient production values

were totaled.

Wt=Weight, D-= Dairy; HE= High Energy; HF= High Forage; lb/d= pounds per
day nutrient production; No.=Number

83

 

 

TABLE 9. NUTRIENT PRODUCTION FOR 2001 USING 2000 MW PS-18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VALUES
2000 MWPS-18 YearIyNutrient Production
Nutrient Production N P205 K20 Tot N P205 K20
Livestock Wt lNo. Ibld Ibld Ibld lbs lbs lbs
Beef Feeder (HE) 1100 179 0.54 0.21 0.32 35263 13720 20907
Beef Feeder (HE) 750 235 0.38 0.14 0.22 32430 12008 18870
Beef Feeder (HE) 500 186 0.14 0.1 0.11 9486 6789 7467
Beef Feeder (HF) 1100 243 0.61 0.21 0.36 53946 18625 31930
Beef Feeder (HF) 750 28 0.41 0.14 0.25 4172 1430 2555
Beef Feeder (HF) 500 173 0.14 0.1 0.11 8823 6314 6945
0-18 months Dairy 500 18 0.155 0.045 0.145 1008 295 952
D-Lact Cow 1400 178 0.82 0.42 0.48 53222 27287 31 185
D-Heifer 750 178 0.23 0.07 0.22 14774 4547 14293
D-dg cow 1400 2 0.5 0.2 0.4 364 146 292
Cull Cows 1000 6 0.36 0.11 0.28 786 240 613
Horse” 1000 95 0.28 0.11 0.23 9690 3814 7975
Chickens 2 190 0.0023 0.0014 0.0011 0 97 76
Poultry-Layer 4 1165 0.0035 0.0027 0.0016 1165 1148 680
Poultry-Turkey 20 790 0.0126 0.0108 0.0054 3160 3114 1557
Quail/Pheasants 3 509 0.0029 0.00205 0.00135 509 380 250
8wk turkey 4 9 0.0035 0.0027 0.0016 9 8 5
IMink/Ferrets 4 791 0.0035 0.0027 0.0016 791 779 461
Sheep‘ 100 400 0.04 0.02 0.04 5600 2920 5840
Sows 275 369 0.05 0.04 0.04 6642 5387 5387
Swine boar 350 22 0.05 0.04 0.04 396 321 321
Mixed Nursery 50 572 0.0367 0.02 0.015 7436 4175 3131
Swine-Grow/finish 100 211 0.07 0.04 0.025 5275 3080 1925
125-200# Feeder 163 289 0.085 0.055 0.04 8959 5801 4219
200# + Feeder 250 185 0.09 0.06 0.05 5920 4051 3376
Pavilion 1000 37 0.28 0.11 0.23 3774 1485 3106
7060 273600 127961 174318

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*All animals were assumed adults at respective weight
TABLE 9. Shows Nutrient production of nutrients based on Mid West Plan
Service (MWPS) 18, 2000 edition values for livestock manure production. Yearly
production levels were calculated by multiplying the number of animals by the

daily nutrient production by 365 days per year. Yearly nutrient production values

were totaled.

 

 

Wt=Weight, D-= Dairy; HE= High Energy; HF= High Forage; lb/d= pounds per
day nutrient production; No.=Number

84

TABLE 10. MANURE SPREADERS USED ON FARM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spreader ID Description Tyg Capacity Units
JD 785 John Deere Push Off Solid 350 ft3
JD 455 John Deere Small Solid 230 ft3
Houle 4300 Houle Tank Liquid 4200 gallons
Nuhn 3600 Nuhn Tank Liquid 3600 gallons
IME IME (Better Built) Liquid 3000 gallons
H&S 175 Horse Barn H&S Solid 125 ft3
680 NH Poultry Solid 280 n3
8014 Knight Dairy Sli_nggr Solid 220 ft3
329 NH Vet Farm Spreader Solid 100 ft3
1802 H&S Dairy V-Bottom Solid 300 83
GR Truck 483,321 Grain Trucks Solid 405 ft3
Dump Truck 642 Dump Truck Solid 135 n3

 

 

TABLE 10. Lists manure spreaders available for use on MSU farms. Spreaders
are classiﬁed as either liquid or solid and available capacity of each is given.
Also listed are trucks used to transport manure to piles. Ft3 = cubic feet

85

 

TABLE 11. 2001 MAN URE TOTALS HAULED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solid Liquid
Manure Manure

Total Total
Facility Loads Tons Loads Gallons
BCRC 314 1413 124 496000
Cow/Calf 1 93 772
Dairy 1087 4424.5 491 1991600
Horse 190 340
Pavilion 863 3069
Poultry 30 67 1 3000
Sheep 77 269.5
Veterinary 1 94 667
Reloads 264 918

otals 3,212 11,940 616 2,490,600

 

TABLE 11. Manure Totals Hauled. The loads of manure taken ﬁ'om each facility were
counted and periodically weighed. Total gallons hauled were based on capacity of the
spreader and approximate level in the tank to get total liquid hauled from each facility.

86

 

TABLE 12. MANURE ANALYSIS
T
slotted ﬂoor 1000
w/o bed RC East Feed Lot ton
Metabolism 1 000
w/ bed W ton
. sol W Back ton
w/ bed Barn S ton
. sol W Back ton
. sol Pad ton
w/ bed South Heifer ton
Heifer 1000
Metabolism 1 1 000
North Slotted 1 1000
Parlor 2. 1 000
Gutters ton
South Slotted . 18. . 1000
Waste Feed ton
Stock Pile ton
Stock Pile ton
Barn ton
et Manure ton
id w/ bed Piles ton
id ton
w/ litter Solid Pile ton
Pit 1000
ton
ton
Barn Pens 1 ton
4 Swine MOF 1000
C ton
Endo Endocrine 1000
S Swine Solid ton
SL Tank 1000
1 3 Old Sw 1000
et Clinic Clinic 1 1 ton
et Farm Farm 1 1 ton
TABLE 12. Manure analysis values from grab samples of the various manure storage
facilities. Liquid or slurry manure was taken after agitation during pumping. Solid
manure samples were taken midway through hauling manure from storage facilities.
Analysis values and units are given for each facility.
*Sol= solid, liq=liquid, bed=bedding, comp=composted, Temp=Temporary, Sw=Swine

 

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 13. NUTRIENT PRODUCTION: MANURE ANALYSIS
lbs/wet lbl1000
ton gal Totals
Tot Tot 0|
N P205 K20 N P205 K2 N P205 K20
solid liquid
Manure Ton Gallons --- analysis -- m analysis $ Total
BCRC pit 496000 40 27 34 19840 13392 16864
BCRC
Lots 464 1 1 7 10 5098 3244.5 4635
BCRC-
Met 76000 40 27 34 3040 2052 2584
BCRC S 464 21 18 26 9733 8343 12051
BCRC-
wbk 486 12 10 14 5832 4860 6804
C/C S 764 21 18 26 16044 13752 19864
C/C wbk 8 12 10 14 96 80 112
D-C 469 12 10 14 5628 4690 6566
D-H/S 3767 9 4 10 33898 15066 37665
D-HL 424000 40 27 34 16960 11448 14416
D-metab 30000 24 18 29 720 540 870
D-NL 308000 24 18 29 7392 5544 8932
D-PL 789600 4 4 4 31 56 31 58 3156
D-SL 440000 34.3 10.9 29.6 15092 4796 13024
D-wbk 189 12 10 14 2268 1890 2646
Horse 340 14 4 14 4760 1360 4760
Pav 3069 14 4 14 42966 12276 42966
Poultry-S 67 56 45 34 3752 301 5 2278
Poultry-L 3000 68 64 45 204 192 135
Sheep 270 14 9 25 3773 2425 6737
Sw-oid sol 82.5 10 9 8 825 742.5 660
Sw-comp 217 10 9 8 2170 1953 1736
Sw pits1-

4 78000 36 27 22 2808 2106 1716
Sw-Endo 24000 36 27 22 864 648 528
Sw-Slurry 1240000 36 27 22 44640 33480 27280
Vet farm 667 14 4 14 9338 2668 9338

260897 153721 248323

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Manure analysis of manure sources and total nutrient production for each and as a
whole. Liquid/Slurry analysis is in Lb/ 1000 gal (pounds per thousand gallons), Solid analysis is
in lbs/wet ton (pounds per wet ton). D=dairy, Sw=Swine, comp=compost, Endo=Endocrinc,
sol=solid, wbk=weighback, PL=parlor liquid, SL=south liquid, NL=North Liquid, Tot= Total,
metab=metabolism, HL=Heifer liquid, H/S=heifer solid, C/C=cow/calf, D-C=Dairy Calf,
BCRC=Beef Cattle Research Center, BCRC-S=Beef Cattle Research Center solid, Pav=pavilion.

88

TABLE 14: CROP NUTRIENT REMOVAL
utrient Removal lblac lblac lblac Total Nutrient

7 1
71 1
Grain
1598

Maint . 1203 21
Grass 1

nt Graz 671
571 1 01
1
1 07 38
1 7 1 55. 1 1617 141
13 271
TABLE 13. Shows the crops grown in 2001 and the number of acres that were planted to
each crop. Using the 1985 version of Mid West Plan Service-18 the nutrient removed by
each crop based on yield was used to measure the total nutrient removal for MSU farms
in 2001.
Leg.=Legume; Alf= Alfalfa; Main= Maintenance; Int. Graz= Intensive Grazing; Gen.
Graz= General Grazing; prod.= production. Lb/ac = pounds per acre.

 

89

_ t ‘Elaﬂlﬂm

 

 

TABLE 15. NUTRIENT BALANCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1985 MWPS-18 N P205 K20
Total nutrient production 225018 142577 1 86837
Total nutrient removed 271999 69535 230360
Excess Produced 73042
Additional Nutrients Needed 46981 43523
2000 MWPS-1 8 N P205 K20
Total nutrient production 273600 127961 1 7431 8
Total nutrient removed 271999 69535 230360
Excess Produced 1601 58426
Additional Nutrients Needed 56042
Manure Analysis N P205 K20
Total nutrient production 260897 153721 248323
Total nutrient removed 271999 69535 230360
Excess Produced 84186 17963
Additional Nutrients Needed 11102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15. A comparison of nutrient balance between the three methods of
nutrient production used. Total nutrient removed is the level of nutrients that
would be removed based on MWPS-18, 1985. This level is the same for all three
calculations.

*Ail values are in pounds

90

TABLE 16. PHOSPHORUS CHANGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soil Test P Adding Removing

By M 111 P P

lb P/acre --lb P205/ acre --
10 12.5 20.5
15 10.2 16.8
20 8.9 14.5
25 7.9 13
30 7.2 11.8
35 6.7 11
40 6.3 10.3
45 5.9 9.7
50 5.6 9.2

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16. Initial STP (soil test phosphorus level) as indicated by the Melich [[I soil
phosphorus test. The lower the initial soil test phosphorus level the more P that has to be
added or removed to change the STP level of this Belknapp soil in Western Kentucky by
llb/ac (PzOs). Higher STP levels (50 lbs P205 / acre) require a smaller addition or
removal amount to change the STP by 1 lb/acre P205.

This data comes from derivatives of equations that were developed using addition data
and removal data.

Added P 39.6/sq rt Pst Pst= P soil test

Removed P 64.9/sq rt Pst Pst= P soil test

(e-mail conversation on 10/27/00 with Gary Pierzynski, Professor, Soil and
Environmental Chemistry Department of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Sciences
Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S8 8. 88 8; 88 wt 88 83 82 88 82 8 9 8m
88 we 8e 8 08 me «we Fe 8e Fe o 9 Eu
83 8F oﬁ 8 82 8 e8 8 82 8 o N. 8m
89 Be 88 we eeS 8 NE 8 eeo. B o N? 8m
88 e3 o 58 x: 8 8 N8 8 o 5 e8
88 oem oeee eeF 83 mes 88 89 o o 2 8m
88 me? 88 em 88 e8 88 we ween 84 «8 me 8 «88
o E me? 8 8 8 82 8 e8 8 e8. 88 89 e e e we 88
88? em e8. 8 82 8 e2 5 we oees 8 e2 F 8 em 8.
88 8? 88 3 88 8F 88 8F 88 8F 88 em? 8 8w
o o o o o o e mew
o o o o o o 8 new
o o o o o o e New
o o o o o o e mew
0 e8 0 8. o 8? o 88 o 8, o ems o meem
88 at 88 8.8 88 mm: 88 88 88 em: 88 o8 8 Neem
88 8e 88 88 e8” 88 B8 :8 e8 8: 8t 8. 9 teem
88 :8 88 8 88 88 88 o8 88 SN 88 o8 as New
o8 8 O can 8 m8 3 88 em. own 8 e oem
8: 88 88 8e 882 e8 88 mee 082 m8 O88 8o 8 8m
88 e8 88 88 88 NE 88 o8 o o es e8
8 8m

88 88 88 88 88 8 88 e8 8e» 88 8: e8 8 8m
88 8 Se 2 8 8e oeue mew 88 e B 88 88 88 08 8 78m
88 8e 88 8e 88 «.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 m 8-8m
8: m? 82 8 «8 52 oem oer o8 oer o 8 em.
5538 42.82 5.88. $5.88 5582 < .. 88v 854. 22“..

o< BB 5 9m w_o>o._ __< mEoﬁ—mozm «we... =om

88-85: 3853 95.05.55 8m... 88 .2 8:25

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.8 8. 88 8. 82 em. 8e. 5 e o 2 88m.
050—. 0x. 0 000w 00 02.0 0.1. 0 0 0N vww
000 P 00 000? 00.. 00 ..N .N r 03.... 50 000.. 00 NNF _. 00 NF NlN0w.
N8 8 8: 8 8: 5 82 E 89 8 8: 8 t 88
0 0 0N0 00 N 0 P0 000 00 v00 N0 N F 05m
0 o 8 5 ea 8 o o 8 mm
o; 8 o 8. 2 08 8 o o o. Rm
8 8 8: 8 8 2. 8e 8 o o a 8m
vmmN v ..N N0 .0 NON 00 F0 00N 00: 00.. Cr: no? 0 Sem 0 ..m _. F 0-0mm
N00 N0 v 5.. .1. .. N .. «N N0.. 0NN.. 0.. .. 00NN 00N 00NN 00N _. .. Tmhw
2.: 50.. #2:. V0? 0N0? 00.. 0:; 0N? 00: 00? N09. 5:. Z. 0-05m.
0N0? 0: 00: 00 r 000? 03 000—. 0:. N00? Nx... .00.. F9 2. N0hm
50.. .0? 0N0 _. 03 000—. 00 F VNoN #0.. 00: 00 w 00x... 00 P F P mem
000 w N0 000N 0 .. .. 00~N 0N .. v0VN 50 v NO0N .N F 0000 0: MN Nlﬁhm
00VN m .. F 000N 00F vsmN n w .. 000N V0 0N00 00.. N Na 03 NN 73m
0NN 00 N00 00 N 3... 0x. 0 000 N0 0 v n.-th
0 0 ~00 me 000 0v v05 00 0 0 F mum
0N0? 00 000 00 0..Nw 0: F05 K 00NF 0: :0 he 3 Nlonm
N 5 05 000 00 000 r 00 0N0 ms 0N5 00 0VN r v0 P N v Tonm
0 0 0N0? 00.. 0 050.. 00 0Nn 00 _. P 00w
0 0 000 00 0 0? F v VN.. 00m 0v 0 n0m
0 0 V0: 00 —. 0 VNN.. 0m .. 0 0 00m
0 8 a: 89 8. o a; E 28 5 5 8m
0 000? 03 000? 00 _. 0 000 03. 0 .0 3. 5 0m
0VN —. 0x. 000 w mNF N00 F 50 .No P .0 000 00 00v 0N 0 .. N0m.
0 F0 F0 003. F0 0Nn me 005 0v 0.0 0v 0 .0 F0 0 F 0m.
88 8 e8 8. 88 .8 8. 8. 88 e8 82 e: 8. a8

<55? $582 $5.82 $5.82 $5.82 < .. .88.. 854. 28.“.

 

 

.958. t 28»

93

5.8:? ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 0N00 #0 F 0 0 0 N0 F0>>
0 0 0 05¢ 00 0 0 0 00.5
050 F 00 050 F 00 005 F 05 000 F N0 0N: 50 05 F F 5? 0N 03$
0 005 00 005 00 005 00 005 00 005 5v 0 F 5v>>
0 N0v 00 0 F0 0? N00 F5 005 00 N00 0v NF 0v?!
0 0 v0N 00 000 0». 0VN F0 .VNN 0N 0 N-¢¢>>
0 0 00N 0N 30 0v 0 Fv N0 00N 00 0 F-3>>
0 0 ¢N0 00 N0v 0v 00v N0 00 F ON 0 Nv>>
0 0 00 F 0N 00F F0 ¢0N 3 00 F 00 0 2:5
0 0 000 00 NON 0N 00 F 5F 00 F 5F 0 0v>>
00 F F 00 000 F 00 0.5 F 50 0¢N F N0 000 F 00 0v F F 50 0N F-00>>
0N0 0¢ ovN F N0 000 F 00 00N F v0 000 F 00 000 0v 0N 00>>
0 0N5N 00 F 0000 v F N VON0 N0 F F53 00N 00 F0 000 5 F ¢0>>
0 5¢N0 F0 F 0N00 05F #30 NON FN00 0 FN 0 N00 0NN 5 F 00>>
500 F0 0¢N 00 v0 F NN 0 FN 00 00N 0v 5Nv F0 5 F02,
03 F 00 NVN F 00 30 F 00 N00 F 00 000 F 00 000 F F0 0 F 00>>
03F 0NF 000F NF 0NOF 0FF 000F 00F 00FN 05F 0 NF ¢N>>
0N00 0 F F #00 5N 000 F 00 000 F 00 0VN F 00 000 00 N0 0N Fm
050 0v 000 0v 0N0 F 00 050 0v 000 00 00v 0v N F VN Fm
000 F .0 0V5 50 005 00 000 0? 005 F 00 000 0N 0N 0F Fm
N500 v00 3. F0 000 v0 Fv 0N0 35 F 0 FN 0VNv 000 0 0 wa
050F .00 000 FOF 000 FmF 000 F5F 0 0 0 Yomm
000N 00 N 0N0 F N0 F 000N 00N 050N 50N 0 0 0 F 0-00m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0v N-00m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0V F-00m
0 0 000 F 0 F F N00 N0 0 0 0F 50w
0 0 000N 0? F 0V0 F 50 0 0 0N 00m

5282 5:82 5582 $532 5:82 < . :32 88$ .22".

i=8. t 22.;

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nil-1:2. . . . ..l

0N0 00 000 NN 05N 0F 00N 5F 000 0 0 0 F 55.5
50V 50 00V 0V F00 F0 00 F 0F 000 00 50N 5N F F 05>>
V00 V0 FOV FV 0 F0 0N V50 V0 50V 50 50N 5N F F 005.5
000 0V 000 0N FVO F0 50F 5F 0 F0 0N VON VN F F V.05>>
V00 V0 000 00 00V 0V FON FN N00 N0 FOV FV F F 0.05>>
F05 F5 0NV 00 50V 50 VON VN 000 00 0NN 0N F F N-05>>
00V 00 000 50 00N 0V 0VN 0V 0VF 0N 00 F 0N 0 T053
0 o o o o o m 2.23
V FV F F0 F 000 0V N50 F 00 V F5 F0 000 05 000 VN VF N..N5>>
NNO F 05 000 N0 000 50 V F5 F0 N00 00 0V F F N0 VF F-N5>>
0F FF 00 000 05 0VFF 00 N05 F0 NFO 05 V00 N5 NF 53
N00 00 V F5 F0 V F5 F0 0N F F 00 NV5 00 000 F NV F VF 05>>
0 000 00 F 000 50 F N00 00 000 00 F N50 V0 0 00>?
0 NmN 05 00V 0N F 0NV 00 F 0 0 V 0-00.5
0 0 0 0V5 00 F N00 00 0 V 0-002,
0 0 0 000 00 V00 00 F 0 V V.00>>
0 0 0 V00 00 F 0NV 50 F 0 V 0-00>>
0 0 0 N F5 05 F 0 0 V N-00>>
0 0 0 0N0 00 0VN N0 0 V F-00>>
0 0 0 00 0V 0 0 N N-00>>
0 0 0 00 F F0 0 0 0 T003
0 0 0 SN 50 0 0 0 50 >>
00oF 5FF 0N5 00 000F 0VF FOFF 0NF 0 0 0 N002,
5FOF 0FF 0F0 F0 00FF NOF F00 00 0N5F NOF 05FF 00F 0 F002,
000 00 000 00 000 F0 00N 0V 000 00 F 000 0F F 0 V0 >>
0N5 0V V05 0V N F0 F N0 0N5 0V 0V0 0V 050 00 0 F 00 >>
N F0 F N0 000 00 000 F 00 N F0 50 N00 50 00V 0N 0F N0>>
5.82 82 5882 5882 < 82 < . r82 2:2 22....

.250. t 22:.

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V0.0FF 00.00F _ _55.0FF 00F.50 L050: _ F00.NOF _ amas—

omi§m 882 cm 8?. gm. 882 omUmEJMm 87.2 cm. 83 >m 0062 8.0236398. um um... gm. 03mm. meo<

V0.0FF 59 00.03 59 55.0FF VNOF 00F.50 50NF 05.0FF 0VOF F00.NOF 050

0.000 0N. F0 0 F. F FF 0FV. F0 000.50 NO0F.N5 Q5md>m

0050 F F 500N F F 05N00 F 5000N F 5050NF 0 F000 «5th

5 F0 F 0F F 500 05 000 F5 0N5 00 0 000 FV 0 N-V0>>

005 00 000 F N0 F N05 05 000 00 0 00V N0 0 F-V0>>

0FOF 50F 500 F0 VON0 NOF 00FN VNF 0 500N F0 F 5F 0-005

000 F 00 000 00 000 F 00 F FVF 00 0 V00 F N0 5 F N-00>>

V00 F V0 F 000 00 V00 F V0 F 000 F 00 F 0 000 F 00 0 F F-00>>

0V5 50 F 000 00 055 0 F F VVO N0 0 0 5 700.5

00V F V FN 000 0NF 0VN F 05 F 000 F 00 F 0 0 5 1-005

0 0 000 00 0 0 0 0F 05>>
(F503 <L.000F <F000F <£VO0F <L._000F < « ...NO0F m90< 0.0.“.—

..233 t 2%»

96

'3iﬂ‘»-a_..o ﬂ .5 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.88 o o 8.2 8 82 8 2m .8 2 .8.
.882 o o .88 88 8.8 88 88 .2 2 8w
88.82 88 .2 88 88 88 8. 8.8 88 88 .8 2 8m
......8 2m m. 88 8 8. 8 2.. 8 82 8. 2 .8.
88.8 82 8. 82 8. 82 8. 88 8.. 8.. 8. 2 8m
.....o8 82 8. 82 8. 8.. 8 8.2 8. 82 2. 2 8m
88.88 88 8. 28 2. 88 8 8.8 8 .8 2. . .8.
2.82 o 88 88 88 08 88. .8. 28 .8 2 8m
88.8.. 88 8.. 88 o8 82. o8 88 8. 28 2.. 2 8.88
88.8. o o 8.. 8.. 88 m8 «.2 8. 2 .88.
88.... o... 8 88 8 82 8 82 8 82 8 8 .8
88.8.. 88 8.. 8.. .2 88 .2 88 .2 88 8. 8 8m
0 o o o o o . 88
o o o o o o 8 88
8.8 o 82 88 o o o . .8
.8 88 .8 82 88 o o o . 88
88.8 o o o o 88 o .2 o 8.8
28...... 28 .8 88 o8 88 o8 8.8 o8 88 88 2 8.8
88.8.. 8.8 8.8 8... 2m 88 88 .8. 88 .88 .8 2 7.8
88.22 88 8.8 08. 98 88 88 8.8 88 88 o8. 2 88
88.88 88 8 o8 08 08 8. o8 8. 8. 2. . o8
.8..8. 88 ... 88 8. 88 88 8.. 88 88 8. 8 8m
....82 o 88 .2 88 o8 88 8. 8.8 m8 .. 8w
2.8 88 8 8m

88.88 8.. .8 88 o8 88 88 88 .8 8.8 88 8 88
88.82 88 28 88 o8 28 8. 8.8 o8 88 2. m 7.8
88.2.. 8.8 88 88 88 8.8 8. 88 .8. 8.8 .8 m 8-8m
88.88 82 .2 8.. .8 8.. 88 28 8. 8 .8
80983.. (L. NO0N <L. FO0N (tr 000N (L. 000.. 000 F 0204‘ 20.“.

 

:88. S 28..

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8 o o 88 .2 88 2. . o8 8. 8 . 88.
88.82 0 8o. .8 .28 8. 28 8. 2 88
.8. o ..8 8. 8.8 8.. .8. 8. 8 «8
82 o 28 .2 88 28 88 8. .. 8.88,
88 o 8.2 2 . 88 8. 82 8 .. .88,
.888 .8 2. 88 m. .8 .8 8. 8 .8 8. 2 8m
88.... o o o o o 8 8w
8.2. o o .8 8 o8 8 o8 8 2 ..m
8:8. 8. 8 8. 8 88 .8 88 8. 88 8 8 8m
.88... o o 88 N8 82 8 88 28 .. 8.8.8
.8888 o o 88 8 8.. 8. 8.. .2 .. 8.8
8. 88 8. 8.. 8. 82 8. 82 8.. 82 2. . . 8.88
88.88 8.. 8. 8.. 8. 8.. 8. 82 8. ..2 8. .. 8.88
.888 88 o8 82 8.. 82 8. 82 8.. 88 28 .. .88
.88.. 88 .2 88 8.. 88 8 8.8 8 82 8 8 8.8
88.82 82 8 88 8.. 88 8. 2.. 8 82 8 8 .-..m
88.8. .8 8 o8 8.. N8 8 88 8 8. 8. . 8.8
88.8 2. 8 88 .8 88. 8 8.. .8 2. 8 2 8m
88 8. 8 m .8 8 82 2 . .8. .8 8.. 8. . . 8.88
88.28 88 8. 88 8 o8 8 82 8 8.. 8 2 .88
8.8.88 0 o o o 8. N. .. 88
88.8 o .8 8 o o o m .8
8.88 o 82 .8 o o o 8 88
8.8 o o o o o . 88
8228 o o o o o . 8.
8.8.8 o o 88 8.. 8.. .8 82 .8. 2 88
[822... S... 88 5.: 88 4...: 88 fr 82 5:82 829$ 22,“.

:88. 2 28s

 

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ilia: a, .r. I E

Emméom en? ﬁn at: we owe oo «63 mm mew? an mm 53
SN o com ow _‘ 2b mm F one vw F new 2: m 83
85.08 mm: mm cow? 9. com? 9. 89 mm mm? m5 mm 33
vEmNmN o. . o o o o 9 2.2,
$3.08 o o o o o NF ov>>
m3 mum 8 vow 8 NE 5 o Sum mu m «-345
2: o o o o w 7345
our o o o o m ~v>>
ovmmmdn o o o o m 3.3
Summ<b o o o o m ov>>
22.§o 82 om on“ on 88 mm 82 mm 83 no om 783
093. com mm ow? we owe vm o own 9 cm mm>>
25.38 c am; new mmmv new 83. 0mm t 33
85.2.3 o w :3 vow ovvm own 39. mmw C an;
mmmné: omm ov owm ov wwm ow om». on own mv N. 53
mmoﬁmom «on an own ov <3 mm $3 mm 9.3 on or om>>
mind: wmm mm 39 «3 mom? 2: mm: mm mom? mo? NF v~>2
ommoéi. ommw co 3: mm mm: on we? 5. who 3 mm warm
morwémm 38 mm mam mm vwm mm owe mm 36 S 9 vwvm
mmmudmm 89 2. ommm o: owi E 8: mm 39 5 cm 03m
www.mwww ¢Nvm wwv mmmm vmv oomw onm ovmm omv meow mum m Nam
$3.8m 9.9 wvm om» of mom SP 89 mum Sb 3; 0 Team
33v: otm ta comm own 8% 8m BS EN 22 5F 2 3mm
0 o o o o 0 av «.03
o o o o o o 9. Team
wommdoo o o omwm F? o owvm mm? or Em
as: . 4} 88. 88 5988 5:32 3:32 8.3. 22“.

. 628:; 2%:

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New w. FNN com ON m9. mm O? Na omm NN mNm mm m w NN>>
V8 o o FVVF x: m: 8 8V 8 : 82,
88.88 o o o o: 2 m8 8 : 8-82,
88 o o 89 N: 28 8 «8 8 : Its
Nmmwdwm mom MK me. P mo? Nam? NF r was Nu mmm mm w w m-mn>>
8888 8V2 8 8: «2 N8. «3 8: 2: 8w 8 : ~83
88.3. 8V 8 8m 8 08 8? 08 2 m8 5 m 8;)
V? 88 8 8V 9: o o o m hats
88.88 88 2: 88 8F 8V2 a? 8: V9 88 a: VF «-82,
8888 85 V8 28 8F 88 NVN E8 88 88 8F VF 783
85.88 88 V8 88 88 88 SN 82 82 88 8F 8 Es
ommoﬂmm N _‘mw wow on: #3 oar w mm NmNF mm mmmw mm 3 05>>
«88% VNE 8F 88 N: V8 8? 82 N: 88 of 8 82,
839 c o o o o V 8.82,
V8888 o o o o o V 8.82,
mwmvdww o o o o o v Ymm>>
88.er o o o o o V ”-82,
8 o o o e V «-82,
888.8 C o o 0 V 782,
8...: o o o o N «-82,
V8 o o o o o m 782,
mdm o o o o o m ~m>>
8888 83 cm: 82 o: as 8 NE 8 E: m: 8 ~82,
82.88 82 V8 8V? 8? 8: 5 V8 82 82 8? m 782,
mum <va owv ow Nun No own om mmv mm NNN mm m vm>>
:NVéV VNS V8 88 8 V8 V8 «8 8 88 8 e 82,
82.8.. 88 8 88 8 08 8 8: E V8 8 2 8

3832 88 <£V8~ 5488 5:88 5.488 8:03 Eat

€285 28k

100

’l

.80» 85 H5 088 8a _0>0_ maonamonm 0w80>< "SE w>m M80» 85 H5 5082 8088 538 H5088 0<
.80» 85 85 0.88 8Q _0>0_

mbm 08808 8 8 588 05; .80» 85 05 50805 8088 532 05 »n 50535 :05 E8 80» 580 85 50.88 83 0058:. 85 A<f$
20¢ 85 .«o 8088 «o 8:82. 05 »n 50:85:: 8B 805 :8 05 £085 83 808 :8 8 85 80» comm .8: 0803 85 0805 58 50808
0803 85 8205 0805 85 53008 3 503303 000B 233 ﬁlm 05 8:5 .880» :0. 82 05 5 =8 8 5080“ 502 you 08: 8205 088
.80» ».~0>0 5080“ Ho: 83 E05 »._0>m .Amoom-mma: 880» :05 830303 5.5 m_0>0_ Ehmv gonamonm 80 H mom mo 88382 .5 0.5;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmdmw wvsmr mmdm.‘ 3.9: 5.va
8?. 90 5080“ 0m 08?. m>m U080“ om 08E dﬂmﬁmumﬂ o< 00$ 99 U088 00. 08?. m>m_ .0080“ om_
mwdmv vmm wvﬁmw vww wade. on: $63 5 : Fwdmr on:

$5» N035 mad: Nah: wade

mhmmor monmmw omomm r 50an NE E w
mmmmdmm mm mm _‘ F mm? 5mm 2. sum mow ON» on m N-vm>>
mmmmémv vm Nam mm mm» mm » _‘o_. 9 F Pom mow m Tvm>>
\bomdmm mm: mm ovow 0N.. 59‘ mm m3; mm ommN of. t m-om>>
mmmmdmo m EN 9; 0N9. w» .39 mm mm: mm m3: mm D. N-om>>
,3}de Numw k: mom? or _‘ vow _‘ mm vmow mar 3V rm Sm r 9 _.-om>>
wmmodmm mow om r B m» 50 mm 3.» mo? 5.» nor \. 7ow>>
0mm m9. r hm: omor om _‘ ow? w 09. 3.? N2 5m mm? » I..om>>
GK 0 cm: «3 om: m: can mm o or wn>>
0w£0>< <L. «can 4?... Son <L.oco~ arr—.83 (frame. m20< 23".
6:30.: 038

101

 

 

 

 

0000K 0000.00 80.5321

080 n....m 00083001

0.3008 8 800005000 80:80. 0.08.80 0. ».._.0<¢
805 ..00 0.00..0>0 80. 003 9 0.90.1

.0..0-:3. 00 8: 0.300 000m. 80:80“. 3.0.5.1

 

083920

00.800 0.2.0.21

00.050 021

00.5 0.>-:0.0.0> 080031

00.00 00:00:00.0?
00000308309500. 0.0... 030 021
0.000 0.0.» 028.500. 0021

080 80. =00 0.0 00... 8: 00001
030.300

 

 

000...0.0 0:0 000.... 8:00.00

 

 

0000.00 80.032 0. .0..w .0E.0001

0.00.000300 00 000000. 080..82...0.0E00c300 00 000000. 080.3321

0»0 0.000. 8.0. 0.0c>>1
.8... 000888008 021
80.8.5...

00.0000. 0.00011
083020

080.532 .0. 0.0.0000 1
00.5.0.0 0.00» mél
00.00. 80.5 0.5.1
.00 .. 00800.01
030.300

0080.050

 

 

 

.0220 < “.0 hzm2004m>m0 2. 05.5. mDDmDn. DZ< 223w:— zmmEmm mmuzmmmuma .2. m..m<._.

102

FIGURE 1. PHOSPHORUS CYCLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
   

P CYCLE
From Plorzinski et al., 1994
Municipal
Fortiliurs ”an. A9333?“ and Industrial
By-Products
INPm‘s
son.
Erosion Runoff
mace '
3‘“ (Ssdlmontsnd Solublo P) Surf-co Wat-n
-—-> (Eurrophlchon)
i "mum- 8%?
Sorption
SORBEDP ,-"~‘
I \
CLAYS Soil Solution P

Al. F. Oxidos

 

 

 

—1

 
  

taro; HPO:’]

 

1 gym;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Immobilization

 

Soil Biomass (living)
Soil Organic mm:
Solubio Organic P

 

 

 

+ \
\
’ I
r , i
SECONDARY P " ‘9’, ’ Minorsliution ‘\ .
MINERALS 000°, ’ 4 .
CI. F.. Al ’ l I \
PHOSPHATES ' ' x
, Organic P
0
0“” '
PRIMARY P 99 , ’
MINERALS , , ’ Lawn“
APATITES ’ 1

 

 

Figure 1. Phosphorus Cycle reveals the movement of phosphorus through the
environment. Weathering of phosphate from rocks becomes a nutrient in the
soil, from which plants take up P. Plants are ingested by animals, and returned

to the soil as an organic waste product.

103

 

FIGURE 2. NITROGEN CYCLE

""11111111'"I1 I111 Vigil ‘ ‘1' ' 'r .. .. .7. ~14.
1'1“”11111”1I111 “III‘II 11111.":1‘ I11 11111108“ I "'III‘ 111‘“I I11111"'I 11'1“" ‘
“11“. H“ “Willi ”“3““ u‘ h ‘ I“ “I‘u‘ “1"." 11 ,

€le
I111 “:UIII1I11I 11” .ILII1I11
I311 111‘ 111
IIII111111"III II1111 ‘
I III 111":‘IIII11111" 3:111
‘1 .
It1.111|mII IimIIIIIII 11"“

11 1 'r
1111 “11:11:11“ It:
IIII|III 1111 1‘“ I "I‘, 1111

l 11 -
”ml I11111‘III‘3IN “ a
WI 11 1111111111“ 1 ‘7 a. I a W.
I IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIII11I‘1III11111I1.11“”I 1111111, 1, 1
"III I‘“ 11 y . h
. I 1““ :11 III iill:ﬂ:1}l"‘“””1 I?!”
1111 .
11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1
I11‘ 111111111111
11

'1
i?1[“'

1111111 1 1
1111‘1111111111111111 11
1 11111111111111

I “111111 '11

1111111111

 

Figure obtained ﬁ'om: h:_t_tp //www. geog. ouc. bc. ca/phégIeIogchontents/9s. html

Figure 2. The Nitrogen Cycle, nitrogen movement through the environment in various
phases and physical states.

FIGURE 3. PHOSPHORUS CHANGE

 

 

Phosphorus Change
6 25
a
S 3
5 a‘ 20
2 a
E 9 15 ..
.5 g +P-addmon
§' 2, +P-extraction
an e 10
E E
.C _.
a. 5
n P; ‘
,2 m
:L 0 H
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mellch Ill Soll Test Phosphorus

 

 

 

Figure 3 depicts the change in phosphorus soil test levels when phosphorus is added or
extracted from the soil. Initial STP (soil test phosphorus level) as indicated by the Melich
111 soil phosphorus test. The lower the initial soil test phosphorus level the more P that
has to be added or removed to change the STP level of this Belknapp soil in Western
Kentucky by llb/ac (PzOs). Higher STP levels (50 lbs P205 / acre) require a smaller
addition or removal amount to change the STP by 1 lb/acre P205.

This data comes from derivatives of equations that were developed using addition data
and removal data.

Added P 39.6/sq it Pst Pst= P soil test

Removed P 64.9/sq it Pst Pst= P soil test

(e-mail conversation on 10/27/00 with Gary Pierzynski, Professor, Soil and
Environmental Chemistry Department of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton Plant
Sciences Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501)

105

FIGURE 4. UNIVERSITY FARM FIELDS

UNIVERSITY t
FARM
E .

       
     
     
   
        
    
   
  

8014014

3OF18

    

  

H052F16
H053F16

H048H2781
H048H2782

"080051

H077F15

  
   
    
 
 

E090ﬂ10351

 

W098W75

HOSOFSOSE

   
    

EOQBF022

E090H10352

Figure 4. MSU farm ﬁelds, location and boundaries and the farm facilities respective
locations on MSU farms.

106

 

FIGURE 4A. CHANGE IN ACRES

 

Change in Acres

1480
1460
1440
1420
1400
1380
1360
1340
1320

1.0 ’\ Q) Q, Q '\ ‘L
o.) o.) 9 Q> Q Q Q
'9 '9 '9 '9 r19 r19 q? + Acres
Years

Acres

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4a is the change in acres from 1996 to 2002. Reduction in acres available for
MSU farms manure applications and crop production is not a predictable trend. Acres
change due to development of farmland, and research necessities. MSU farms land
available for manure application and crop production has decreased over 60 acres in the
seven-year period.

107

FIGURE 5. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF MSU FARM FIELDS.

 

i! ,-.. ’
NEW“ !

. " ., . ,, i ,
~‘. ' .l...-w. ;. My}:
‘ 1""1’ " "

v . .I -. .1.
9.4. .‘ ..

FIGURE 5. Aerial photograph of Michigan State University south campus farms. Most
of the land is utilized for crop and feed production; some is used solely for the purpose of
research to achieve better crop yields and varieties.

108

FIGURE 6. TOPOGRAPHY MAP OF MSU FARMLAND

‘ l}
I l l I 1_'
l ' 1 _ 3i
‘ i 3 ' «93“.;333. A"
' I, ,l ‘ l
g _
, . 3 I
3 '.
[H ‘ ‘ Eff l ' a. t
' I 2.22:. .135“ t
Klmcﬁ I l
9 1
:1 , r W..-“
l r . :3L3.-j ;
i n l l W, .. '1 ”‘0‘
- I 3“!- ;
l 3 5
3.? 31
l
i \:. 3
.l

*2

   

Figure 6. The topography of MSU farmland reveals various elevation heights as well as
water resources.

109

FIGURE 7: SOILS MAP OF MSU FARMLAND AREA

 

N

110

FIGURE 7: (contd)

 

Figure 7: Spatial relation of various soil types on MSU farms. Slopes range from 0-6%,
predominant soil types include Capac, Riddles and Marlette.

111

FIGURE 8. ANINIAL UNITS GRAPH

 

Change in AUs

2000
1 900
1 800
1 700
1600

1 500

+ AU
— Linear (AU)

AU

1400

1 300

1200

1100

 

1 000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

 

 

 

Figure 8 graphs the change in animal units over time. The increasing trend of animal
units will require an increased land base to balance the farm system or a higher level of
management to maintain a balance. The equation shows an increase of approximately 77
animal units per year. Data in graph is ﬁ'om Table 2.

112

FIGURE 9. SOIL TEST ANALYSIS GRAPH

Weighted Average Bray P1

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

150 — , — —- m
E 130 _
5‘
a 110 ‘ ' 5' J.
Y y = 4.5278x + 95.123
90 " RT: 0.6642"
70 l l l l I l l l l l

 

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Year

Figure 9 data is from table 17. The weighted Bray P1 levels from MSU farm ﬁelds over
time reveals an overall increase of STP of 4.5 lbs per acre. The increase predicts an
eventual P level of MSU farm ﬁelds above the recommended STP level for which
manure application can take place according to Generally Accepted Agricultural
Management Practices for manure application, GAAMMPs

.113

.88 com wagon .maonmmosm “m8 :8 A 35820 .3 vapours—8 mEou 8.5 DmE .3 «Suﬁ

 

O02!— q? no G 0.:

Z

wmc i won
can I FON
OON .. Fmr

omr I r

DIEII

95.220:
one - we
con .. re
cow - 3.

car.

E
u

5“

mil

acm. maze
nap—0:350:

l-COI-
U
'3
3

 

F>>0_>

HERA mDM—CIA—mC—hn— >M— GHGCU mA—QEE _Zﬂda— EC .522 .c— ~5ch

114

FIGURE 11. DAIRY NORTH AND SOUTH PITS, DIMENSIONS AND

CAPACITY

 

 

 

’3 L7 - I N S?
C] 2;... :5 ‘2’: E13 12‘; t
- _ _- - — — _. _ _§ 1‘ =- 1 $ .3. c~ ‘
I —-— — ~- — —— —-~. —— — — -— —— -— — -—I - I
I . | 3
I 1 1 I
I
l ‘ '
. l -
'9‘, 3‘ I
l Iw ”J .
*Iv I: l
I if; 0 r
f“ I.) Q ; “" i
:1 ll] 3‘ 3 3' L ‘f‘
I I: {A A ‘ ‘
. 3 D V \
.2, m m
I it: h 9 I
t “I? 3‘ I” I
n ’l ‘
I“..- I.-- \,__________,_.
_ ‘ w . >‘
I L J a ’ ‘5 26 r l
,- A ‘ 4) .
ﬁr r" I“ \L ” " ”'"*x I
I ~' "— ‘x 3 1 ; ..'_
('~~.-- . x <—--
I cubic loot -7.48 gallons 27 § 27 ‘6

Tank Size: 27' X 136'

Capacity: 136' X 27' X 10': 274.000 gal.
11'" 9"- 247.000 gallon»
1’9 8'- 2 19.000 gallon»
.91" 7‘=- 192.000 gallon»

 

 

 

 

New Dai|_'y_

238' Long. 136' Tanks
126' East 1/2 of Building
1 12' West “2 of Building
86' Width

 

Figure 11. The Dairy North and South pits are each 136’ long X 27’ wide and 10’ deep
with a volume of 274,000 gallons each.

115

FIGURE 12. DAIRY HEIFER PIT, DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I 1 12 ‘
(F . .1- ..-........ .. "““”II“' .._-- .._I.-...--~-._-_.
r . I I“
____ 7, . _.____.- u. ‘
-. o
x \l I J m
I ,___ _.._...
‘ 30' x 112'): 10' deep
Total: 250.000 gallon
l .q- 9'== 226.000 gall.
; l 'a' 8': 200.000 gal.
l
I I
I
I 1
I I
I i
I I
i I
f I
I
l
i I
I
I I
. l
I
I ;
I I
‘ i
I
E
c I
i, i
‘ "I
i i
I--- l

 

 

Figure 12. Dairy Heifer pit is 112’ long, 30’ wide, and 10’ deep, resulting in a total
volume of 250,000 gallons.

116

FIGURE 13. DAIRY PARLOR AND MILKHOUSE PITS, DIMENSTIONS AND
CAPACITY

Dairy Parlor & Milkhouse

“‘ .—~-....._.. .

Parlor Pit = 40' x3 1’s? X3383" __

"iTuBi'c ran: ! ' '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7'435’91‘1'11I Total: 43,000 gallons
mamas. = 2'03 X 13' x" éi
T Total: 21,000 gallons
‘ I
g I”) ,1 .
k-H * ”4’2
\ﬁ 3 3
a,
I at
w '
2.0 '

 

20'

Figure 13. The dairy milk house has dimensions of 40’ long, 18’ wide and 8’ deep,
resulting in a volume of 43,000. The Dairy Parlor has dimensions of 20’ long X 18’ wide
and 8’ deep with a total volume of approximately 21,000 gallons.

117

FIGURE 14. BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH CENTER PIT, DIMENSIONS AND
CAPACITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

$ f" 1-}
l I
0‘ I .
l \\ ~ l i
. I ~
i i
. P - i —- —- - J l
l
l
I - I ~ ~ a '1' r—
- It :1
ix ‘ - I -—-——-~ ——-~1K, ~
E 0 ~99 ) r. a
r f' E:
! a _—
‘y a .1”- - “*1“: . - _-
. ., - ‘
. I I ..,
I ’ C:
11
: I ‘ l c.
' gr.
? --. .. I" ,. i ._ q '6
I u
. I
Y I >
t _. 7 '2)
i tr h I -1 -— —--—~—— l-é ' ‘
4 1 l
. .. . . \ --- ~
. l I M — I 4 (1
I
I I E i
I I * " 'I * r“— ~ 3. l \x.
:1 i L I or, i
": I, -»---4 — ---_.....‘_________ j —’ i
‘3 I u .
c. .
l: l .‘ ~ - -' ' r*- + — -— —---— ---~-— “ﬂu--ﬂlr l
, , i g, I l ,‘
§ :- ~= 1: f‘ ' ' I -~—‘ ~-~--~----— ~— wall,» E
=. ==. :5 >3 I ‘ i
.1“ '3" -‘ i' l .
_-‘ -9 :1' -' . “ -v-~ ~ I
E 5i :1: 3+ 1 I i
, v. -. » o I
:: .;_. 4.. 2; J’ I I
= 3 :r. w 3‘ t
= M. -t u’. 'r i L I
5"""c_'3~'i :1 " 1.-.. i"! 9:- c.
c 1‘ . -- - -_" = -< ' “V
Z; 4: -v .~ ‘3 j " , 3'4 I 31:“ 5": S" 33
| .2, _.__ __: ...,. + ._ '. _ a - a '3
.- //_.»gf= ' _ ~ 5 : gens-5-
u ;._. :: u. y 7 i. . I u. g, " .‘,, "" .7, :1
'=.' -? '2 N ~ - I ‘ w -.....- u 1; ' 3' '=
2 ,.,.-~.- 3 l I -'::,_"='._=‘=
\- y l I l -, Z; : E a c
.3 ‘2 ) .-._.- _M .. _.‘ E ::.~ 3 c. a o
{-2 ,_ 5 = z' 7 :7‘ E’ :-
... E’ \\ 3i,,__§.7,.¢
"“ .32; ‘ nnunn u
I -- ud-o \ I '0‘, r-l .d
W” w ___.- ._-.. ._\ “ n It u~_

Figure 14. Beef Cattle Research pit has dimensions of 200’ long, 40’ wide, and 10’
deep. Total volume of BCRC pit, 598,400 gallons.

118

FIGURE 15. OLD SWINE FARM PITS, DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITY

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ 1 PW
l noxmvms DNILSHJ. i ' raj
“If C) k\. (g i @ 7'7 E
‘1 g I w 4' a}
, M " 9‘ 57 "i a is 2 8
I ~ u a - — A A a- t: z :3
5 ‘ 0...“: »@—-~+ ' x; a
I l 1 noxmvxsas 3 92410233: I W
' § 1 .1-
S I--(—-«-.-:-—-
G I
{5"
n‘
l h ‘< “ a t“ “ '1 ‘ .v\ ‘3 -
. I DNXHSINxd-DNIMOHD I; . g
F / I -
é , r"_ § 3.5 s;
It; ' E'- _: g< 3
2;; 2 E e" E- is:
, _ I *—
~ .5 - '(m) g: .2
l r i - g
\ ' - , .‘5 . ,w.
E I ,3,“ g a K (fr)
: ______IT—/ \x sum .
:5 3.14:0 Etc .2: o
A :5 I ____..
’E B s: [:l
. E} a 3 _.
a |_. :7} , ‘ ___‘ 1 g“
a“ a a“:: 3%
g3 u -- : §§M§EI§°§
—7 ‘Q E g. N' E g ' g O6 5 3
W173- ’“”""“ I ,-=E%“."?*oav'-§,
33:: ijllg'é‘v'g‘gjl
a '23 ‘, ‘ '5 ’ .
.35“ .sgeﬁi‘i’u—é
(I: — ir— = i=5. :3: .5 _3
E E r“ ' ° 2 . e
a E ,5 3 a:
II- ‘I- ”I. Z. a (—
.—'. (4 N5 ‘17 at; \c' [‘3 06

Figure 15. Pit 1, small farrowing pit, capacity of 2,000 gallons; pit 2 large farrowing,
dimensions, 12’ long, 12’ wide, 10’ deep, capacity of 10,000 gallons. Pit 3, new
farrowing, capacity of 2,000 gallons; new ﬁnishing pit dimensions of 54’ long, 10’ wide
and 8’ deep, total volume of 30,000 gallons. Lane Septic, dimensions, 12’long X 12’
wide X12’ deep, 13,000 gallons, pit 6, breeding septic, total capacity of 8,000 gallons.
Test station lagoons, 4,000-gallon capacity for each, and total of 8,000 gallons.

119

FIGURE 16. NEW SWINE FARM, SLURRY TANK, DIMENSIONS, CAPACITY
AND FACILITY LAYOUT

wes'r SHORT
TERM MANUAE
8T0 no.5

COMPOSTING: sHED. 5451' most

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TERM MANURE
m met-m ND SIORPL'mE
FEW C8413
A WellHouae
m -#29
.————-D LIQUID MANURE
STORHCﬂE
MPINCn
IiE'ON l!
I
564 WELL H0035
#30
x
I
800

 

2

Figure 16. The new or south swine farm has one large slurry storage tank with the
capacity to hold up to a half a million gallons of slurry manure.

120

 

FIGURE 17: EMERGENCY PHONE LIST
IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Complete this page, make copies and post next to each telephone on the farm.

 

Local Emergency Assistance Telephone Numbers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fire Department: 911

Local Police: 911

County Sheriff: 664-1654

State Police: 332-3521

Ambulance: 911

Emergency Management

Coordinator: 719-2153

Farmstead Information:

IName of Farm: MSU Farms-Sheep, Swine, Dairy, Beef Cattle
Research Center, Purebred Farm, Horse, Poultry

Address of Farm: South of MSU Campus, Between Hagadom and Collins
(East and West borders) and Jolly and Forest Road
(North and South borders), Dependant on which farm.

County: lngham

 

Directions to Farmsite. Help can come from any direction. Be sure to write
down exact, simple and accurate directions to the farmstead:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State and Federal Agency Telephone Numbers:
MDA Agricultural Pollution Emergency Hotline: 1-800—405-0101

EPA National Response Center: 1-800—424-8802
MDEQ Pollution Emergency Alerting System (PEAS): 1-800-292-4706

Michigan Poison Control System: 1-800-464-7661 (1-800-POISON-1)
Figure 17: Emergency contact phone numbers in case of a spill or breach of storage
facilities.

121

 

FIGURE 18. BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH CENTER FACILITY LAYOUT AND
FLOW DIRECTION

 

N
ﬁr—

FILTEE 5m? AREA
ROAD

 

{

BEEFCATILE
RESEARCH
CENTER
4714
L
M
US?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 LL !

‘3 I '§
§_ ,. . E

1' ﬂ

3;: l l

(255'? gsé‘

:55 5

EH“

 

Figure 18. In the event of a spill at the BCRC, manure waste would ﬂow to the south and
east.

122

FIGURE 19: DAIRY FARM FACILITY LAYOUT AND FLOW DIRECTION

\ " moi

     

M “ITS.
as.

k
u
u __ - _ --— -. _ — .— -- _. —— —— o— I
”III “II ‘I
. k
h
I-
5
L1

 

 

 

1T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I . h—
‘T. : MANURE . :3: ~-
' lsmoe '

 

 

 

conic: no»

Z———>
l9
4

 

 

,‘ ' .
‘
Ml
,. .
. .
‘ ‘- - - ->
be l
‘ I
.__--~I.‘._. ' ’ l

Figure 19. In the event of a spill at the Dairy farm, manure would ﬂow to the east and
north.

123

 

FIGURE 20: HORSE RESEARCH FACILITY LAYOUT

_S-nllary Sawcr llolcllng
"l‘nnk

{ '1 i..
l _ HORSE RESEARCH
I g l / CENTER
8 L m/ ":w 456
“”‘e ~ - M
- L BENNETT

. .. .. .—___......_—._.. . f.'_...

 

 

 

Figure 20. Horse facility layout, all manure is handled as a solid.

124

FIGURE 21: PAVILION FOR AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK EDUCATION

LANE

- 570

uous. -l‘. r

PAVILION FOR AGRICULTURE
AND LIVESTOCK EDUCATION

212

 

 

 

 

 

FARM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jr.

 

 

 

Figure 21. Pavilion facility layout, all manure is handled as a solid.

125

FIGURE 22: POULTRY RESEARCH CENTER

FIGURE 22: POULTRY RESEARCH CENTER

--
-----——u——-
-_--—----—-—-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 22. Poultry manure is primarily handled as a solid; if the one turkey collection
tank were to breech it would ﬂow to the south. Total capacity of Turkey pit is 3,000

gallons.

126

 

FIGURE 23: SHEEP RESEARCH CENTER

5
/‘ Aug): [I m u

 

 

(3'... Shell

 

 

 

2—9

 

\SELLJER SYSTEMS — TUNE- 1999

Figure 23. Sheep facility layout, all manure is handled as a solid.

127

 

FIGURE 24: OLD SWINE RESEARCH CENTER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'__]| I I“ , .————w¢u. Ho‘ﬁi
\ F ‘
. .......
SWINE ‘
RESEARCH a...“
CENTER
( .
A B
ENDOCRINE
1"? C RESEARCH N .
I CENTER -

 

Figure 24. In the case of a breech at the old or north swine facility manure would ﬂow to
the east and north. The Endocrine Research Center, manure would ﬂow to the west and
north.

128

 

FIGURE 25: PUREBRED BEEF FACILITY OR COW -CALF FACILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOLDING #3331"
mm

Purebred Beef Cattle

Teaching Center

 

 

Figure 25. Purebred beef facility, all manure is handled as a solid.

129

 

   

l(liliﬂlln))l)i)|(flit