field scale monitoring in real world conditions...qaqc and site maintenance includes: equipment...
TRANSCRIPT
Minnesota Water Resources Conference
October 17, 2012
Field Scale Monitoring in
Real World Conditions
What Is A Discovery Farm?
Operating, privately owned farm where water quality information is gathered under real-world conditions,
providing practical, credible, site-specific information to enable better farm management and improve water quality
Discovery Farms Minnesota Partners
Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Center Organizing and leading the Discovery Farms Minnesota program
Collection of farm management data
Local Partners: SWCDs, Watershed Districts, Local Organizations Collection of water samples
Minnesota Department of Agriculture -- next
MN Department of Agriculture’s Role
Technical Assistance and expertise in water monitoring
Selection of monitoring location
Equipment selection and programming
Installation/maintenance
Development of standard operating procedures
Training of local partners
Data management - calculation of loads, yields, flow-weighted mean concentrations, runoff and precipitation totals
Finalization of data and annual reporting
Locations
Core Farms Blue Earth County (2)
Chisago County
Dodge County
Goodhue County
Norman County
Renville County
Stearns County
Wilkin County
Wright County
Special Projects* Kandiyohi County
* Special projects are not managed by MDA
Edge-of-Field Monitoring… from the beginning
1. Application Process
2. Field Visits Site selection criteria
3. Delineation of Watershed
4. Steering Committee Meeting New farms are voted into program
5. Equipment purchased
6. Equipment installed
7. Monitoring commences 5-7 year duration per farm
Site Selection Criteria
Site Access
365 days a year!
Geomorphology of the landscape
Natural low spot or outlet
Slope, Soils type
Avoid backwater areas
Surface or tile, or both
Ideally, one field
One landowner, crop type, management plan
Surface watershed acreage typically 5-30 acres
Larger watersheds monitored with subsurface drainage
Defining the Watershed
Delineate watersheds based on available data
Tile maps, LiDAR or Digital Elevation Models using GIS
Install Example
Identify location for wingwall
Excavate trench (3) 4’x8’ sheets treated plywood
Install Example
Install plywood wingwall
Pack soil against
wingwall
Build berm
Lay fabric with grass seed
Install Example
Cut opening for flume
Install flume
Install shelters and instruments
Completed install
Capturing Surface Flow
Standard H Flume 1.5 – 3.0 feet, dependent
on size of watershed
Developed 1930’s by USDA for the purpose of agricultural runoff
Self cleaning, ideal for sites with potential for debris obstruction
Flow is calculated from height of water and flume equation
Measuring Surface Flow
Stage measurement
Dual sensors
Flow is based off flume equation and water level
OTT cbs bubbler
Relationship between level of water and pressure required to push bubble out
APG Ultrasonic
Emits ultrasonic wave
Level is derived based on amount of time to emit the wave and have it returned
Capturing Subsurface Flow
Agri Drain structure
Access to subsurface drainage
Typically used for conservation drainage
4-8 foot height
Tile contractor installs
20 feet of non-perforated tile upstream and downstream
Measuring Subsurface Flow
Weir Equation
Rating curve over stop log boards
- OR -
Area-Velocity Flow Meter
Submersible pressure transducer (area)
Ultrasonic doppler (velocity)
Area x Velocity = Flow
Measuring Subsurface Flow
Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory study (SAFL) Beginning November 2012
Objectives Evaluate accuracy of area
velocity probes (Greyline, ISCO, Starflow)
Determine minimum flow rates
Corrugated or smooth walled tile
Turbidity influences on meter performance
Rating equations over Agri Drain stop log boards
Measuring Subsurface Flow
Lift pumps
Flow is based on pump size and amount of lift
Lift derived from submersible pressure transducer
Pumps are variable rate
As the culvert fills faster, the pump runs faster
Water Collection
ISCO automated samplers
Flow incremented sampling
Composite samples
More flow equals faster sample collection
4 bottle configuration
One gallon bottles
24 pulses/bottle of 125 mL
Subsurface baseflow samples are collected every 10-14 days
Sample Distribution
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
3:15 PM 8:15 PM 1:15 AM 6:15 AM 11:15 AM 4:15 PM 9:15 PM 2:15 AM 7:15 AM
Flo
w (
cfs)
Storm HydrographBottle #1
Bottle #2
Bottle #3
Bottle #4
(Example)
Why is automated equipment needed?
Small watersheds are flashy. Runoff duration is usually short.
Runoff = 40 minutes
AC/DC Power w/two marine batteries in
series
Solar Panels 30-80 watt panels
2 marine batteries in series
Cellular Modems Airlink Raven XT for
Verizon Wireless
Automated hourly download
Power and Communication
Weather and Soil Conditions
Rain Gauge
Electronic Tipping Bucket
1 tip = 0.01” of rainfall
Plastic manual rain gauge for backup
Air temperature
Humidity
Soil Temperature
5, 10, 30 and 60cm depths
Soil Moisture
Capturing Field Conditions
Time Lapse Cameras
Runoff events
Day to day activities
Progression of crop throughout the season
3-5 photos per day, during daylight hours
Logging Configuration
Data logging
15 minutes during no flow periods
1 minute during runoff events
Laboratory Analysis
Samples collected by local partners or MDA
MN Valley Testing Laboratory (MVTL) in New Ulm
Analysis includes: Total Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Ortho Phosphorus
Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Chloride
QAQC and Site Maintenance
Includes:
Equipment Blanks
Field Duplicates – 10%
Equipment calibration
Grass/weed management
Level and clean flumes
Download pictures from field cameras
Equipment troubleshooting
Monitoring = days a year! 365
Equipment Costs
Overland and subsurface* - $32,000
Overland or subsurface only* - $22,000
Cost Breakdown (per item):
o Flume: $1,000 - 1,600 o Agri Drain: $500 - 1,000 o Datalogger: $3,000 o Autosampler: $3,200 - 5,000 o Stage/Level Sensors: $500 - 2,600 o Shelters: $1,200 o Weather instruments: ~$3,000 o Power (solar/battery): $200-400
* Equipment only, does not include labor
Issues and Lessons Learned
Watershed Delineation Subsurface tile watershed is
difficult to calculate
Natural “catastrophes” Lightning strikes to
equipment shelters
Flooding
Measuring flow through subsurface tile Surcharged flow through
Agri Drain structures – water cannot escape fast enough
Clear or slow moving water is difficult to measure with area velocity sensors
Issues and Lessons Learned
Variability in magnitude and duration of events Very small events can be
missed
Large events – autosamplers filling too fast
Freeze-thaw cycle Frozen autosampler lines
Ice build-up in flumes or channels
Site access Drifting snow in winter
Muddy field conditions in spring or after rain events
Issues and Lessons Learned
Sites flow infrequently 2011: 11-14 days
Surface runoff duration short: 15 minutes – 15 hours
Subsurface runoff lasts longer, weeks
Concentrations vary Surface runoff: higher concentrations of sediment and phosphorus
Subsurface runoff: higher concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen
Time and intensity of rainfall plays a huge role In 2011, snowmelt accounted for a majority of the runoff for the year
while in 2012, most sites had no snowmelt runoff
Early season storms before crop canopy development can be significant drivers of sediment and phosphorus loads A single July storm (5+”) = 75% of the sediment load
2012 had ¼ of the runoff from 2011 but the sediment load was two times higher due to timing of early season (May and June) convective storms
Scott Matteson MDA Mankato Phone: 507-344-5261 Email: [email protected]
Questions?
Katie Rassmussen MDA St. Paul Phone: 651-201-6331 Email: [email protected]
www.discoveryfarmsmn.org
Program Overview and 2011 Data Review
M i n n e s o t a W a t e r R e s o u r c e s C o n f e r e n c e
O c t o b e r 1 7 t h, 2 0 1 2
Outline
Program Overview
What/Who/Where
Producer led research and outreach
2011 Data Review
Surface Runoff – GO1/ST1/CH1
Tile Runoff – BE1-T
2012 Data Preview
A producer led effort to gather field-scale information on water quality moving over and through the landscape in the
diversity of farm enterprises in Minnesota
Modeled after Wisconsin Discovery Farms Program
Producer led research
Identifying issues
Designing solutions
Developing implementation plans
Testing solutions
On-farm systems research/evaluation/ demonstration program
Information collected from operating, commercial Minnesota farms
Partnership between agricultural organizations, individual growers, and state government
Discovery Farms Minnesota Partners
Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Center
Organizing and leading the Discovery Farms Minnesota program
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Technical assistance and expertise in water monitoring
Assistance with outreach activities
Discovery Farms Minnesota Partners
Local Partners: SWCDs, Watershed Districts, Local Organizations
Operation and maintenance of monitoring stations
University of Minnesota-Extension
Special project
Producer Led Approach
Producers as active participants and partners
Steering Committee
Provide input on research needs
Identify project possibilities
Select projects and cooperators
Farm Cooperators
Provide critical link between the research and outreach program
Knowledge of farming system and local landscape
Steering Committee Members
Farm organizations Broiler and Egg Association of Minnesota
Irrigators Association of Minnesota
Minnesota Corn Growers Association
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
Minnesota Farmers Union
Minnesota Milk Producers Association
Minnesota Pork Producers
Minnesota Soybean Growers Association
Minnesota State Cattleman’s Association
Minnesota Turkey Growers Association
Conservation groups and agency Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Stearns County SWCD
The Nature Conservancy
NRCS
University of Minnesota
DFM Sub-Committees Multi-State
Research and Data Advisory
Communications
Locations
Core Farms Blue Earth County (2)
Chisago County
Dodge County
Goodhue County
Norman County
Renville County
Stearns County
Wilkin County
Wright County
Special Projects Kandiyohi County
Funding for Discovery Farms Minnesota
Primary Support From: MAWRC
MN Corn Research and Promotion Council
MN Soybean Research and Promotion Council
MN Turkey Research and Promotion Council
MDA
Clean Water Fund
NRCS
MRBI program for Stearns County
Contribution agreement for additional Discovery Farm in Red River Valley
What value does Discovery Farms provide?
Producer leadership and engagement in water quality issues
Real world, field-scale water quality data, collected from working Minnesota farms
Information on farm management practices and sediment and nutrient losses
Educational forum for farmers, researchers, agency, policy makers, and the general public
2011 Monitoring Season Data Review
Only partial year data for most sites Loads and yields can be highly variable across years Not a direct measurement for what is delivered to the
stream
Goodhue County (GO1)
Farming Operation
Swine and cow-calf operation
Corn-silage/alfalfa rotation (alfalfa in 2011)
Injected manure application
Well drained silt loam soils
Monitoring Setup
Surface water runoff
6.3 acre watershed
GO1 – Surface Runoff Data WY2011 (Oct 2010 through Sept 2011)
0
3
6
9
PR
EC
IPIT
AT
ION
(in
ch
es
)
0
1
2
3
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
RU
NO
FF
(in
ch
es
)
Monthly
4.3 inches of runoff 92% Frozen 8% Non-Frozen
Runoff was observed on only 6% of the monitored days
86% of runoff in February and March
16% of precipitation lost to runoff
WI DF long term averages
2.6 inches (8% of precipitation)
54% Frozen 46% Non-Frozen
Annual
GO1 – Sediment and Nutrient Data WY2011 (Oct 2010 through Sept 2011)
0
250
500
750
TSS
YIE
LD
(lb
s/a
cr
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Phosphorus0
3
6
9
12
Nitrogen
Yield: 0.6 lb/acre
FWMC: 0.65 mg/l
89% Frozen 11% Non-Frozen
69% Particulate 31% Dissolved
Yield: 47 lb/acre
FWMC: 48 mg/l
83% Frozen 17% Non-Frozen
Yield: 8.7 lb/acre
FWMC: 8.88 mg/l
95% Frozen 5% Non-Frozen
52% OrgN 6% Nitrate 43% Ammonia
Chisago County (CH1)
Farming Operation
Corn/soybean rotation (corn in 2011)
Modified No-till
Commercial fertilizer application
Well drained loam soils
Monitoring Setup
Surface water runoff
6.1 acre watershed
CH1 – Surface Runoff Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)
Monthly
0
3
6
9
PR
EC
IPIT
AT
ION
(in
ch
es
)
0
1
2
3
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
RU
NO
FF
(in
ch
es
)
Annual
4.2 inches of runoff 88% Frozen 12% Non-Frozen
Runoff was observed on only 10% of the monitored days
64% of runoff in March
22% of precipitation lost to runoff
WI DF long term averages
2.6 inches (8% of precipitation)
54% Frozen 46% Non-Frozen
CH1 – Sediment and Nutrient Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)
Yield: 1.3 lb/acre
FWMC: 1.31 mg/l
73% Frozen 27% Non-Frozen
48% Particulate 52% Dissolved
Yield: 82 lb/acre
FWMC: 86 mg/l
24% Frozen 76% Non-Frozen
Yield: 3.9 lb/acre
FWMC: 4.12 mg/l
77% Frozen 23% Non-Frozen
74% OrgN 14% Nitrate 12% Ammonia
0
250
500
750
TSS
YIE
LD
(lb
s/a
cr
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Phosphorus0
3
6
9
12
Nitrogen
Stearns County (ST1)
Farming Operation Small/midsize dairy
Corn-silage/alfalfa rotation (corn in 2011)
Manure application
Poorly drained loam soils
Monitoring Setup Surface water runoff and
subsurface drainage
28.2 acre surface watershed
24.2 acre sub-surface watershed
ST1 – Surface Runoff Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)
Monthly
0
3
6
9
PR
EC
IPIT
AT
ION
(in
ch
es
)
0
1
2
3
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
RU
NO
FF
(in
ch
es
)
Annual
4.1 inches of runoff 34% Frozen 66% Non-Frozen
Runoff was observed on only 10% of the monitored days
50% of runoff from a single storm event in July
17% of precipitation lost to runoff
WI DF long term averages
2.6 inches (8% of precipitation)
54% Frozen 46% Non-Frozen
ST1 – Sediment and Nutrient Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)
Yield: 0.9 lb/acre
FWMC: 0.93 mg/l
38% Frozen 62% Non-Frozen
52% Particulate 48% Dissolved
Yield: 396 lb/acre
FWMC: 427 mg/l
12% Frozen 88% Non-Frozen
Yield: 5.9 lb/acre
FWMC: 6.36 mg/l
41% Frozen 59% Non-Frozen
53% OrgN 45% Nitrate 2% Ammonia
0
250
500
750
TSS
YIE
LD
(lb
s/a
cr
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Phosphorus
0
3
6
9
12
Nitrogen
75% of sediment, 50% of phosphorus, 30% of nitrogen from single storm event in July
Blue Earth County (BE1)
Farming Operation Corn/soybean rotation
(corn in 2011)
Swine manure
Poorly drained silty clay loam
Monitoring Setup Surface water runoff
and subsurface drainage
14.3 acre overland watershed
26.2 acre tile-shed
BE1-T – Tile Runoff Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)
Monthly
0
3
6
9
PR
EC
IPIT
AT
ION
(in
ch
es
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
RU
NO
FF
(in
ch
es
)
Annual
11.1 inches of runoff 33% Frozen 67% Non-Frozen
52% of precipitation lost to tile runoff
BE1-T – Sediment and Nutrient Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)
Yield: 0.1 lb/acre
FWMC: 0.06 mg/l
36% Particulate 64% Dissolved
Yield: 5 lb/acre
FWMC: 2 mg/l
Yield: 43 lb/acre
FWMC: 17.1 mg/l
5% OrgN 95% Nitrate 0% Ammonia
0
250
500
750
TSS
YIE
LD
(lb
s/a
cr
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Phosphorus0
10
20
30
40
50
Nitrogen
Data Summary
WY2011
Importance of snowmelt/frozen ground periods
Importance of large storm events
More years of data needed to assess
Notes on WY2012
Much different than WY2011 - little snowmelt, very active May/June, dry after that
Lower runoff depths but higher sediment/nutrient concentrations
Questions?
Tim Radatz Phone: 608-443-6587
Email: [email protected]
George Rehm Phone: 507-263-9127
Email: [email protected]
www.discoveryfarmsmn.org
Information Collected
Farm Management Data
Crop – type, variety, planting and harvest date, and yield
Fertilization – type, application rate, and date
Tillage – type, residue remaining, and date
Pest management – methods and date
Soil and manure testing – value and date
Information Collected
Environmental Data
Weather Data – precipitation, temperature, and moisture
Water Quantity – runoff volume
Water Quality – nutrients and sediment
Education and Outreach
Presentations 20 events reaching over 1,000 people
Publications Water quality topics specifically for producers Fact Sheets and Brochures 20 articles in newsletters, farm publications and the popular press
Field days 6 field days, a total of 150 people in attendance
Website
Producer to producer and one-on-one meetings Proven effectiveness of peer to peer communication Better transfer of information
Farm ID
Farm Enterprise Start of Project
Monitoring Monitored
Area
KA1* Turkey, Grain (corn-soybean) August 2007 Surface and Subsurface
3 fields
GO1 Swine farrow to wean, Beef cow-calf September 2010 Surface runoff 6.3 acres
ST1 Dairy – conventional March 2011 Surface and Subsurface
28.2 acres 24.2 acres
CH1 Grain (corn-soybean; modified no-till) March 2011 Surface runoff 6.1 acres
BE1 Swine finishing, Grain (corn-soybean) June 2011 Surface and Subsurface
14.3 acres 26.2 acres
BE2 Grain (corn-soybean) July 2011 Surface and Subsurface
14.2 acres
WR1 Dairy - conventional December 2011 Surface and Subsurface
23.9 acres
RE1 Grain (corn-soybean/sweet corn-peas) December 2011 Combined Surface
and Subsurface 81 acres
DO1 Swine finishing, Grain (corn-soybean) Fall 2012 Surface and Subsurface
14 acres
WI1 Grain (corn-soybean) Fall 2012 Subsurface only 160 acres
NO1 Grain (sugarbeet-corn-dry bean-
soybean-wheat) Fall 2012
Surface and Subsurface
2 fields - 570 and 85 acres
*Special Project
Whole-Watershed Phosphorus Balance as Practical Tool to Achieve TMDL Goals
Heidi Peterson, Larry Baker, Jason Ulrich, John Nieber, Bruce Wilson and Nick Moore Bioproducts & Biosystems Engineering
Special thanks to: Shell Rock River Watershed District- Jerod Stricker, Andy Henschel MPCA- Greg Johnson MDA-Denton Bruening Freeborn County – Colin Wittmer City of Albert Lea – Steven Jahnke Local Industry and Farmers University of Minnesota Dept. of Animal Science Sally Noll, Jerry Shurson, Alfredo DiConstanzo, Bruce Behrends, Ryan Cox, Noah Litherland
Phosphorus Overview
• Agricultural productivity depends on P
• Minnesota distributes/sells ~131,804 tons P annually (MDA, 2010)
• U.S. supply will last ~40 years
• ~442 of MN impaired waters due to excess nutrients (specifically, P) (MPCA 2012)
http://www.thephosphaterisk.com
Phosphorus Balance
• Limited success at reducing P concentrations
• P retention capacity of soils is limited
• Focus BMPs on
1. reducing P inputs
2. increasing P exports
Soil P versus stream P in 5 agricultural watersheds Klatt et al., 2003. J. Env. Qual . 32:2140-2149
TP, u
g/L
Fertilizer
Human food
Sewage
Animal products
Crops
P Mass Balance Equation: Inputs – Deliberate Exports – Stream P = Retention
Lake
Atmospheric deposition
Deliberate Exports
Inputs
Retention Stream P
Animal feed
Case Study: Albert Lea Lake
• Used a “bottom-up” approach to identify system “leaks”
• Headwaters of the Shell Rock River Watershed
• Nutrient impairment (excess P)
• ~111 mi2 drainage area
• >70% agricultural land use Soybeans
Corn
• Calculated stream phosphorus loads
• Estimated agricultural land use area
• Summarized livestock totals
• Industry and farm tours
Bottom-Up Approach: Steps in Calculation
• Obtained daily stream flow and sample concentration data from Shell Rock River Watershed District (spring-fall 2009-2011)
• Bancroft Creek
• Wedge Creek
• Peter Lund Creek
• Pickerel Lake
• Used USACE-MPCA FLUX to determine Total P loads into/out of Albert Lea Lake
Stream Load Calculation
Stream Load Calculation
5,763 kg/y
3,696 kg/y 2,417 kg/y
7,639 kg/y
Total Stream Load = 19,515 kg/y
• Estimated agricultural land use area
• USDA Cropland Data Layer (2010)
• 95 phone interviews and onsite visits conducted in 2010 by Denton Bruening (MDA)
• Crop areas
• Total crop area surveyed: 72% of corn, 4% of soybean
• Fertilizer & manure application rates
• Yields
Agricultural Land Cover
Concept of Partial P Use Efficiency Puse = crop P fertilizer P + manure P If Puse > 1: Soil P decreases If Puse < 1: Soil P increases
crop harvested, kg P
Fertilizer + manure, kg P added
Albert Lea Study: Corn = 1.13 Soybeans = 0.99
6 corn states (Dibb et al., 2003):
1.1 - 1.49
Livestock Systems
• Summarized livestock totals
• Feedlot permit data from Freeborn County (Colin Wittmer)
• Phone interviews and onsite visits (Denton Bruening, MDA)
• Total feedlots surveyed: 35% of permits
• Determined typical herd structure and management
• How often do they birth?
• When is their first birth; Conception rate ?
• AI or natural?
• Mortality rate?
• Culling rate; Replacement rate?
• Importing?
Livestock Systems: Feed Ration
• Estimated typical feed rations for each stage
• Interviews with livestock nutritionists and farmers
• USDA - Nutrient Content of Crops Database
• USDA - Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)
• National Research Council Nutrient Requirements
• Based diets on local watershed production
Livestock Systems: Manure
• Univ. of Nebraska - Manure Nutrient and Land Requirement Estimator (Updated 2010)
• Herd structure
• Animal wt.
• Feed composition
• Manure Characteristics
• Output provides
• Daily mass and volume of manure produced
per animal
• Daily mass of P excreted
Annual Swine P Balance
34.9 Mg/ yr
43.9 Mg/ yr
1.4 Mg/ yr
Input: 81.8 Mg/yr
4.7 Mg/yr
77.1 Mg/yr
Output: 80.2 Mg/ yr
Livestock Efficiencies
System Input (Mg/yr)
Output Efficiency % Error
Beef 16.4 4.5 28% -7.4%
Pork 81.8 80.2 55% 2.1%
Dairy 3.3 1.2 37% -3.7%
• Pork Processing
• Prepared Salads
• Hog farm
• Livestock starter formulas and seasonings
Industry Tours
Piglets 4.7
Fertilizer 218
Pork 45 Milk 1.0
Beef 4.8
Crops 197
Dairy & beef feed 19
Hog feed 75
Manure 35
Deliberate exports: 248
Manure 15
Inputs =223 Stream export 19.5 (8% of input)
Albert Lea watershed P use efficiency = 1.1
Units: Mg
P Mass Balance Equation: Inputs – Deliberate Exports – Stream P = Retention 223 - 248 - 19.5 = - 44.5 Mg
Watershed P Balance Summary
Mining P from soil?
Upcoming Products…..
• Finalize web based watershed assessment tool
• Spreadsheet tool for developing P balance
• User-friendly, Excel based, open-source
• Hydrologic tool for source identification
• Step-by-step guidance manual
• Conduct workshops for Minnesota watershed managers
Circular Phosphorus Economy
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1900 1950 2000 2050
Mill
ion
mT
pe
r ye
ar
Imports
Exports
USGS
Food consumed
Home preparation Restaurants Food waste
Food Waste
Retail food stores
Food waste
Wholesalers
Food processors Food
waste
Animal systems Dairy, hog, poultry, other?
Crop systems (corn, soybean, wheat, alfalfa, sugar beets
Fertilizers
Feed
Manure
Wastewater treatment biosolids
Soil
Recycled for irrigation
Recycled for animal feed or composted
Recycled for fertilizer & soil amendment
Recycled for animal feed or composted
Next Step
Thank you!
For additional information:
Heidi Peterson [email protected] Larry Baker [email protected]
http://www.tchep.umn.edu/
Project funded by NSF grant number BCS 090899, MPCA Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program