increased regulatory pressures on u.s. fertilizer use
TRANSCRIPT
Increased Regulatory Pressures on U.S. Fertilizer Use:
A Heightened Role for 4R Nutrient Stewardship
C.S. Snyder, PhD, CCA
Nitrogen Program Director, Conway, Arkansas, USA
ANZ Fertilizer Industry Conference Coolum Beach, Queensland, Australia October 15-16, 2013
U.S. Fertilizer N and P2O5 Consumption
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mill
ion
tons
of n
utrie
nt N P2O5
Fertilizer production and farmer use provide 40 to 60% of the global crop and food production necessary to sustain the human family
3.4% increase in N since 1980, or 0.11% per year
With Increased Use Comes Greater Agricultural Nutrient Loss Concerns
• Air quality (N) – Ammonia emissions (and NOx)
• PM2.5 – smog, human health impacts
• atmospheric deposition & acid rain – biodiversity loss of natural systems – eutrophication in sensitive aquatic systems
– Nitrous oxide (increased from 270 to 319 ppb)
• climate change/global warming • stratospheric ozone depletion (UV risks)
• Water quality (N and P) – groundwater nitrate-N contamination – surface water N and P contamination
• eutrophication: lakes, streams/rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters
A. Townsend
Yield Trends of Major U.S. Cereal Grains
0"
20"
40"
60"
80"
100"
120"
140"
160"
180"
1945" 1955" 1965" 1975" 1985" 1995" 2005" 2015"
Yield,'bu/A'
Year'
corn'rice'wheat'
0102030405060708090
100
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Partial factor p
rodu
ctivity
kg grain/kg N
Partial Factor Productivity, US Corn
0102030405060708090
100
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Partial factor p
rodu
ctivity
(kg grain/kg N)
Partial Factor Productivity, US Wheat
01020304050607080
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Partial factor p
rodu
ctivity
(kg grain/kg N)
Partial Factor Productivity, US Corn
Maize
Wheat
Partial factor productivity for fertilizer N on maize and wheat in the U.S.
Fixen et al. 2012 (in review)
Improvement 27% since 1990 53% since 1980 71% since 1970
Are Midwest Corn Farmers Over-Applying N?
Snyder. 2012. Better Crops 96(2): 3-4
% of corn acres not meeting N rate “criteria” 2001 2005 2010
Appalachia 52 66 56 Corn Belt 46 38 30 Lake States 46 34 29 Mountain 18 14 29 Northeast 42 32 53 Northeast Plains 27 28 29 Southeast 39 50 62 Southwest 31 32 28 TOTAL 41 35 31
“Despite improvements in N application rates, about 66 percent of corn acreage does not achieve the rate, timing, and method criteria that minimize environmental losses of N.”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eb-economic-brief/eb20.aspx#.UkXILrx4MlY
Gross N Balance, OECD Countries (2002-2004)
Cavigelli et al. 2012. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10(10): 537–546
Gross N balance: (Fertilizer + manure + legume fixation + deposition) – removal by crop harvest
N and P Plant Recovery Efficiency by Major Cereals
• Nitrogen use efficiency … “rarely exceeds 70% ……. often ranges from 30-60%”
• “conversion of N inputs to products for arable crops can be 60-70% or even more” (Kitchen and Goulding, 2001)
• Phosphorus use efficiency …… often below 20-25% in year of fertilizer application
• But “efficiency of fertilizer P use is often high (up to 90 percent) when evaluated over an adequate time scale using the balance method.” (Syers, Johnston, and Curtin, 2008)
Fertilizer N & P Use Efficiency - Affected by: • N & P supply from:
– Soil – Fertilizer – Other inputs
• Balanced supply of other essential nutrients
• Plant uptake • N losses
– volatilization, leaching, runoff, denitrification (and nitrification)
• P losses – runoff and some leaching
• All are affected by cropping system management and environmental conditions
USEPA Reports that Nutrients (N and/or P) • Are Causing Water Quality Impairments: • >100,000 miles (160,900 km) of rivers and streams, • Approx. 2.5 million acres (>1 million ha) of lakes,
reservoirs and ponds, • > 800 square miles (>2,000 km2) of bays and estuaries
in the U.S. • 166 coastal hypoxic areas or “dead zones” nationwide • “nutrient pollution is widespread”: 27% have high N,
40% of river and stream miles have high P • Stream biological condition:
– 55% poor, 23% fair; – 9% more “good” N condition, 19% fewer “good” P condition
Source: 2013 EPA website: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/index.cfm , http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-environment , http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/where-occurs-lakes-and-rivers
States with Numeric Nutrient Criteria - 2013
http://cfpub.epa.gov/wqsits/nnc-development/
6 states TN; 11 states TP
Several states have site-specific criteria for streams and rivers; only Wisconsin and Florida have statewide criteria supported by peer-reviewed and technical papers documenting the process of criteria development
Evans-White, Haggard and Scott. 2013. J. Environ. Qual. 42:1002-1014
Newly Proposed Changes to EPA Water Quality Standards Authority - Sept. 4, 2013
• Proposed rule issued in Federal Register to modify/clarify the Clean Water Act (90-days for comments)
– attempts to ensure that courts will not find EPA has made a determination that a federal water quality standard is necessary unless EPA actually intends to make such a determination
– defines highest attainable use – in situations where a CWA 101(a) designated use (e.g., fishable,
swimmable) is found to be unattainable, the State must specify the next highest attainable use that will apply instead
– to clarify that a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) is needed to remove a 101(a)(2) use or to designate a use for a water body for the first time that is not a 101(a)(2) use
– to clarify that no UAA is needed to modify non-101(a)(2) uses (such as an agricultural designated use)
• Concerns that this could open more citizen suits https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/04/2013-21140/water-quality-standards-regulatory-clarifications
Enhanced Modeling and Greater Access to Monitoring Data by the Public
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/nitrogen-and-phosphorus-pollution-data-access-tool http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/qw
Fertilizer Use Regulations - 2013 • No national use regulations, currently
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/crops/npm/
590 Nutrient Management Conservation Practice Standard
Local laws and regulations take precedence over NRCS policy when more restrictive.
“Commercial fertilizers and animal wastes are stored, applied, and disposed so groundwater standards are not violated” (Section III of Field Office Technical Guide, 2001 )
State Fertilizer Use Regulations - 2013
• Indiana state regulation – new in 2013 – any person that uses or distributes fertilizer material for the
purposes of producing an agricultural crop – (b) This article does not apply to any person who uses or
distributes less than ten (10) cubic yards or four thousand (4,000) gallons of fertilizer material in a calendar year
– (c) This article is in addition to rules passed by the water pollution control board regulating confined feeding operations
– Specific restrictions on application near water resources or drainage inlets
– Must keep detailed records for at least two (2) years
http://www.isco.purdue.edu/fertilizer/fert_pdf/fert_use_rules_and_faq.pdf
State Fertilizer Use Regulations - 2013 • Maryland (part of Chesapeake Bay watershed)
– limits on fall fertilizer applications for small grains; the creation of a no-fertilizer application zone next to streams
– consistent application method and timing restrictions for all organic nutrient sources, including animal manure, sludge, soil amendments, conditioners and food processing waste;
• Nebraska Platte River Valley – Regulations of source, time, and rate of N application to protect
groundwater (Exner, M.E., Perea-Estrada, H., and Spalding, R.F. (2010) Long-term response of groundwater nitrate concentrations to management regulations in Nebraska’s central Platte valley. The Scientific World JOURNAL: TSW Environment 10, 286–297. DOI 10.1100/tsw.2010.25)
• Many municipal/county fertilizer ordinances and regulations, primarily turf, and horticulture (e.g. Florida) (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0076.htm )
Maryland’s Lawn Fertilizer Law – Oct. 1, 2013 • Restricts water soluble N content; 20% must be slow
release; can apply no more than 0.7 lbs/1,000 sq. ft. • Prohibits P in lawn fertilizer except for specialty
starter fertilizers and organics • Prohibits lawn fertilizer labeling as “de-icer” • Label must state:
– Do not apply near water, storm drains or drainage ditches. Do not apply if heavy rain is expected. Apply this product only to your lawn and sweep any product that lands on the driveway, sidewalk, or street, back onto your lawn.
• Lawn care professionals must be certified
http://mda.maryland.gov/Pages/fertilizer.aspx http://news.maryland.gov/mda/tag/pmt-phosphorous-management-tool/
P management tool for farms, to be phased in through Oct. 2014: until then P Site Index and the new P Management Tool used
Examples: States or Large Watersheds with Nutrient- Related Water Quality Issues
Surface water N and/or P Groundwater nitrate Surface and groundwater N
Chesapeake Bay
Nitrogen Fertilizer Input vs. N Removal
Source: R. Ferguson, U. of Nebraska Other reference: Exner et al. 2010. The Scientific World JOURNAL 10: 286–297
y = 1.8242x - 3517.2R² = 0.4484
y = 0.3668x - 591.26R2 = 0.0464
y = -0.2369x + 495.89R² = 0.8657
20
25
30
35
40
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Groundw
ater Nitrate-N
(mg/L)
N (l
bs/a
cre)
Groundwater N
N Removed in Grain
N Fertilizer Applied
α = 0.01
NORTH
α = 0.001
N price doubles
North Platte River Valley
EPA & Expectations for Nutrient Load Reductions in Chesapeake Bay Watershed
• EPA expects states to have “enforceable and accountable” measures for all agriculture, including row crop farmers, implemented by 2025
• Chesapeake Bay Program model used to derive TMDLs, but industry fears model overestimates nutrients delivered from farms
http://www.tfi.org/voice/limnotech-report-revisions-continue-highlight-importance-model-accuracy http://www.nutrientpolicy.org/press_release_-_LTI_report_update_-_nov_8_2011_-_mk.pdf
States submit draft strategy Jan. 2012
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13131.html
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Historic, and Predicted vs. Measured in 2013
2013 measured
Data source: Rabalais & Turner, 6/18/2013
Are we comfortable with this and with our ability to respond? Can we connect in-‐field pracGces with downstream impacts?
USGS Estimates of N and P Loss and Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico
SPARROW - Modeled Estimate of N and P Discharge in Watersheds of the Mississippi R. Basin
kg/ha .01 .01- 0.1 0.1 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 >10
kg/ha .001 .001- 0.01 0.01 to 0.1 0.1 to 0.5 0.5-1.0 >1
Alexander et al. 2008. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42: 822–830 Robertson and Saad. 2013. J. Environ. Qual. 42:1422–1440
60% from agric.; 41% from farm fertilizer
49% from agric.; 27% from farm fertilizer
September 23, 2013
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP2487f967679546a68c80936888476f7b.html http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/upload/hypoxia_reassessment_2013_SEPT-UPDATE_508-Copy.pdf
“Environmental advocates in states along the Mississippi River have won a round toward a long-term goal of having federal standards created to regulate farmland runoff and other pollution blamed for the oxygen-depleted "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, & problems in other waterbodies
“In a ruling Friday (September 20, 2013) , U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey in New Orleans gave the EPA six months to decide whether to set Clean Water Act standards for nitrogen and phosphorous in all U.S. waterways or explain why they're not needed.”
2013 Task Force Reassessment: "Achieving significant water quality improvements in water bodies as large as the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico takes time, and the increasing impacts of climate change such as more frequent extreme weather events pose additional challenges. The progress we've made across the board during the past five years provides an excellent foundation and we will work to accelerate our progress over the next five years," said Nancy Stoner, acting Assistant Administrator for Water for the USEPA and co-chair of the Task Force.
Sep. 24, 2013 – Federal and State Agency Hypoxia Task Force Meeting The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s assistant commissioner, Rebecca Flood, presented the state’s proposed nutrient-reduction plan with a target 35 percent P reduction and 20 percent N reduction in getting into waterways by 2025.
• Louisiana’s draft nutrient management plan expected by December 2013
http://theadvocate.com/home/7155348-125/minn-taking-lead-to-reduce
Minnesota Revises Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan – Aug. 2013
Regionally Specialized BMPs: Different Soils, Crops, & Hydrology
Minnesota Nitrogen Management Plan – DRAFT August 2013 http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/fertilizers/nutrient-mgmt/nitrogenplan.aspx
• 8 to 62% of sampled wells: NO3-N above Health Risk Level • Most in shallow wells, sensitive areas • Reasons are varied and not known
MN Turf and Lawn P Law – Since 1999
• Use of P Fertilizer on Lawns and Turf is Restricted (Minnesota Statutes 18C.60)
• Fertilizers containing P cannot be used on lawns and turf in Minnesota unless one of the following situations exists:
– A soil test or plant tissue test shows a need for phosphorus. – A new lawn is being established by seeding or laying sod. – P fertilizer is being applied on a golf course by trained staff. – P fertilizer is being applied on farms growing sod for sale.
• When these situations do not exist, state law requires P-free lawn fertilizer is to be used.
• In 2006, 82% of lawn fertilizer was P free
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/phoslaw
Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) • 2002 FL submitted 1st draft NNC to EPA • 2002-2009: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) used Nutrient TAC: ~$20 million in research and monitoring to develop criteria
• 2010 (Jan): EPA proposes a NNC rule • 2011 (Jun): EPA’s initial response:
– If FDEP establishes protective nutrient criteria, then EPA will retract their rule: EPA not made up mind yet
• 2013 (June 27), EPA formally approved FDEP document – “Implementation of Florida’s Numeric Nutrient Standards,” (April, 2013)
• 2013 (June) Florida Environmental Regulation Commission: FDEP proposed estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria
Adapted from T. Obreza http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/
• Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program – will regulate farmer’s use of N fertilizers to protect surface and groundwater
• Several steps – Growers file farm evaluation with water quality
coalition – If runoff goes to surface waters, growers also
to provide erosion control plan – Nitrogen management plan MUST BE filed and
MUST BE approved by CCA if farm is in nitrate impacted groundwater area
• Participating CCAs must attend N management plan training by California Dept. of Food and Agriculture
U.S. West – CCAs Help California Farmers Address N Regulations & Groundwater NO3
Iowa-Government Asks Farmers to Control Nutrient Runoff (and Drainage) 4 Sep. 2013 “If farmers aren’t held accountable and regulated, the Des Moines Water Works could violate the Clean Water Act, said Bill Stowe, the utility’s general manager.” ““The idea that self-regulation and the system somehow will lead to optimal economic and environmental just is ludicrous, based on history and the real fact that our drinking water sources right now are being threatened,” Stowe said.”
http://kcur.org/post/iowa-government-asks-farmers-control-runoff
May 10, 2013 Record nitrate levels in Raccoon and Des Moines rivers threaten Des Moines-area tap water
OH State Ag Agencies Recommend P Regulations – Oct. 17, 2011
InsideEPA – Water Policy Report June 14, 2013 • Ohio officials are proposing a novel numeric water
quality index – will allow regulators to use weighted factors to determine
waterbody nutrient impairment; the first such index that state officials have proposed since EPA began pushing states to adopt numeric criteria to assess water quality harms from nutrients.
• Ohio officials want to quickly complete their plan and submit it to EPA for approval
– To avoid possibility that USEPA could impose less-flexible federal limits -- much as officials did in Florida.
– “These standards would almost certainly be less flexible and result in more extensive business impacts compared to the approaches under consideration by Ohio EPA," according to a recent fact sheet issued by the Ohio Division of Surface Water (DSW). Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 2437694)
Agriculture Emits ~14% of CO2-e GHGs: USA and Australia rank #1 in Emissions
Country Mt CO2e Rank Metric tons CO2e
Per Person Rank USA 6,016.40 1 19.8 5 EU 3,719.60 2 9.5 16 Russian FederaEon 1,691.00 3 11.9 12 Japan 1,203.00 4 9.4 17 Germany 988.2 5 12 11 Canada 721.6 6 21.7 4 United Kingdom 629.8 7 10.3 15 Australia 618.1 8 28.8 1 France 464.4 9 7.5 26 Italy 454.2 10 7.6 25 Ukraine 411.2 11 8.9 19 Poland 356.4 12 9.3 18 Spain 354 13 7.8 24 Turkey 285.9 14 3.9 38 Netherlands 209.4 15 12.7 8
Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT UNFCCC) Version 4.0. (Washington, DC: World Resources InsGtute, 2010)
Net GHG Emissions and N2O Associated with Agricultural Soil Management (USEPA, 2013)
4.2%
3.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.3% 4.1% 4.3%
Agricultural soil management N2O as portion of total net U.S. GHG emissions
Ag soil management includes fertilizer application and cropping practices; accounting for 69% of U.S. total N2O emissions in 2011
U.S. Inventory of GHG Emissions and Sinks, 2013 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
“This isn’t academic, folks,” says Reed Rubinstein, senior counsel for the Chamber of Commerce. “When the federal government exercises its authority, it can send you to jail. We are all one regulation away from being out of business.”
February 2012
4R Nutrient Stewardship – Endorsed by American Society of Agronomy 2009
Crops & Soils 42(2): Mar-Apr 2009
Crops & Soils 42(3): May-Jun 2009
Crops & Soils 42(4): Jul-Aug 2009
Crops & Soils 42(5): Sep-Oct 2009 Crops & Soils 42(6): Nov-Dec 2009
Know Your Fertilizer Rights: Right Place by T.S. Murrell (IPNI), G.P. Lafond (AAFC), and T.J. Vyn (Purdue U.)
http://www.ipni.net/4r
Cornell U. & U. of GA
USDA ARS -Oregon
U. of Florida
U. of CA Ext. & UC-Davis
IPNI
HortTechnology. 2011. 21(6)
New 4R Nutrient Stewardship Education • Intensified education:
– 6 IPNI regional directors in N. America, and other IPNI directors globally (e.g. Norton in Australia & New Zealand))
• CCA and ag professional training • Working with state/provincial fertilizer
associations in key watersheds • Science involvement:
– U.S. Research Coord. Network for Reactive N in Environ.;
– USDA, EPA mitigation science advisory committees; protocol groups
– Participants in USDA GHG CIG N2O mitigation project efforts in IA & IL
Potential for Further Reductions in Nutrient Loads to Rivers and Streams through Comprehensive Conservation Treatment - USDA CEAP Reports • Upper Mississippi River Basin: N 44%, P 27% • Ohio-Tennessee River Basin: N 41%, P 58% • Great Lakes Basin: N 37%, P 33% • Missouri River Basin: N 13%, P 12% • Lower Mississippi Basin: N 48%, P 62% • NIFA CEAP Watershed Assessment - Lessons Learned
– “Practices based on management changes, such as nutrient management, were less likely to be sustained by farmers than structural practices”
– “ … many conservation practices designed to control nutrients are disliked (nutrient management and buffers)”;
– “ farmers cannot readily observe nutrient losses whereas they can observe soil losses.” (Osmond et al. 2012)
Fertilizer N BMPs Help Minimize Potential for Residual NO3-N Accumulation & Losses • N source, rate, timing, and place of
application …. which may include – Urease inhibitors – Nitrification inhibitors – Slow-release materials – Controlled-release materials
• In combination with appropriate, site-specific cropping system and conservation practices
– (e.g. conservation tillage, cover crops, vegetative buffers, managed drainage, wetlands, bioreactors, etc.)
• What could we accomplish if in-field, edge of field, and above-stream BMPs are coupled?
N Management and Balanced Nutrition • P and K soil fertility levels
are below optimum and need improved (IPNI, 2010)
– 2010 median soil P=25 ppm: a 6 ppm decline since 2005; approximately 42% of samples <20 ppm agronomic optimum
– 2010 median soil K =150 ppm: a 4 ppm decline since 2005; approximately 34% of samples <120 ppm agronomic optimum
Snyder & Fixen. 2012. J. Soil Water Conserv.
Optimum P and K enhance crop N recovery
Grand Challenge: Increasing N Use Efficiency ….while Increasing Crop Yields NEED – more research to evaluate “4R” nutrient management
effects on reductions in N losses (regionally different?) – increased education and technology transfer to
• hone nutrient management skills of crop advisers and farmers, • provide sustained nutrient management implementation, • enable on-farm tracking of crop N use efficiency trends
– greater coupling of nutrient management and cropping system changes with:
• appropriate conservation tillage practices, • growing season-sensitive management technologies, • optimum irrigation and drainage management practices, • improved genetics and seed technologies AND • targeted land use and edge-of-field practices
Bottom Line Ø Use appropriate fertilizer N and P, and
balanced fertilization (K, Mg, S, Zn, etc.) to Ø enhance N and P use efficiency and effectiveness Ø increase crop biomass, help restore/maintain/increase
soil carbon (soil organic matter) Ø Remember, N and P losses can vary among 4R
factors …depending on site-specific conditions, weather, cropping and tillage systems
Ø Work more pro-actively with state and local partners to advance 4R Nutrient Stewardship
Ø Track and record performance indicators Ø for example: trends in harvested nutrients, yield per unit of
nutrient applied, soil organic matter increase, etc.
September 25, 2013
• Suppliers …… are putting fertilizer optimization plans in place with clear milestones for progress and performance measured by the Sustainability Index.
• “For areas where fertilizer use efficiency is below optimum, a goal of 30% increase in use efficiency relative to current levels is possible, resulting in reducing the loss of fertilizer nutrients to the environment and improved farmer profitability.”
• “This can be accomplished by implementing fertilizer BMPs related to right source, rate, time and placement. In addition to reducing nutrient transport to our water supply and improving soil health, we estimate this gain in efficiency could also reduce over 7 MMT of greenhouse gases.”
We Can Improve N & P Use Efficiency & Effectiveness
4R Nutrient Stewardship Right source @ Right rate, Right time & Right place
www.ipni.net
Better Crops, Better Environment … through Science
Thank You