Download all worksheets mentioned in this document - MS Word
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Illinois has developed revised Nutrient Management and Waste Utilization standards. These come as a result of recent State of Illinois laws regarding livestock and Federal cost-share programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) available through NRCS. These issues created more awareness and interest in planning nutrient management as it relates to livestock manure among Illinois farmers. NRCS has provided training on these standards to field staff and maintains specialists to assist them in writing manure management plans as needed. These plans are a part of a comprehensive planning method to identify and address all natural resource concerns on the farm.
The Nutrient Management standard (practice code 590) in Illinois identifies the minimum acceptable requirements for the inventory and management of plant nutrients from all sources, including animal manure. This standard applies to all NRCS planning related to nutrient application to agricultural lands.
Items to be considered in planning include:
The Illinois 590 standard indicates the specifications to be followed which include:
The Illinois Waste Utilization Standard (practice code 633) gets more specific on the use of waste, oriented towards animal manure, for crop nutrients. It covers many of the items included as a part of the current State of Illinois Livestock Facilities Act and the IEPA Title 35 Livestock Waste Regulations dealing with field application of manure. These include:
Both the 590 standard and the 633 standard allow rates of manure application to supply the nitrogen needs of the following crop until the Bray P1 test reaches 150 PPM (300 lb./ac). At this level, research suggests there can be a risk of phosphorus pollution to surface waters. If no recent soil tests are available or the soil test P1 level exceeds 150 PPM (300 lb./acre), wastes should be applied to fields with a lower P1 or shall be applied based on phosphorus removed by harvested crops, unless that rate would be greater than the nitrogen rate needed for the crop. In no case will waste be applied at rates that exceed the nitrogen needs of the next crop.
The philosophy behind the above planning requirements for NRCS nutrient management plans is simple. At the extremely high P1 test of 150 PPM, there is no agronomic reason to apply more phosphorus. However, a livestock producer still needs to utilize manure nutrients. The compromise is to allow manure to be applied at the rate of phosphorus use so the soil test P level does not get any worse than before planning a management system. In the meantime, the producer should be looking for other fields to apply the manure to or find another producer who would be willing to accept the manure as a fertilizer source.
This philosophy will apply to NRCS nutrient management planning in Illinois until a more defined and accepted method for evaluating the need for phosphorus management becomes available. Efforts are currently underway to identify such methods, but may take a few years to develop.
At the same time, we encourage planning with the producer to limit manure applications to a rate that will not increase the soil test P level above the agronomic rates, even if the P1 test is below 150 PPM. This can have definite economic as well as environmental advantages to the producer in cases where the use of manure over more acres supplies more of the fertility needed by the crops on the farm. In many cases, if manure is applied to supply the nitrogen needs of the crop, excess phosphorus is applied over crop removal rates. This results in ‘storage’ of the excess phosphorus and an increase in the soil test P level. The end result over time can be soils that have ‘stored’ large amounts of phosphorus that cannot be utilized by crops. A certain portion of soil bound phosphorus becomes available each year. The amount depends on the soil type and other environmental conditions. However, the rate of phosphorus availability is fairly constant. The higher the soil test P level the higher the total volume of phosphorus in soil water each year which can translate into a water pollution potential. So besides wasting the phosphorus available in the manure as fertilizer, it can become an environmental concern.
No such environmental concern exists for potassium at this time. However, proper application of manure with this nutrient can also result in economic and crop production advantages for producers.
In many cases, through proper planning and management, manure can be applied that supplies enough nutrients for N as well as P2O5. This can be accomplished because of the ability of phosphorus to be ‘stored’ for the next crop use. Although this may preclude the use of the same acres in future years for manure application, it allows the most efficient use of the nutrients in the manure without environmental concerns.
Illinois NRCS manure management planning begins with a detailed and thorough inventory of the current facilities and livestock numbers. This may include a review of the need for expanded or new storage facilities, or manure handling systems that will affect total manure volume. Another part of this inventory is the identification of cropping systems used by the producer along with realistic crop yields.
Once these items have been agreed to, the manure application plan can be developed. This begins with a review of the crops, land area, and soils potentially available for manure application. Areas with poor soils or other limiting features are identified. If manure cannot be applied to these areas, they are subtracted from the land area available. The nitrogen leaching potential for each application area must be reviewed to identify the need for leach management options (Table 1).
Next an estimate of the available nutrients and total annual volume of manure is developed (Worksheet 1). Estimates of the nutrients are provided in Table IL 11-5 or from previous manure tests. This provides a benchmark for the total nutrients available coming out of the storage or management system to be used. The total annual volume is based on each type of manure (solid or liquid). This helps identify the application method and equipment needed.
The next step is to determine the pH and nutrients needed by the crops to be grown. This is done using the Illinois Agronomy Handbook section on Soil Testing and Fertility. This publication provides data for fertility needs for crop maintenance levels as well as buildup recommendations where soil P or K is limited (Worksheet 2).
After this an estimate of plant available nutrients is developed. This is based on the type of manure application system used, including the equipment and whether the manure is incorporated (Tables 11-6 and 11-9).
Once the crop nutrient needs and nutrient availability are determined, the manure application rate per acre can be calculated (Worksheet 3). The rate then depends on how much manure it will take to supply the nitrogen or phosphorous for the crop (or crops) to be grown. This is known as ‘balancing’ the manure application for the nutrient needs. As mentioned previously, there are situations where more than one nutrient can be ‘balanced’ by the same application rate (see example). At the same time we need to verify the application rate is reasonable for the equipment to be used, and the application method will fit in with the erosion control needs for the application areas.
When the application rate is determined, the total acres needed can also be identified. If there are not enough acres to apply all the manure, there are a few options that can be reviewed. Possibly, the producer has more acres a little farther away that could be used for manure application and still save fertilizer costs. Another option may be to change the crop rotation to increase nutrient use on the same acres. Hay crops and corn silage are examples of high nutrient use crops. Also, there may be some opportunity to review the manure storage system to reduce the total manure volume, such as a more efficient water system or roof gutters. Perhaps it will take a combination of these methods. A final option would be to find another producer willing to use manure as a fertilizer source. More and more Illinois livestock producers are using this option.
A review of the application rate and nutrients supplied needs to be done to verify any nutrient not meeting crop needs is supplemented by commercial fertilizer to provide a ‘complete’ fertility plan. Also, nutrients supplied at higher than needed rates should be identified to allow taking advantage of them in future years nutrient plans (Worksheet 4). We complete the plan with a ‘Manure Management System Plan’ sheet. This identifies on one sheet the basics of the system planned and provides the basis for future reviews.
None of the above activities mean anything unless the manure is actually applied at the rate indicated in the plan using the equipment and methods planned. Here is where equipment calibration is critical. The producer must check this annually to verify the application rate and develop uniform application patterns.
Following the implementation of the manure management plan, the manure should be tested for nutrients prior to each application and the plan revised accordingly. Changes in the type of animals, feeding programs, or storage method will require additional tests. This indicates the annual nature of this type of plan. It is not something that can be done and used more than one year without significant review and revision by the livestock producer.
NRCS and Soil and Water Conservation District staff are available to help producers in each county to plan these systems as a part of a total resource management system. Specialists are also available to assist in this planning effort. As technology and the livestock industry in Illinois change, we will be ready to update our standards and our ability to provide this planning service.
Table 1. Nitrogen Leaching Potential1 by Application Method for Coarse, Medium, and Fine Textured Soils
| Method | Soil Texture2 | ||
| Coarse | Medium | Fine | |
| Fall applied | H-M | M-L | L |
| Spring applied, preplant | H-M | M-L | L |
| Sidedress or split appl. | M-L | L | L |
H - High probability for leaching loss
M - Moderate probability for leaching loss
L - Low probability for leaching loss
Coarse - sand, loamy sand, sandy loam
Medium - silt, silt loam, loam
Fine - silty clay loam, silty clay, clay, clay loam,
sandy clay, loam, sandy clay
General Guidelines: Given the same climatic conditions, the more permeable the soil and the greater the time between application and plant utilization, the greater is the potential for leaching loss. Therefore,
TABLE IL 11-5 Suggested Average Nutrient Content of Manure
| Kind of Manure | N | P2O5 | K2O |
| Liquid pit manure | Pounds/1000 Gallons | ||
| Swine | |||
| Farrowing | 25 | 20 | 15 |
| Growing,Finishing | 50 | 35 | 25 |
| Nursery | 35 | 20 | 20 |
| Gestation | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Average | 40 | 28 | 24 |
| Dairy | 26 | 15 | 25 |
| Beef | 40 | 25 | 28 |
| Manure, Anaerobic Lagoon | Pounds/1000 Gallons | ||
| All Swine, Dairy, and Beef | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Liquid Runoff from Outside Lots | Pounds/1000 Gallons | ||
| Earth Lots | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Concrete Lots: | |||
| Swine | 15 | 5 | 10 |
| Beef and Dairy | 6 | 2 | 7 |
| Solid Manure Scraped From Outside Lots | Pounds/Ton | ||
| Earth Lots, Beef | 22 | 16 | 14 |
| Concrete Lots: | |||
| Swine | 15 | 14 | 9 |
| Beef | 14 | 9 | 11 |
| Dairy | 11 | 6 | 11 |
| Solid Manure Pack, Confinement | Pounds/Ton | ||
| Swine | 14 | 9 | 11 |
| Dairy and Beef | 12 | 6 | 12 |
| Broilers | 65 | 65 | 45 |
| Layers | 85 | 70 | 45 |
| Turkeys | 40 | 40 | 25 |
Table 11-6 Percentage of nitrogen of that in the applied manure still potentially available to the soil (Ammonia volatilization causes the predicted losses)
| Application Method | Percentage remaining/delivered | ||
| Injection | 95 | ||
| Sprinkling | 75 | ||
| Broadcast (fresh solids) | |||
| Days between application and incorporation | Soil Conditions | ||
| warm dry | warm wet | cool wet | |
| 1 | 70 | 90 | 100 |
| 4 | 60 | 80 | 95 |
| 7 or more | 50 | 70 | 90 |
Table 11-9 General mineralization rates for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
| Waste and management | Years after initial application | ||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Nitrogen | Phosphorus | Potassium | |||||||
| Percent available (accumulative) | |||||||||
| Fresh poultry manure | 90 | 92 | 93 | 80 | 88 | 93 | 85 | 93 | 98 |
| Fresh swine or cattle manure | 75 | 79 | 81 | 80 | 88 | 93 | 85 | 93 | 98 |
| Layer manure from pit storage | 80 | 82 | 83 | 80 | 88 | 93 | 85 | 93 | 98 |
| Swine or cattle manure stored in covered storage | 65 | 70 | 73 | 75 | 85 | 90 | 80 | 88 | 93 |
| Swine or cattle manure stored in open structure or pond (undiluted) | 60 | 66 | 68 | 75 | 85 | 90 | 80 | 88 | 93 |
| Cattle manure with bedding stored in roofed area | 60 | 66 | 68 | 75 | 85 | 90 | 80 | 88 | 93 |
| Effluent from lagoon or diluted waste storage pond | 40 | 46 | 49 | 75 | 85 | 90 | 80 | 88 | 93 |
| Manure stored on open lot, cool-humid | 50 | 55 | 57 | 80 | 88 | 93 | 85 | 93 | 98 |
| Manure stored on open lot, hot-arid | 45 | 50 | 53 | 75 | 85 | 90 | 80 | 88 | 93 |