Field Scale Monitoring in Real World Conditions...QAQC and Site Maintenance Includes: Equipment Blanks Field Duplicates – 10% Equipment calibration Grass/weed management

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


69% Particulate 31% Dissolved

Yield: 47 lb/acre

FWMC: 48 mg/l


Yield: 8.7 lb/acre

FWMC: 8.88 mg/l


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



64% of runoff in March





CH1 – Sediment and Nutrient Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)

Yield: 1.3 lb/acre

FWMC: 1.31 mg/l



Yield: 82 lb/acre

FWMC: 86 mg/l


Yield: 3.9 lb/acre

FWMC: 4.12 mg/l



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



50% of runoff from a single storm event in July





ST1 – Sediment and Nutrient Data WY2011 (Mar 2011 through Sept 2011)

Yield: 0.9 lb/acre

FWMC: 0.93 mg/l



Yield: 396 lb/acre

FWMC: 427 mg/l


Yield: 5.9 lb/acre

FWMC: 6.36 mg/l



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


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


Yield: 5 lb/acre

FWMC: 2 mg/l

Yield: 43 lb/acre

FWMC: 17.1 mg/l


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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Field Scale Monitoring in Real World Conditions...QAQC and Site Maintenance Includes: Equipment Blanks Field Duplicates – 10% Equipment calibration Grass/weed management