kg P per county (1000)

1. Nutrient Management in the USA kg P per county (1000) kg P ha-1 > 2.0 0.3 - 2.0 > 908 0.0 - 0.3 454 - 908 No data 227 - 454 45 - 227 < 45 Figure 2 Potential P fertilizer loss. Figure 4 Estimated P production from confined livestock. kg N per county (1000) > 908 454 - 908 kg N ha-1 227 - 454 > 9.7 45 - 227 2.4 - 9.7 0.0 - 2.4 < 45 No data Figure 3 Estimated N production from confined livestock. Figure l Potential N fertilizer loss. Jorge A. Delgado1*, Harold Van Es2, and Jerry Lemunyon3 1 USDA-ARS-Soil Plant Nutrient Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO, 80522; 2Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853; and 3USDA-NRCS, Fort Worth, TX, 76115 The authors thank Dennis Pate, President, SWCS; Craig Cox, Executive Vice President, SWCS; D.L. Sparks, President SSSA; Charlie Persinger, SWCS; and Valerie Oksendahl, USDA-NRCS, for their cooperation with this joint Poster National Symposium on Nutrient Management. Source modified figures from USDA-NRCS www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov./land/index/wqual.htlm Introduction  Impose a P-based standard for the land application of animal manure where field site conditions vulnerable to P transport exist.  Require field vulnerability assessments for N and P.  Require certification of persons who review and approve nutrient management plans that are part of the over-all conservation plan.  USDA-NRCS with its conservation partners, provide training to those who develop the nutrient management component of the over-all conservation plan.  Define technical content of the nutrient management plan.  Encourage producers and consultants to maintain records which demonstrate implementation of the nutrient management plan and periodic reviews. The Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) and the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) are jointly sponsoring symposia on nutrient management at their 2000 annual meeting. This Poster Session is intended to highlight each state’s current progress in development of their nutrient management policy, conservation practice standard, and risk assessment tools. Nutrients are essential for maintaining a viable agricultural and animal production throughout the United States. However, if transported off-site they can also impact surface and underground water resources (e.g. eutrophication of water bodies). Nutrient transport potential from fields varies among regions in the US (Figs. 1 and 2), as does nutrient recycle potential from animal waste (Figs. 3 and 4). In response to the growing body of evidence of the relationship between nutrient loading to soils and crops, nutrient transport off-site, and surface and ground water impairments, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is revising its policy and technical guidance for delivering nutrient management related technical assistance. This revised policy will better address the production and environmental considerations associated with nutrient management in agricultural fields. Summary and Conclusions NRCS Nutrient Management Policy The USDA-NRCS has revised its national policy and technical guidance for developing nutrient management technical assistance that it offers to its clients. Each state is currently revising and updating their own nutrient policy and conservation practice standard to meet the national initiative. The development of these documents is taking place within the state through collaborative efforts involving USDA, land grant universities, farmers, conservation districts, state agencies, the private sector and other conservation partners. The State efforts are to be completed by May 2001. It is hoped that an exchange of philosophy and technical ideas, combined with comparisons of state guidelines can take place during these sessions.  Establish procedures for determining acceptable nutrient application rates for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) which considers both production and environmental goals.  Continue to rely on the land-grant university system and agribusiness to determine the recommended soil testing and nutrient application rates needed to meet production goals.  Identification of environmentally sensitive areas during the planning process that could be impacted by misapplication of nutrients. Recommend mitigating conservation practices and management actions that would minimize any negative impacts of nutrient transport off-site. * Corresponding Author Email jdelgado@lamar.colostate.edu