CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/01/08 Through 2/15/09

Project Title: Direct Incorporation of Poultry Litter into No-till Soils to Minimize Nutrient Runoff to Chesapeake Bay
Principal Investigator(s): Peter J.A. Kleinman
Additional Investigator(s): Thomas Way, Dan Pote, Arthur Allen
Project Start Date: Sept. 1, 2006

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Tasks to meet objectives
(1) Conduct preliminary analysis of field data, (2) conduct outreach activities

Progress on Tasks
(1) Completed preliminary analysis of field and lysimeter data.
(2) Conducted outreach activities.

Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period changed the project objectives when compared to your original proposal? Please explain.
Results point to the need for better mixing of litter within the incorporation furrow to prevent leaching losses. This is readily achieved with placement of a row cleaner in line with the other incorporation implements.

Dissemination activities during this reporting period (please include the number of participants where applicable).
We completed several major dissemination activities and are gearing up for the final activities planned in spring, 2009:
1. "Land application of manure for water quality protection" Penn State University's "Manure du Jour" webinar series (Feb. 18, 2009). Audience of approximately 120 (P. Kleinman).

2. "Manure and No Till" National No-Till Conference (Jan. 16, 2009). Audience of approximately 900 (J. McGrath, project advisor using information from this CICEET project)

As a result of overwhelming interest in the litter injector, Kleinman is leading a large, multi-state effort to expand testing and implementation of the litter injection technology. This effort builds off of the CICEET-funded project. We are currently awaiting word of a $780,000 proposal that we submitted to support this work.

Difficulties
No difficulties to report. Due to scheduling and weather we have postponed several on-farm demonstrations and a NERRS field day until the spring.

Data Generated to date
Results from several trials confirm a significant reduction in phosphorus loss in overland flow associated with the litter injector. As we hypothesized, injection removes the litter, a source of concentrated nutrients, from the effective depth of interaction with runoff water. Results from this study are the focus of a MS thesis at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore.

We also observed a significant yield increase with litter injection (subsurface application) of the manure (39%). These results provide compelling support for farmer adoption of the new technology.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
Complete outreach activities and project.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Continue with outreach presentations.

Dissemination Objectives for next reporting period
Conduct on-farm demonstrations with participating farmers, meet with stakeholders (in cooperation with NERRS outreach staff).

Overall Project Timeline Update
We expect to complete the project by the end of the next reporting period.

Expenditures
Expenditures matched work plan.

End User Advisor Feedback
End User Advisor: Dr. Joshua McGrath
Organization: University of Maryland
Location: 0214 H.J. Patterson, Building #073, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
Phone number: 301.405.1351
E-mail: mcgrathj@umd.edu

At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
The poultry litter applicator, now termed the "subsurfer," has come of age as a result of this project. Kleinman and company are on the cusp of obtaining a large grant to implement the subsurfer across the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I and colleagues from University of Delaware and Virginia Tech will be spear heading efforts on the Delmarva Peninsula and farmer interest across the Peninsula is extremely high. I am enthusiastic that this piece of equipment represents a major advance for livestock farmers in the area.

What are the key challenges to application of this technology? Please consider the technology itself as well as issues related to regulation, politics, socio-economic pressures, trends in the field etc.
At this point it seems like most major concerns with the subsurfer have been addressed. Nutrient management regulations and apparent nutrient use efficiency benefits are driving widespread interest in the subsurfer. If the findings of this research project are borne out in other areas, then this technology should be widely adopted.

Has anything changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?
The project has achieved much more that was proposed as there is now interest in the subsurfer from the Delmarva Peninsula to the upland areas of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York.

Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers?
An outstanding job.

PI Response to End User Advisor Feedback
We are grateful to Dr. McGrath for his guidance and support and look forward to working with him on extending the current project.