Nutrient Management Planning
in the
Niangua River Basin
Karen M. Ross
University of Missouri Outreach and Extension
Abstract
The Niangua River Hydrologic Unit Area was funded by the USDA in
1991 with cost-share monies distributed going to 24 farmers enabling them to install
animal waste management units. University of Missouri Outreach and Extension along with
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, Missouri Department of
Conservation, United States Geological Survey, and Missouri Department of Natural
Resources worked together to design the facilities, monitor the Niangua River, and educate
farmers and the community on the benefits associated with animal waste management units.
These waste management units provide storage capacity for 1,835 cows, saving an estimated
9 million gallons of manure annually from entering the watershed. The units provide
farmers an efficient system in which to apply animal wastes that will benefit crop
production by providing necessary nutrients (193 tons of nitrogen, 35 tons of phosphorus,
128 tons of potassium) and moisture when it is critical for plant growth. The Niangua
River Water Quality Project is working to provide farmers, who have received cost-share
for their animal waste management systems, information on how to reduce the amount of
commercial fertilizer they are purchasing by crediting the nutrients they are receiving
from the animal waste. Soil tests and manure tests, funded by a grant from the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources through EPA, Region 7 funds, are being used to help
farmers produce optimum yields while protecting the environment.
The Niangua River flows into Lake of the Ozarks, one of the major
recreational areas of the state of Missouri. The Niangua River is used for fishing,
swimming, canoeing, and the surrounding area is used for camping and horseback riding.
Bennett Springs, a well-known trout fishing and state park also flows into the Niangua
River. A decline in the Niangua Darter, considered an indicator species, was cause for
concern. The cause for the decline of the Darter was thought to be due to several factors.
Habitat degradation due to the building of dams along several of the rivers, loss of tree
cover along many of the streams, nutrient overloading through excess animal wastes being
deposited into the streams and contamination from failing on-site waste water systems are
considered major factors. In 1991, the Niangua River was chosen as one of several
hydrologic unit areas to be studied for water quality by the USDA.
The focus of the Niangua River Water Quality project was to reduce the
amount of animal waste entering the river. A goal of planning and installing 70 animal
waste management units was set. The cost of these units ranged anywhere from $35,000 to
$80,000. Within three years all the monies that had been set aside for cost-share had been
used. The other goals of the project were to accomplish a Farm-A-Syst program, close
abandoned wells, and establish groundwater monitoring throughout the watershed.
In 1991, it was estimated that there were approximately 140 dairy farms
in the Niangua River watershed. It is now estimated that there are approximately 80 dairy
farms left. Of those farms 26 had animal waste units installed. The dairies vary in size
from 35 to 110 cows. These units have storage capacity for 1,835 cows, saving an estimated
9 million gallons of manure annually from entering the watershed. The units provide
farmers an efficient system in which to apply animal wastes that will benefit crop
production by providing necessary nutrients (193 tons of nitrogen, 35 tons of phosphorus,
128 tons of potassium) and moisture when it is critical for plant growth.
Since there were no cost-share funds remaining after three years, it
was decided to change the focus of the project. An extension was requested to help farmers
who had installed the animal waste management facilities to help them better understand
how to get the most out of the nutrients they now had stored in their lagoons and pits. An
educational facet was also added to the project in order to increase public awareness of
water quality issues.
The United States Geological Survey, U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife, and
Missouri Department of Conservation monitored the Niangua River for both water quality and
biological diversity at several locations. After three years of monitoring both Missouri
Department of Conservation and U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife concluded that the amount of
nutrient loading into the Niangua River was not as high as they had expected. Although the
Niangua Darter remains on the threatened species list, it does not appear that nutrient
overloading is a significant factor in its' decline.
An extension of the project was granted with a significantly reduced
budget. This allowed only enough funding for staff salaries, and so alternative funding
had to be found to accomplish the goal of soil, manure, and forage testing. The Missouri
Department of Natural Resources expressed interest in the new focus of the project. As the
enforcement agency their desire has been to get the manure out of the streams, creeks and
rivers. They provided an educational mini-grant through funds from EPA Region 7. This
grant made it possible to work one-on-one with participating farmers. This would help them
understand the procedures that were used to determine the nutrient value of their
effluent. How their field was sampled to get a soil sample that would represent their
whole field, and how to collect a good manure sample. It also showed them how these
results were combined to best utilize the effluent spread on their fields.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources specified that they wanted
seven subsamples taken from the pump then mixed together for a final sample. In addition,
nitrogen results were broken down into nitrates and nitrites. The technician of the
project has not been concerned about nitrogen provided, as all the farmers in the
watershed use contract pumpers, who are broadcasting the effluent on the fields. This
causes a loss of approximately 90% of the nitrogen through volatilization. Also most of
the farmers are spreading their effluent on fescue and alfalfa hay fields. The limit of
100 pounds of nitrogen per year per acre is still used as a guide. There is still a
problem that the test results from the laboratory will not be available by the time the
effluent is ready to be spread. That is why it is important to get a sample of the
effluent during spreading so that over time an accurate approximation of what is spread on
the field can be calculated.
A dairy farmer in Dallas county Missouri, who milks 100 cows, expressed
a great deal of interest in the nutrient management portion of the project. After
extensive soil sampling on his farm and taking manure samples from both his slurry lagoon
and second stage lagoon, the farmer requested consultation concerning where to best place
the animal waste. He did specify that he wanted to be able deliver three loads of slurry
within an hour or else it would not be cost effective. With those requirements,
technicians studied the results of soil testing done on fields closest to the milk barn.
As suspected most of these fields already had ratings ranging from very high to in excess
in the areas of phosphorus and potassium. Technicians did find three fields that were in
the very low to medium range. The farmer was surprised that some of the fields were much
higher and others were much lower than he expected. Results of manure sample analyses
determined the amount of manure he should apply to obtain sufficient nutrients on the
deficient fields.
Some farmers expressed more enthusiasm concerning the project then
others. Other farmers reported concern about a government official coming on their
property; believing that if the official observes something that does not follow their
written agreement in their letter of approval from the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources they would be reported to Department of Natural Resources.
Farmers who view this part of the project as beneficial are primarily
concerned about their financial bottom line. They are not spending as much time carting
the manure from dairy barn to field. The aforementioned farmer reports his time loading
and spreading manure has been reduced from a half-day each week to one day every three
months. In addition, he chooses the time and the weather to get the most benefit from the
manure. The other benefit is the reduction in the amount of commercial fertilizer he is
purchasing. In Missouri, an additional benefit of applying the manure is its' water
content. Most of the effluent going out on the field is less than 10% dry matter
(depending on how it is stored) therefore, the greatest benefit to the hay crop may be the
moisture content. Many farmers realize that the time is coming when they will be asked
what steps they have taken to protect the environment. Those who have installed the animal
waste management units, keep good records of the manure composition, know which fields
have had manure spread and how much of it was spread, will be ready with their answer.
Farmers in the watershed expressed concern about the quality of the
water. In conversations with several of the farmers they stated they were not happy about
the way their manure was being handled. All of them agreed that without the cost-share
funding they could not have made the changes that were necessary. Unlike industry, the
farmer is not able to pass along the cost of environmental improvement in their final
product. The cost of being environmentally sound does not improve the price received for
milk. The reduction in costs of commercial fertilizer and amount of time spent hauling and
spreading manure doesn't make up the cost of the units either. However, reduced labor and
healthier, cleaner, more productive cows are positive results for the farmer and a reason
for the increased cost of doing business.
Table 1
| Phosphorus (lbs/A) |
Potassium (lbs/A) |
Field 3A |
186 |
332 |
Field 3B |
20 |
157 |
Field 3C |
113 |
385 |
Field 3E |
59 |
305 |
Field 3F |
36 |
185 |
Field 4 |
312 |
888 |
Field 11 |
190 |
799 |
Field 13 |
9 |
113 |
Field Layout
To Top |
