In years past, potassium was less expensive than either nitrogen or phosphorus on a per pound of nutrient basis.  Nothing has changed.  Even though fertilizer prices have increased dramatically, it is still the least expensive of the three nutrients.  However, it is just as important now when soil test values show a need.

IN Minnesota, requirements for use of potash in a fertilizer program are more frequent in the southeastern region and where soils are sandy.  The impact of broadcast potash on corn production is illustrated in Table 1.  The study was conducted on a silt loam soil in Fillmore County.  Soil test values for K at 0 to 6 and 6 to 12 inches were 78 and 70 ppm respectively. These values inreased gradually with depth below 12 inches.  Adequate nitrogen and phosphorus were applied.

               Potash Applied                                                   Yield

_________________________________________________________________________                  lb./acre                                                          bu./acre

0                                                                                                                                        124

50                                                                                                                                        178

100                                                                                                                                        191

150                                                                                                                                        196

200                                                                                                                                        201

________________________________________________________________________

Optimum yield was achieved with the broadcast application of 100 lb. potash per acre.  Starter fertilizer was not used.  Regardless of the cost of potash and the value of the corn crop, use of 100 lb. potash per acre produced a nice profit.  We shouldn’t expect a yield increase of this magnitude every time potash is used.  In this case, the soil test for K was in the low range and this type of yield increase would be expected.  As soil test values for K increase, the magnitude of the response to potash fertilizer decreases.

It’s not necessary to broadcast potash for corn production.  Like phosphate, potash can be applied in a band at planting.  Similar to phosphate, the suggested broadcast rate can be cut by 50% if applied in a band.  Several trials have confirmed that this reduction is appropriate.  The results of a trial summarized in Table 2 are typical of the results of most trials comparing placement of potash.  This trial compared the broadcast application of 90 lb. potash per acre to the use of 57 lb. potash per acre in a starter band at planting. The starter was 9-23-30 applied at a rate of 190 lb. per acre.  Yields were the same. The fertilizer cost at today’s prices, however, is quite different.  The soil test K at 0 to 6 inches was 80 ppm.

                                                                                             bu./acre

          none                                                                              123

  90 lb. potash per acre (broadcast)                                        141

While low rates of phosphate applied in a band are satisfactory for optimum yields, higher rates of potash are required.  The use of the lower rates of phosphate can be achieved with the use of either fluid or dry fertilizers.  However, the amount of potash applied in a fluid is relatively low simply because of solubiity.  It can be very expensive to use the fluid grades to apply the suggested amount of potash in a band.  So, for soils that usually show a need for potash, a dry fertilizer used for that purpose is usually less than a fluid grade.  This difference may affect future equipment purchases for those growers who routinely use potash in their fertilizer program.

Some potash suggestions for corn production are listed in Table 3.  Note that suggestions vary with expected yield and soil test value for K.  This table is not complete.  For other yields and soil test values, go to “Fertilizing Corn in Minnesota” (FO-379-C) which was revised in 2006.

                                                                     Soil Test K, ppm

                                                                   ________________

                                                      41 to 80                                           81 to 120

                                                ________________________________________________

     bu./acre                                                   potash to apply, lb./acre

150 to 174                              60                  120                               40                70

175 to 199                              70                  130                               50                80

_______________________________________________________________________

The preceeding comments are appropriate for corn grown in conventional tillage systems.  Suggestions for rate and placement of potash change with corn planted in conservation tillage systems.  Those guidelines will be discussed in a future blog.

Looking at the future, the combination of RTK technologies with banded potash appear to have tremendous promise for long-term fertilizer planning.  However, much must  be learned about this combination.  Stay tuned.

Hi!

I’m going to take some time to do some promotion here. There are several events coming up over the next few months that you should be aware of.

*    Dec 2, 2008 - MN/IA Drainage Forum
*    Feb 24, 2009 - MN/ND Drainage Forum
*    Mar 10-11, 2009 - MN Drainage School

On December 2 it will be the 9th Annual Drainage Research Forum. The event will be held at Cabela’s near Owatonna from 9:00am-4:00pm. It is an event that the U of M does jointly with Iowa State University. Researchers from Minnesota and Iowa will present their findings on topics such as climate, TMDL studies and others. On line registration and a brochure can be found at: http://umnext.cmiregistration.com/ProgramDetail.aspx/DrainageResearchForum

Who Should Attend: Researchers and educators, federal and state agency staffs, county drainage authorities, producers, drainage contractors, crop consultants, and other interested in drainage and water management research in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest.

As we enter 2009 there will be two more events. On February 24 we will co-sponsor another drainage forum, this time with North Dakota State University. The details are still being worked out but the information will available soon on the Drainage Outlet website. It will be very similar to the MN/IA event with with researchers discussing their work.

On March 10th & 11th we will be offering the 2009 Agricultural Drainage Design and Water Management Workshop. The event will be held again in Willmar. After the first of the year we will have links to brochures and to our registration site. The Drainage Outlet site can be found at: http://www.drainageoutlet.umn.edu/calendar.html

Greetings everyone,

My name is Rob Holcomb and this is my first post for AGBUZZ.  I’m an educator in Agricultural Business Management with the University of Minnesota Extension.  My office location is at the Extension Regional Office located at Marshall, MN.  I specialize in farm income tax and analysis.  Since we are now in the middle of the fall tax planning season, I will attempt to focus on income tax law and planning until the end of the year.

Year-end tax planning for calendar year 2008 is upon us.  This post addresses deferred payment contracts.  This is an area of concern for farm operators as they execute year-end tax planning strategies.

Farm managers should be aware of the implications of deferred payment contracts.  A deferred payment contract is not a price later or hedge to arrive contract.  A deferred payment contract is where the farm operator transfers ownership of the grain and/or livestock and signs a contact which requires payment early the following year.

With a deferred payment contract, the taxpayer is an unsecured creditor after delivery and before receiving payment.  Deferred payment sales are not covered by state bonding requirements to cover the claims of grain producers in the event of an elevator failure.  That means if the grain elevator fails while you are holding this contract, you will be the last person paid out of the bankruptcy court.

If performed correctly, deferred payment contracts may be an effective tool for year-end tax planning.  From a risk management standpoint, producers should exercise caution when using deferred payment contracts.

Always consult with your tax advisor to examine your individual situation.

Thankfully the election is over (except for a recount), the political ads have ended, and life goes on.  How it goes on will now be the question.

In California, life for livestock farmers will begin to change, however, with the passage of Proposition 2.  For those not familiar with the California political system, any issue can be put before the voters of the state if enough people sign a petition to get it on the ballot.  Those issues are called “propositions”.  The result can be a lot of issues on the ballot and some funny or contentious laws.  Proposition 2 was one of those issues this year.

What does Proposition 2 do? Here is the brief description posted on Los Angeles Times election information website.

“Beginning in 2015, farmers would be required to provide room for egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows to fully extend their limbs or wings, stand up, turn around and lie down. It would outlaw cages and crates that prevent those movements.”

The issue passed by a margin of 63% in favor to 37% against.  That’s pretty overwhelming, and to many people, not that surprising in California.

The impact is a bit uncertain.  The veal calf industry has apparently diminished significantly in recent years, so very few farms may be affected.  What they do remains to be seen.  Some may change and others may just quit.  California’s swine industry isn’t that large, and its reportedly largest producer has been feeling  pressure in recent years so it has already begun the phase-out of small crates.

The 20 million hens producing 5 billion eggs per year are the big question mark.  While many egg producers have already reduced the number of hens per cage, few, if any, can meet the new requirements without major capital investment in building renovation.  Many of the mainline egg producers expect they will be driven out of business because they will be at a major cost of production disadvantage to the rest of the country.  Producers estimate their cost of production will increase by 20% with the change.  The egg consumer in California will probably see little or no price change, but their eggs may not be local eggs.

Proponents of the law think retailers will demand eggs from hens grown under the new system so the growers will not be disadvantaged.  That question might be answered by the price difference and what the consumers are willing to pay.

The issue became a dividing one, even in an industry one would expect to be unified.  California veterinarians became split over the issue so it probably confused voters even more.  While one association of veterinarians supported the issue, a split-off group of veterinarians who work with food production animals came out in opposition to the issue.  One can only guess the first group works largely with companion animals while the latter with the food producers.

It would be easy to say, “Well, that’s just California,” but it’s not.  The Humane Society of America and other groups will take this victory as fuel and initiate similar efforts in states all over the country.  Florida and Arizona enacted

similar laws regarding sow housing in the past couple years.  Neither of these states has very many hogs anyway, so they were pretty easy pickings.  There were very few people there to oppose the laws, but they started a ball rolling because those wanting to outlaw crates can point to a list of states with these laws, even if they don’t have many hogs.  The general public only sees a list of names.

The bottom line is that livestock producers all over the country need to pay attention to the issue of animal welfare on all fronts.  The vast majority of livestock producers are genuinely concerned about the welfare of the stock under their care.  They want it to be healthy and productive.  They also need to be economically viable, though.  In milder climates where livestock housing is a lower cost, stock density may have less impact on the cost of production.  Here in the Midwest where housing is more costly, more space per animal would definitely mean more cost per animal.  On the flip side of the coin, many suggest our feed costs are lower so livestock production belongs here.

The livestock industry needs to get itself together, taking proactive steps to show the public how well it cares for its animals, and why they do so.  The Humane Society of America and others are out all the time trying to get into schools and other venues.  Livestock producers need to do the same.  Ask your local schools how many have been approached at some time by the Humane Society or some other group offering a program about animals.  It often sounds quite innocent, but in many cases it is also promoting an agenda that is against modern animal agriculture.

As a counter measure, be sure you are active in your livestock and agriculture organizations in the community.  Talk with them about this issue and think about what you can do locally to keep your neighbors well informed about how you care and the impact your industry has on the community.

If you and your friends need a topic for discussion at the local coffee shop some morning next week, bring this topic up.  It might keep you going long enough the restaurant will want to charge you rent for the table space!

Disappointing.

Those of you that have heard the widespread reports that although soybean yields were not up to expectations, corn has been surprisingly good, but are feeling left out by your corn yields do not have to feel alone.  Initially we heard a lot of reports about 200 bu./A corn yields in the area, but those have quickly dropped.  Many of the plots that I have overseen at harvest have been around 170, with many fields dropping to as low as 140.  Given this, many producers are down in the mouth when hearing that corn yields are “surprisingly good.” 

What happened?  Some of the early plot results might give a clue, but the whole picture won’t be in until there is snow on the ground.  Nevertheless, let’s take a look at a few of the early clues.  First, there was a field that I worked in that was comparing strip-tillage to conventional tillage (single pass of a field cultivator in bean stubble) and was replicated three times.  This means six field length plots 12 rows wide, or a total of 72 rows.  The yields, irrespective of treatment, went like this:  184, 181, 178, 176, 173, 173.  Overall there is only a .5 bushel difference between the two treatments, but the trend is obvious.  According to the farmer in the combine (I was at the weigh wagon) this correlated to the extent to which corn was laying down due to a late summer wind storm.  It is difficult to say whether the yields are actual and due to lodging or whether they represent harvest loss due to the lodging.  As we did not take hand harvests we will never know, but we harvested the plots in the same way that he would have harvested the field had there not been any plots.  The bottom line is that the yields are real to the farmer regardless of the cause.  One last note on this one is to bring a sense of caution regarding non-replicated field trials.  I was at an input supplier earlier this fall where a salesman was talking up a fungicide treatment that they put into a variety trial that was not replicated.  He said that he had a 6 bu./A improvement due to the treatment.  In context to the numbers above, what does this mean?  My answer is simple:  Nothing.

One other field in the same demonstration trial (the strip-till one, not the fungicide one) that was about five miles away showed some other differences.  Overall the corn yields were disappointingly low, but the strip-till was almost exactly 8 bu./A better in every replication.  What does this mean?  The farmer stated that overall his yields were disappointing, and nothing related to N management (spring vs. fall, or rate) or seed brand (Pioneer vs. DeKalb with a few others thrown in) made any difference.  I think that it is safe to say that lack of moisture was to blame for the overall poor yields.  Our hypothesis in this project was that the strip-till would be just as good as the conventional tillage, not better.  Why was it better?  Two potential reasons.  First, it could have been moisture conservation due to less tillage.  I tend to dismiss this one, as there was not any moisture stress early in the growing season when it would have made the most difference.  The reason that I find most likely is that the strip-till “forced” row placement directly overtop of the N, ensuring that the plant would have the best chance to take it up.  As the growing season wore on and rain was scarce, the top 18″ or so got very dry.  As this is where most of the N was residing, it is likely that lack of water uptake (and therefore nutrient) from this zone, as well as dried up, inactive roots led to a N deficiency that hurt yield.  I suspect that had we had a normal precipitation year this effect would not have materialized.  If you have been digging into some of the information released from the University this fall (I know, most of you have been just a little bit busy) you might have seen some early results from a starter fertilizer trial that was conducted at the Southern Research and Outreach Center at Waseca where Dr. Gyles Randall and Jeff Vetsch found some significant starter responses under some circumstances where we might not have expected them (in one case a 20 bu./A increase due to adding S!).  This, too, gives a clue that fertilizer placement right in the rooting zone when associated with later drought stress could have yielded some great benefits.  We will never know what the effects would have been with higher precipitation amounts, so we can only speculate about that.  In addition, we can not predict the same weather at any time in the future, so it is difficult to go to the bank on this tidbit of information.  Regardless, it is important that we try to explain and understand our observations if they are to be of value to us. 

In the world of fertilizer management in Minnesota, some nutrients such as N,P,and K work to improve crop yield and/or quality.  Others don’t have any effect on production and, therefore, can be classified as recreational nutrients.  Many of the micronutrients fall into the category of being classified as recrearional.  When thinking about fertilizer use, for the 2009 crop year, it would be good to review and summarize the microntrients and their need for crop production in this state.

ZINC:  In Minnesota, there is a more widespread need for this micronutrient than any other.  When soil test levels are low, corn and edible beans are the only two crops that respond to the addition of zinc in a fertilizer program.  Zinc suggestion for these two crops are listed in the following table.

 Zinc guidelines for corn and edible beans in Minnesota.

______________________________________________________________

ppm zn                   broadcast or band

0.0 to 0.25                  10              2

0.26 to 0.50                10              2

0.51 to 0.75                 5               1

0.76 to 1.00                 0                0

1.00+                           0                0

______________________________________________________

When I checked on prices with the local fertilizer dealer, the cost of zinc in dry form was about $1.50 per pound of zinc.  Cost will be higher if applied as a fluid source.  So, application in a band can reduce fertilizer cost substantially.  However, research has shown that a pound of zinc is a pound of zinc.  In other words, a pound of actual zinc as a dry material is just as effective as a pound of zinc is a liquid formulation.

The exact role of zinc in plants has not been clearly defined. It is necessary for the functioning of several enzymes.  When deficient, there is not normal growth and development.

MANGANESE:  Like zinc, manganese is essential for many ensyme reactions in plants with no specific, well-defined function.  The use of this micronutrient HAS NOT increased crop production in Minnesota.  Specifically, manganese has been applied to soybeans in field trials–especially glyphosate tolerant soybeans.  Although reports from other states have indicated that there is a response in these situations, these responses have not been measured in Minnesota.

IRON:  Many soybean growers are familiar with Iron Deficiency Chlorosis (IDC) in soybeans.  There is no deficiency of iron in Minnesota soils.  Under certain conditions, the iron cannot get into the plant or is not used in the plant in the production of chlorophyll.  This condition is made worse by high levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the soil.  Foliar application of iron does not work consistently.  A product called SOYGREEN applied with the seed at planting time in combination with a small grain competition crop will help to overcome the problem.

COPPER:  Small grains grown on organic soils in northern Minnesota have shown a positive response to the application of this micronutrient.  Otherwise, there is no need for this micronutrient in a fertilizer program.

BORON:  There is no universal agreement as to the role of this micronutrient in plants.  Yet it is still essential.  In Minnesota, ther have been occasional   increases in the yield of alfalfa if soil tests show that there is a need and this micronutrient is applied.  A topdress application of 2 to 4 pounds of actual boron per acre is suggested if the soil test shows that there is a need. Be careful with this micronutrient.  Applications, when not needed, can reduce yield.

CHLORIDE:  Although the specific function in plants is not known, this micronutrient can resist disease pressure in small grains if it is deficient.  This micronutrient is not needed in a fertilizer program if 0-0-60 has been used in the past. That’s nearly all of Minnesota.

Recently, there have been some sales promotions which claim that micronutrients coated or sprayed on other fertilizer granules will improve crop yields.  These are bogus claims that are not substantiated by research.  No matter how you shake it, bake it, slice it, or dice it, if a micronutrient does not increase yield (production) it is not needed.  Use of micronutrients in situations other than those described in the previous paragraphs is purely recreational—–and expensive.

Hi! I’m Craig Schrader, a University of Minnesota Extension Educator and I’ve been on the job for about 3 years. I am a member of the Water Management for Production and the Environment team (previously Drainage Education and Water Management). Our task is to work with issues that deal with agricultural drainage and water quality. Education is required to help drainage practitioners and stakeholders (farmers, contractors, consultants, agency staff, and local decision makers) understand how they can accomplish the dual objectives of agricultural production while minimizing unwanted environmental effects. Other sectors of society are in need of education about water management alternatives for agriculture and how these alternatives affect society at large.

As a University of Minnesota Extension Educator, I view my role as one that presents unbiased information about drainage practices and other agricultural issues. This is a time of some controversy where agricultural production is more important than ever and yet at the same time many of the citizens of Minnesota have concerns about the environment. This will require better management practices and in some cases some compromise.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I grew up on a farm in Rice County near Northfield. I’m a graduate of the University of Minnesota where I have earned degrees in Soil Science in what is now the Department of Soil, Water and Climate. I worked several years at the West Central Experiment Station in Morris Minnesota before returning to graduate school. After graduate school I worked for the Minnesota Department of Transportation as a research scientist on what is known as the MnRoad project, a study along I-94 near Albertville Minnesota. I also worked for about a year and half for a county in Washington State on watershed issues.

I’m glad to be back in my home state working for the University of Minnesota. In the future, look to my blog site where I will be posting information on issues related to agricultural drainage, water quality issues and related topics.

Except for cash rent, corn producers now spend more for fertilizer than any other input.  Today, there is intense interest in fertilizer use because of the high cost of fertilizer and the reduced value of the commodity produced.  Unlike the fabricated “scare” of the Soybean Asian Rust issue of the past few years, the problem of higher fertilizer prices combined with lower commodity prices is real.

To address this serious challenge, crop producers are making changes in their fertilizer management practices–some big–some small.  I’ll use three examples to illustrate the impact of various changes on fertilizer costs.

A recent caller from southeast Minnesota wanted to use a suspension fertilizer in a band as a replacement for 10-34-0.  Based on results of analysis of soil samples, we worked to adjust rates.  Comparing the new ideas to his traditional program for use of phosphate and potash, the savings for the 2009 crop year calculated to about $20.00 per acre.  The changes made were small–but important when multiplied by the number of acres that would be planted to corn in 2009.

In another instance, a long-time ridge-till farmer called last week with an objective of reducing fertilizer costs.  Based on results of analysis of soil samples collected in 2008, the rates of phosphate and potash were reduced somewhat compared to the rates that had been used in the past.  These small changes produces a savings of about $38,000 for his farming operation.  Changes made were small; but, savings in fertilizer costs were substantial.  These changes were based on the results of an excellent soil sampling program.

In the third instance, using e-mail, I worked with a farmer in western Minnesota throught the summer to switch from broadcast to banded applications for corn production.  Continuous corn is the intended crop sequence.  The new planter will apply phosphate and potash in a band to the side of and below the seed.  Management zones created for each field will guide variable rate application of phosphate and potash in the band.  This new program will be a substantial change from the uniform broadcast applications that were previously used.  Projected savings evolved from calculations made by the grower will be in the neighborhood of $170,000 at current fertilizer prices.  There’s no question.  This is a substantial savings.  In this case, analysis of soil samples and specific rates in a band are key to the success of the program.

These three examples show that there is not a single approach or a single procedure that will reduce fertilizer costs.  Each situation is different and advice from a professional who understands fertilizer recommendations will help as changes in fertilizer programs are anticipated.

Whilie channel surfing last week, I watched as two individuals lamented high input costs for the 2009 growing season.  They were convinced that everyone who grows corn would be spending $200 to $300 per acre for corn production.  I hurried to do some calculations.  Considering current fertilizer prices at the local dealership, I can’t devise a fertilizer program that will cost that much.  I don’t know where these guys were getting their fertilizer recommendations.  But they certainly should have searched for a second opinion. 

The University of Minnesota Extension dairy team did a three-day road trip last week to visit new research facilities and innovative farms in Wisconsin. The herds we visited ranged from about 450 cows up to 4200 cows and facilities varied from a few years old to still under construction.

While the facilities were all interesting, and gave us a chance to see some newer technologies and operational ideas in action, the truly remarkable part of the trip was visiting with the people managing and operating these farms.

These farmers are genuinely innovative thinkers. They are thinking well outside the norms of typical dairy farmers. Let me give you an example.

Several of the farms are operating methane digesters (a couple of the farms are working on second digesters), but one decided to take a different route with the output. Rather than using the biogas to run an on-farm electrical generator, they are scrubbing the biogas and compressing it so it can be injected into the community’s natural gas lines. Other products of the process are being used to grow algae. Why algae? They have been pressing bio-diesel fuel from the algae to burn in their farm equipment. Unfortunately, their algae grower tubes have become contaminated with a different strain of algae that may not be quite as “oily”. The upside, however, is that the contaminating algae has its own high value potential. The potential is so good, it might be more profitable to produce the second product rather than the bio-diesel!

Some of the waste water from the digester and the algae units is seeing further processing into a concentrated fertilizer product that can be used by the nursery industry, while another fraction of that water is being used to grow tilapia.

Finally, excess water is being put through an industrial-sized reverse osmosis unit resulting in potable water for release.

What’s next on this farm? They are working on a digester at another farm site that will supply heat and nutrients to a greenhouse where they intend to grow several hundred thousand heads of lettuce for the green market, and under the lettuce, grow tilapia for the fish market.

Here is the real kicker – within a very few years, they fully expect milk will be the by-product of this farm!! All the extra value added items that essentially come from the manure system should have more value than the milk they sell. That is some way off the wall thinking. How many farmers do you know who think that big?

This “big” thinking isn’t just in terms of farm size and the number of cows one can manage and milk, but it is thinking about other ways to make use of what is generated on the farm and how it can generate extra income for the farm. It involves farmers who are willing to take some risks, and farmers who network with people outside farming who also have ideas and capital to invest.

Each of the farmers we visited considered themselves enablers. They had ideas but couldn’t carry them out by themselves. They shared the ideas with others on their farms and from the broader community. They looked for ways to work with others to make things happen and to help make others successful as well.

While you may not be ready for an algae, fish and lettuce farm behind your dairy barn, at least think about who else you might engage in brainstorming about your business. Consider who else on your farm and in your community might have ideas (even if they are way ‘off the wall’) that could be implemented on a farm like yours. It wouldn’t have to cost you more than a roll and a cup of coffee to get them around a table and just dream.

I was recently watching the TV show “How it’s made” on the Discovery channel and something struck a wrong chord with me.  The were talking about waste water treatment and showing how they take the phosphorus out of the waste water.  Their specific quote about phosphorus was “phosphorus: a poisonous element in the nitrogen family”.  Does this make sense to anyone out there?  I could not believe that this was something I was hearing on a TV show that anyone could see.  I’m not going to make the argument that too much phosphorus in water is not a problem, but giving it the persona of a poison is not correct.  Granted that the piece was not on farming, but I don’t like to hear bad information transmitted to a national audience.  With all the regulations these days concerning farming and phosphorus losses it is nice to keep the public informed with correct information.  I think we have made many strides in managing phosphorus losses and understanding the processes involved, thus I think it is important to maintain the right message and the statements I heard on TV are not it.

Phosphorus application is an issue that some, especially those dealing with livestock operations and land application of manure, have to deal with regularly. If best management practices are followed the risk of P loss can be significantly lessened. In a previous life I studied the value of poultry litter for corn and soybean rotations for supplying phosphorus to the crops. Our overall conclusions were that manure phosphorus was an excellent supplement to fertilizer where no difference could be detected between fertilizer and manure phosphorus, and that no additional fertilizer was needed to maximize yields of corn and soybeans when a single manure application was applied to supply half the recommended nitrogen for corn. We also took the time to do some simulated rainfall on plots on these fields. With this work we compared incorporated versus non-incorporated plots side by side. Our findings were that tillage significantly reduced phosphorus loss in surface flow to the point where we could not detect differences from where no manure was applied, and when we examined plots not receiving manure phosphorus loss was related to loss of sediment. Thus, as long as you do not significantly increase the erosion potential of a soil, tillage can reduce the direct loss of phosphorus in surface water after manure application. There is another factor that can come into play related to increases in soil test phosphorus and losses which we did not look into in this study. But if soil tests are monitored and adjustment made when levels increase and manure is applied in a manner in which it poses a low risk for loss, producers can limit phosphorus delivery to surface waters.  With the high price of fertilizers, manures should be looked to as a resource for farmers to help stretch their fertilizer dollar.