IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v165y2018icp187-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation dairy farming impact on water quality in a karst watershed in northeastern US

Author

Listed:
  • Amin, M.G. Mostofa
  • Karsten, Heather D.
  • Veith, Tamie L.
  • Beegle, Douglas B.
  • Kleinman, Peter J.

Abstract

One crucial challenge of agriculture is to increase productivity to feed the continuously growing population without deteriorating soil, water, and environmental quality. More emphasis on improved efficiencies, appropriate management of agricultural systems, and improved agronomic and nutrient use practices are needed to address this challenge. A conservation dairy farming system that produces the majority of the dairy feed and forage crops, with no-till, continuous diversified plant cover, and manure injection has recently been developed and tested in Pennsylvania, but the effect of this newly developed cropping system on nonpoint source pollution at the watershed scale is yet to be investigated. Topo-SWAT, a variation of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), was used to simulate nutrient and sediment loading processes of four dairy farming scenarios that differed in land area and implemented different feed production and nutrient input strategies: (i) forage crop production only and no best management practice (no-BMP scenario); (ii) forage production only and typical Pennsylvania management, which includes some no-till and cover cropping (typical scenario); (iii) forage and feed crop production with conservation management with broadcast manure (conservation-BM scenario); and (iv) forage and feed crop production with conservation management with injected manure (conservation-IM scenario). The conservation-IM scenario was the most effective for reducing total nutrient (42% N and 51% P) and sediment (41%) load in the watershed. The typical scenario also reduced nutrient and sediment load compared to the no-BMP scenario. Both conservation scenarios significantly reduced the number of in-stream peaks of organic N (73–82%), nitrate-N (43–47%), organic P (41–50%), and soluble P (62–70%) concentration compared to the typical scenario. Introduction of manure injection hindered runoff-mediated loss of nutrients but not leaching. Both conservation scenarios also decreased nitrous oxide emission by reducing denitrification. Additionally, manure injection retarded 91% of the N volatilization that occurred in manure broadcast scenario. The watershed scale study indicates that implementation of the conservation scenarios can largely contribute to the initiatives of achieving a target total maximum daily load in the Chesapeake Bay.

Suggested Citation

  • Amin, M.G. Mostofa & Karsten, Heather D. & Veith, Tamie L. & Beegle, Douglas B. & Kleinman, Peter J., 2018. "Conservation dairy farming impact on water quality in a karst watershed in northeastern US," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 187-196.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:165:y:2018:i:c:p:187-196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17309782
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ribaudo, Marc & Kaplan, Jonathan D. & Christensen, Lee A. & Gollehon, Noel R. & Johansson, Robert C. & Breneman, Vincent E. & Aillery, Marcel P. & Agapoff, Jean & Peters, Mark, 2003. "Manure Management For Water Quality Costs To Animal Feeding Operations Of Applying Manure Nutrients To Land," Agricultural Economic Reports 33911, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Kemanian, Armen R. & Julich, Stefan & Manoranjan, Valipuram S. & Arnold, Jeffrey R., 2011. "Integrating soil carbon cycling with that of nitrogen and phosphorus in the watershed model SWAT: Theory and model testing," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(12), pages 1913-1921.
    3. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    4. Prakash Kaini & Kim Artita & John Nicklow, 2012. "Optimizing Structural Best Management Practices Using SWAT and Genetic Algorithm to Improve Water Quality Goals," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(7), pages 1827-1845, May.
    5. Amin, M.G. Mostofa & Veith, Tamie L. & Collick, Amy S. & Karsten, Heather D. & Buda, Anthony R., 2017. "Simulating hydrological and nonpoint source pollution processes in a karst watershed: A variable source area hydrology model evaluation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 180(PB), pages 212-223.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hood, Raleigh R. & Shenk, Gary W. & Dixon, Rachel L. & Smith, Sean M.C. & Ball, William P. & Bash, Jesse O. & Batiuk, Rich & Boomer, Kathy & Brady, Damian C. & Cerco, Carl & Claggett, Peter & de Mutse, 2021. "The Chesapeake Bay program modeling system: Overview and recommendations for future development," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 456(C).
    2. Hao, Zhuo & Shi, Yuanyuan & Zhan, Xiaoying & Yu, Bowei & Fan, Qing & Zhu, Jie & Liu, Lianhua & Zhang, Qingwen & Zhao, Guangxiang, 2024. "Quantifying and assessing nitrogen sources and transport in a megacity water supply watershed: Insights for effective non-point source pollution management with mixSIAR and SWAT models," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Lin & Pang, Shujiang & Wang, Xiaoyan & Du, Yi & Huang, Jieyu & Melching, Charles S., 2021. "Optimal allocation of best management practices based on receiving water capacity constraints," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. Zeyuan Qiu & Steve W. Lyon & Ellen Creveling, 2020. "Defining a Topographic Index Threshold to Delineate Hydrologically Sensitive Areas for Water Resources Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(11), pages 3675-3688, September.
    3. Key, Nigel D. & Kaplan, Jonathan D., 2007. "Multiple Environmental Externalities and Manure Management Policy," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Regulations And Competitiveness," Working Papers 19100, West Virginia University, Department of Agricultural Resource Economics.
    5. Mojtaba Moravej & Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari, 2016. "Large Scale Reservoirs System Operation Optimization: the Interior Search Algorithm (ISA) Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3389-3407, August.
    6. Rath, S. & Zamora-Re, M. & Graham, W. & Dukes, M. & Kaplan, D., 2021. "Quantifying nitrate leaching to groundwater from a corn-peanut rotation under a variety of irrigation and nutrient management practices in the Suwannee River Basin, Florida," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    7. Jingchao Liu & Jin Wu & Shaowei Rong & Yanna Xiong & Yanguo Teng, 2022. "Groundwater Vulnerability and Groundwater Contamination Risk in Karst Area of Southwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-13, November.
    8. Haluk Gedikoglu & Sansel Tandogan & Joseph Parcell, 2023. "Neighbor effects on adoption of conservation practices: cases of grass filter systems and injecting manure," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(3), pages 723-756, June.
    9. MacDonald, James M. & O'Donoghue, Erik J. & McBride, William D. & Nehring, Richard F. & Sandretto, Carmen L. & Mosheim, Roberto, 2007. "Profits, Costs, and the Changing Structure of Dairy Farming," Economic Research Report 6704, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Effective Use of Limited Information: Do Bid Maximums Reduce Procurement Cost in Asymmetric Auctions?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 288-304, April.
    12. Johansson, Robert & Peters, Mark & House, Robert, 2007. "Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming Model," Technical Bulletins 184314, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Roubík, Hynek & Mazancová, Jana & Phung, Le Dinh & Banout, Jan, 2018. "Current approach to manure management for small-scale Southeast Asian farmers - Using Vietnamese biogas and non-biogas farms as an example," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 362-370.
    14. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & Nergis, Nermin & Schwabe, Kurt A., 2007. "Effects of Nutrient Restrictions on Confined Animal Facilities: Insights from a Structural Model," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 10253, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Michael Boehlje & Allan Gray & Tyler Mark, 2006. "the Growth Potential for the Indiana Livestock Industries," Working Papers 06-06, Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    16. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc N., 2017. "Balancing Complexity and Rent-Seeking in Multi-Attribute Conservation Procurement Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266293, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. B. Sarma & A. Sarma & V. Singh, 2013. "Optimal Ecological Management Practices (EMPs) for Minimizing the Impact of Climate Change and Watershed Degradation Due to Urbanization," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(11), pages 4069-4082, September.
    18. Sneeringer, Stacy, 2016. "Comparing Participation in Nutrient Trading by Livestock Operations to Crop Producers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," Economic Research Report 249772, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Jiao Liu & Tie Liu & Anming Bao & Philippe Maeyer & Xianwei Feng & Scott N. Miller & Xi Chen, 2016. "Assessment of Different Modelling Studies on the Spatial Hydrological Processes in an Arid Alpine Catchment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(5), pages 1757-1770, March.
    20. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:165:y:2018:i:c:p:187-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.