1 / 24

Trends in Nutrient Sources in The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Trends in Nutrient Sources in The Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Factors Considered. Point Sources Non-Point Sources Agricultural manure and fertilizer Non-Ag Fertilizer (residential/commercial) Septic Systems Septic and manure are reported at 10 and 5 year intervals.

orde
Télécharger la présentation

Trends in Nutrient Sources in The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trends in Nutrient Sources in The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

  2. Factors Considered • Point Sources • Non-Point Sources • Agricultural manure and fertilizer • Non-Ag Fertilizer (residential/commercial) • Septic Systems • Septic and manure are reported at 10 and 5 year intervals. • Point sources and fertilizer are 1 year interval.

  3. Areas of Focus • Monitoring Stations at Fall Line • Potomac, Susquehanna, Patuxent, and James Rivers • Looked at total Nitrogen, total Phosphorus

  4. Methods (brief) • Ag fertilizer – calculated a Bay-wide application rate • Non-ag Fertilizer – applied fertilizer within the county of sale. • Manure - applied fertilizer within the county of generation. • Septic – Based on county population, distributed by low density residential. • Point Sources – within designated receiving water

  5. James River – NPS Nitrogen

  6. James River – Direct Nitrogen

  7. James River – NPS Phosphorus

  8. James River – Direct Phosphorus

  9. Patuxent River – NPS Nitrogen

  10. Patuxent River – Direct Nitrogen

  11. Patuxent River – NPS Phosphorus

  12. Patuxent River – Direct Phosphorus

  13. Potomac River – NPS Nitrogen

  14. Potomac River – Direct Nitrogen

  15. Potomac River – NPS Phosphorus

  16. Potomac River – Direct Phosphorus

  17. Susquehanna at Conowingo – NPS Nitrogen

  18. Susquehanna at Conowingo – Direct Nitrogen

  19. Susquehanna at Conowingo – NPS Phosphorus

  20. Susquehanna at Conowingo – Direct Phosphorus

  21. Future Trend Factors • Nutrient management/Soil testing • Phytase in Poultry • Precision feeding of cattle • Enhanced nutrient management, nutrient trading

  22. Fertilizer Sales Versus Crop Need

  23. Phytase Reduction in Poultry Litter α – No breakdown of percentages between species, turkey normally has higher P excretions/unit waste. β - Pennsylvania submitted results of assessment given by a feed industry representative, est. 90% adoption. γ - Post-phytase data for West Virginia data was for the period 2001 to 2004, assume phytase adoption overlap.

  24. Summary • In Bay watershed as a whole: Nitrogen total has increased slightly from early 1990s to present day, Phosphorus total has decreased slightly from an early 1990 peak. • In tributaries: mixed bag, some increases, some decreases. • Point Source phosphorus seems to be trending up. • Density of Nitrogen on a per acre basis has increased slightly for ag. Land. • Phosphorus decrease on a per acre basis on ag. land. • Density of application of N and P on urban land has increased substantially (20-50%).

More Related