This document discusses water quality trading between point and non-point sources to reduce phosphorus levels. It outlines the challenges in quantifying phosphorus losses from different agricultural settings and sources. Farmers want to see real data on phosphorus levels and be involved in developing solutions. The document evaluates phosphorus losses from different farms and management practices through monitoring and suggests collaboration is needed between all parties to improve water quality.

1. Water Quality Trading in
the Agricultural Community
Dennis Frame
Professor, UW – Extension
Director, UW – Discovery Farms

2. Purpose of This Presentation
 Discuss the reasons for, the challenges
with and the possibilities of developing
point/non-point trading programs
 Evaluate phosphorus losses from
different farms and settings
 Discuss what point sources need/want

4. Water Quality Targets
 Total Phosphorus
 0.1 mg/l for non-wadable rivers
and estuary
 0.075 mg/l for wadable streams

5. Water Quality Targets
 In this watershed you are
evaluating sources of phosphorus
and developing reduction targets
 Point sources
 Non-point sources
 Natural sources
 Background levels

6. Water Quality Targets
 The question is, can point sources
afford to reduce phosphorus losses
to achieve the new requirements?
 If not, how can they be achieved?

7. Water Quality Trading
 Can a process be developed
where point sources can trade
with non-point sources to
achieve an overall reduction in
phosphorus?

8. Water Quality Trading
 Can a process be developed where point sources can trade
with non-point sources to achieve an overall reduction in
phosphorus?
 Will changes in management show up
in water quality?
 Annual variation
 Lack of precision in ag

10. Point Sources
 Easy to sample
 Easy to get flow rates
 Therefore, relatively easy to calculate
nutrient loads

11. Nonpoint Sources
 Nonpoint source pollution, unlike
pollution from industrial and sewage
treatment plants, comes from many
diffuse sources.

12. Nonpoint Sources
 NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or
snowmelt moving over and through the
ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up
and carries away pollutants, finally
depositing them into lakes, rivers,
wetlands, coastal waters, and even our
underground sources of drinking water.

13. Background
 A Dodge County Farmer:
“I believe that all farmers are concerned about
nutrients moving. We want to see real data---
not something manufactured by someone
behind a desk in an office.”

14. Background
 I start with this quote because you
cannot solve a problem until all the
people involved in the challenge take
ownership of the problem.

15. Background
 I start with this quote because you cannot solve a problem until all the people
involved in the challenge take ownership of the problem.
 What I believe and “know”;
 What you believe and “know”;
 Is not as important as what the people and
businesses living in the watershed think, believe
and know!

17. Total phosphorus yield, in pounds per
acre
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
SW1, 2005
SW1, 2006
SW1, 2007
SW2, 2004 Mean
SW2, 2005
SW2, 2006
Frozen ground
SW2, 2007
SW2, 2008
Non-frozen ground
Pioneer, 2003
Pioneer, 2004
Pioneer, 2005
Pioneer, 2006
Pioneer, 2007
Pioneer, 2008
SE1, 2006
SE1, 2007
SE1, 2008
NE1, 2004
NE1, 2005
NE1, 2006
NE1, 2007
NE1, 2008
NE2, 2005
NE2, 2006
Phosphorus Loss - Summary
NE2, 2007
NE2, 2008

18. Distribution of event-mean total P concentration 2003 - 08

22. Koepke
Koepke
Farms, Inc.
KP3 (Surface) Annual P and Sediment Loss Surface phosphorus loss
7 280
was higher in corn years
6 240 (FY06, FY08) vs the
DRP
soybean year (FY07)
Phosphorus yield (lbs/acre)
Sediment yield (lbs/acre)
5 Particulate P 200
Sediment
4 160 Dissolved phosphorus
3 120 was the dominant form
of P loss
2 80
1 40 Total P loss was not
0 0
strongly linked to
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 sediment
C SB C
The average total phosphorus loss for the
surface basin was 3.1 pounds/acre/year

23. Koepke
Koepke
Farms, Inc.
Tile Phosphorus Loss: Concentrations and
Loads FY2005* FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
KP1 Alfalfa Alfalfa Corn grain Corn silage Soybean
Concentration 0.03 mg/L 0.01 – 0.22 0.01 – 1.17 0.01 – 2.60 0.01 – 0.04
Range (Avg.) (0.03 mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
(0.04 mg/L) (0.15 mg/L) (0.38 mg/L) (0.02 mg/L)
Load 0.01 lbs 1.5 lbs 10.8 lbs 36.1 lbs -----
KP2 Corn silage Corn grain Soybean Corn silage Alfalfa
Concentration 0.02 – 1.02 0.01 – 2.02 0.00 – 0.57 0.01 – 5.59 0.01 – 0.06
Range (Avg.) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
(0.14 mg/L) (0.23 mg/L) (0.13 mg/L) (0.78 mg/L) (0.03 mg/L)
Load 0.01 lbs 9.5 lbs 10.3 lbs 52.8 lbs -----
*Annotates partial year of sampling
Annotates only monthly base flow sampling

24. Koepke
Koepke
Farms, Inc.
Speciation of Total Tile Phosphorus Loss
Phosphorus Loss
1. The majority of P lost during the
23%
monitoring period on this farm was
Particulate P
dissolved P. 77% Dissolved P
Total Surface Phosphorus Loss
18%
Particulate P 2. This farm’s no-till cropping system
82% Dissolved P greatly reduces sediment loss.

25. Koepke
Koepke
Farms, Inc.
Conclusions
 Average total P loss for the surface basin (KP3)
during the monitoring period was 3.1
pounds/acre/year; typically occurred at
snowmelt and spring runoff (March, April) and
during large runoff events through the year.
 The contributing area for tile drainage systems
could not be determined; P yields could not be
generated. Raw water sample concentrations
and loads were used to identify trends in water
quality data.

26. Koepke
Koepke
Farms, Inc.
Conclusions
 Tile total P loss under alfalfa was lower than corn
and soybeans.
 Increases in total P concentration and loads in tile
lines were correlated to recent manure applications.
The timing of manure applications likely had a role
in the timing of P loss, especially in the dissolved
form, on this farm.

28. Surface Phosphorus Loss by Basin
4.5 FY2004 frozen ground
4 FY2004 non-frozen ground
3.5 FY2005 frozen ground
3 FY2005 non-frozen ground
Yield (lbs/acre)
FY2006 frozen ground
2.5
FY2006 non-frozen ground
2
Site P2 removed
FY2007 frozen ground
Not sampled
1.5
FY2007 non-frozen ground
1
FY2008 frozen ground
0.5
FY2008 non-frozen ground
0
P1 P2 P3
The average total phosphorus loss for all surface basins during the monitoring period
was 1.8 pounds/acre/year.

29. Tile Phosphorus Loss
Tile Phosphorus Loss by Basin
1.4
FY2005 frozen ground
1.2
FY2005 non-frozen ground
1.0
FY2006 frozen ground
Yield (lbs/acres)
0.8 FY2006 non-frozen ground
0.6 FY2007 frozen ground
0.4 FY2007 non-frozen ground
0.2 FY2008 frozen ground
0.0 FY2008 non-frozen ground
P4 P5
Total phosphorus loss - tile basins = 0.9 pounds/acre/year
• As water moves through the soil, it carries phosphorus with it through the preferential
flow paths and soil profile.

30. Surface vs. Tile Comparison
4-yr Basin Average: Total Phosphorus Loss
Tile: 0.9 pounds/acre/year average
Surface
Tile
34%
66%
Surface:
1.8 pounds/acre/year average
Tile phosphorus loss was 34 percent of the combined total loss.
Some phosphorus is lost via tile, but surface loss is the most dominant phosphorus
pathway in these agricultural landscapes.

31. Basin Comparison
Total Phosphorus Loss by Basin
6
5
Surface Tile
4
Yield (lbs/acre)
3
2
1
0
P1/P4 P3/P5 P1/P4 P3/P5 P1/P4 P3/P5 P1/P4 P3/P5
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008

32. Collaboration
 Water quality cannot be improved
without everyone being involved and
being part of the solution.
 Every acre counts!
 Every source matters!!!

33. Challenges with Trading
 How do we estimate the current levels of loss
(P-index, APEX, SWAT, etc.)?
 How do we accurately predict reductions?
 How do we account for variations based on
weather, farming system and management?

34. Challenges with Trading
 The producers who are looking to get engaged
with trading are probably the ones with the lowest
levels of loss.
 Can they make changes that reduce losses to a level
that is measurable in water quality?
 Farmers want to protect water quality –
they need to be involved throughout the
process.

35. Bragger Base Flow Samples
Total P, WY02 - WY08
TP Concentration, mg/L
Dam Installed
0.40
North TP
0.35
0.30
South TP
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Mar-02
Mar-08
Sep-02
Dec-04
Oct-03
Jul-06
Oct-08
Jan-01
Jan-06
Jun-05
Feb-07
Apr-03
May-04
Aug-01
Aug-07