Physical Environment Environmental Quality Built Environment Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Nutrient Best Management

Health Factors: Environmental Quality
Decision Makers: Government - State, Schools
Evidence Rating: Expert Opinion
Population Reach: 10-19% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Nutrient management plans help optimize use of on-farm sources of nutrients (e.g., manure and residual nutrients from previous crops) by matching nutrient applications to crop needs, allowing a reduction in commercial fertilizer use while maintaining soil productivity and crop yields. Plans focus largely on nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). 

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased contaminated sedimentation
Decreased leaching of nitrogen and other fertilizers into ground and surface waters
Decreased soil erosion/sedimentation in water
Increased regularity of soil testing on farms

Evidence of Effectiveness

Koul 2004 and AFT find that the American Farmland Trust (AFT) program reduces nutrient use an average of 24%. Shepard 2005 finds that WI farmers with plans apply less total N & P than farmers without plans; 37% of farmers with plans over-applied N vs. 62% without plans and 48% with plans over-applied P vs. 57% without plans.

Implementation Examples

United States

The American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a national organization that helps farmers improve conservation efforts. The organization produces a package of best practices for purchase. the federal government requires all Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to have Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) by 2009; plans are voluntary for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs).

Wisconsin

Wisconsin requires all Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) with permits to have a nutrient management (NM) plan as of Jan 1, 2008. According to 2005 article by Shepard, 53% of farmers in two Wisconsin watersheds had NM plans in 2000.

Citations - Evidence

AFT - American Farmland Trust (AFT). Agricultural conservation innovation center. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.farmland.org/programs/environment/solutions/bmp-challenge.asp
Koul 2004 - Koul O, Dhaliwal GS, Cuperus GW, eds. Integrated pest management: Potential, constraints and challenges. Pest Management Science. 2005;61:515-6.
Shepard 2005 - Shepard R. Nutrient management planning: Is it the answer to better management? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2005;60(4):171-6. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.swcs.org/documents/filelibrary/journal_of_soil__water/Robin_Shepard_July05_011006124754.pdf

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities