Table ES-l (continued)
Vegetated
filter strips
Phosphorus
1.69
Ecoregion 63
.84
.47
(lower basin)
Phosphorus
.22
Ecoregion 65
.83
.19
.02
.13
Ecoregion 63
Phosphorus
9.11
2.80.
Conventional
no
Terraces
.47
.43
(lower
.38
.81
.42
NA Not applicable
These estimates do not include a safety factor.
Ranges: The spread in the cost-effectiveness ranges
animal waste management practices is primarily due to the variability in nutrient requirements of
the crops that receive animal waste appllcatlon. Crops that require greater
manure application are also prone to lose more of the waste nutrients
to runoff and subsurface drainage. The less expensive end
the cost-effectiveness range represents crops with high
of
Bermudagrass). The more expensive end of the range
crops with tower agronomic rates of
(e.g., small grains). Additionally, the
phosphorus cost-effectiveness range for animal waste practices is also drtven by the variability in N:P ratios in land-applied wastes. The agronomic
application rate for animal wastes is typically based only on the nitrogen content of the waste. The N:P ratio for different forms of swine and
wastes
ranges from
to
This variability is incorporated into the calculations for the phosphorus cost-effectiveness range.
The cost-effectiveness ranges for non-animal waste practices are driien by the
in
modeling
that are in ecoregions common
the Tar
Previous Page
