The Tree
T h e U W D i s c o ve r y Fa r m s N e w s l e t t e r
Spring 2012
WHAT IS DISCOVERY FARMS WORKING ON? Written by Amber Radatz and Dennis Frame
O
ver the past couple years, the staff members of UW-Discovery Farms have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into writing up the data collected from the first generation of core farms. These farms were instrumental in providing data that is helping our program to answer many of the questions plaguing those of us working on agricultural non-point pollution including: 99 How much soil leaves the field under various management conditions; 99 How do losses from tile drainage systems compare to surface losses; 99 How much phosphorus is moving off fields and under what conditions; 99 How much of the phosphorus leaving the field is tied to soil particles versus dissolved;
continued on page 6
INSIDE
What is Discovery Farms working on?.............................. 1 Jersey Valley Watershed: 2010-2011 Edge of Field Data Summary.............................................................................. 1 Director’s Column: The Trouble with Winter in Wisconsin. ................................................................................................ 2 2010-2011 Nutrient Management Farmer Education Grant Program Review................................................................... 4
JERSEY VALLEY WATERSHED: 2010-2011 EDGE OF FIELD DATA SUMMARY Written by Amber Radatz
D
ata collection started at monitoring stations in Jersey Valley Watershed (JV) and Dry Run Creek Watershed (DRC) during the fall of 2010. In JV, there are four monitoring sites located in agricultural fields, one in a non-cultivated wooded area, and another within a culvert that drains water from part of the City of Cashton. There are two additional sites that are within the stream channel, the first located where the stream is not perennial, or constantly flowing, and the second is just above Jersey Valley Lake, in an area of the stream that is continued on page 3
Director’s Column: The Trouble with Winter in Wisconsin Aside from the common disturbances like snow-covered and slippery roads, hours spent plowing and shoveling, frozen pipes and brain-freezing cold temperatures, the trouble with winter in Wisconsin is that it is totally unpredictable from year to year.
Monitoring site in Jersey Valley, February 2011
Here are a few facts about last year’s winter (2010-2011): 99 Most of Wisconsin received a heavy dose of snow (at least a foot and up to several feet) starting in early December. 99 Most of the snowpack didn’t melt until March, leaving us with considerable snow cover for several months. 99 The average daily mean temperature of winter 2010-2011 (December 1-March 1) was 16.6 degrees Fahrenheit at our weather station near Cashton, WI. 99 The soil temperature probes at this same weather station showed frost depth somewhere around 1 foot below the soil surface.
Let’s compare that to this winter (2011-2012):
Same site as above, February 2012
99 Very little snow, and the soil was not consistently covered by snowpack during any single month this winter. 99 The average daily mean temperature of winter 2011-2012 (December 1-March 1) was 25.6 degrees Fahrenheit at our weather station near Cashton, WI. 99 The soil temperature probes at this same weather station showed frost depth somewhere around 1 foot below the soil surface. 99 A few rain events in February and March. 99 Lots more time and options available for manure management: 1. Soil was open so manure spread could bind with soil particles and not just sit on top of snowpack. 2. Lack of snow cover provided good access to fields that normally would be impossible to spread on. 3. Lack of snow provided conditions with little runoff. 99 There were several times during the winter months when producers were able to look at the weather forecasts and make decisions on where and when to spread manure. This year’s weather conditions provided producers with the flexibility to make the right decisions. 99 The dry fall and warm spring and summer-like temperatures of March have dried out fields and moved us from the frozen ground/snowmelt period, into a period to prepare fields for growth.
A winter like the one we just experienced is one of the main reasons that the UW-Discovery Farms Program has worked with farmers and elected officials to not implement a rule package that would prohibit spreading during certain calendar dates (November 1 April 1). There were several weeks during the past winter when the conditions were suitable for manure spreading, and storing manure during these conditions and spreading during the spring would not necessarily reduce the risk of runoff. Hats off to the thousands of farmers who dealt with manure during the past winter in a manner that protected the environment. While we all know that there are always improvements that can be made in any business, many of you have already made significant changes to make your farms more sustainable. Have a safe and productive spring.
Dennis Frame 2 The Tree -Spring 2012
continued from Jersey Valley Watershed: 2010-2011 Edge of Field Data Summary on page 1 perennial and supports a healthy trout population. In DRC, there are two monitoring sites located in agricultural fields, three sites within the Willow River, monitoring perennial flow, and one station in an intermittent stream. In addition to the water quality monitoring sites, UW-Discovery Farms has installed weather stations within the watersheds that record precipitation, wind speed and direction, air temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, and soil moisture and temperature.
Runoff Volume
The information presented in this article comes from data collected in JV for field year 2011, the first complete year. Similar information for DRC will be presented in the next newsletter. This information is totally based on data from the edge of field sites, no stream data is included. It is important to consider that the information presented here is from only one year of data, and that year was below average in precipitation. Through past Discovery Farms research, we have seen that the timing and amount of precipitation in any given year can greatly impact the amount of annual runoff volume, and nutrient and sediment loss. Final conclusions shouldn’t be made from the preliminary information presented here, but rather use these data as a point of context for information gained in future years.
There were considerable differences between runoff volumes from the edge of field sites within this watershed. While it is difficult to pinpoint the cause of these differences with only one year of data, the soil type, geology and landscape characteristics, vegetative cover, and the lack of large storm events seemed to have the greatest influences overall. The average runoff was 1.97 inches. Most of the runoff occurred when the soil was frozen, but the lower than average rainfall during the non-frozen period and the lengthy periods between rain events surely played a role. The volume of runoff as a percentage of precipitation on average across the edge of field sites in JV was 7%, which is very similar to runoff values from past Discovery Farms sites across the state (8%).
Precipitation
Sediment Loss
The total precipitation measured from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011 in the watershed was 29 inches, about 3.4 inches (10%) below the 30-year average precipitation of 3 State Average 32.4 inches. 2.5 Jersey Valley Average However, the snowfall 2 total was sig1.5 nificantly above aver1 age (approx0.5 imately 45% more than 0 the average depth). March, June, and September were the only months with higher than average precipitation; and rainfall during August was much lower than normal.
Since the majority of Jersey Valley Average 700 runoff occurred dur600 ing the frozen ground period, sedi500 ment losses at the 400 edge of field sites are correspondingly low. 300 The average sedi200 ment loss was 42 lbs/ acre. Even the site 100 with the highest sed0 iment loss (125 lbs/ acre) had a very low total when compared to the average of 670 lbs/acre we have measured at sites around the state during the 2003 - 2008 time period.
Surface Runoff (inches)
Suspended Sediment Loss (pounds per acre)
800
3 The Tree -Spring 2012
State Average
water quality and 8 land management 7 practices in a small State Average 6 Jersey Valley Average watershed in Western Wisconsin in co5 operation with the 4 community of peo3 ple that live and 2 work there. The 1 study watershed is 0 typical of the surrounding area, both in topography and land uses. The study will be in place for five to seven years.
3
Phosphorus loss (pounds per acre)
Phosphorus Loss
State Average
Nitrogen loss (pounds per acre)
Total phosphorus reJersey Valley Average fers to the combined 2 total of the particulate (bound to soil particles), and dissolved 1 forms. On average, past Discovery Farms sites around the state 0 averaged 2 lbs/acre of total phosphorus loss, with about half of this loss occurring as dissolved P and half as particulate. During field year 2011, total phosphorus loss in JV averaged 0.5 lb/ acre. As mentioned previously, sediment losses were low, so the vast majority of the phosphorus lost was in the dissolved form. Dissolved phosphorus losses occur more commonly in the frozen ground period, and approximately 60% of the phosphorus loss was measured during the wintertime.
For more information on the first year of data from the Jersey Valley Watershed, please visit our website and check out the Jersey Valley Watershed page. §
Nitrogen Loss Total nitrogen refers to the combined total of ammonium, nitrate, and organic nitrogen. At UW-Discovery Farms sites around the state, we’ve found an average loss of 7 lbs/acre through surface water compared to an average total nitrogen loss of 2.4 lbs/acre in JV. As was the case with total phosphorus, approximately 60% of the total nitrogen lost was during the frozen ground period. The Jersey Valley Watershed Project is a study of the
2010-2011 NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FARMER EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM REVIEW Kevan Klingberg, UWEX - Discovery Farms Program
N
utrient management planning remains at the forefront of issues facing Wisconsin livestock and crop producers as they interact with federal, state and local conservation agencies. The need for producers to develop and implement nutrient management plans has grown substantially as a requirement of government conservation and agricultural programs, zoning, livestock siting ordinances, and animal feeding operation permits. Improved nutrient management practices can enhance farm profits and reduce detrimental impacts of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus on water quality. A training need exists to teach farmers the basic requirements of nutrient management plan (NMP) development and the foundational principals of soil fertility, crop nutrition and nutrient crediting. The Nutrient Management Farmer Education Grant Program (formerly referred to as Multi-Agency Land and Water Education Grant – MALWEG) began in 1997 to encourage integration of educational programming into local 4 The Tree -Spring 2012
Wisconsin conservation efforts. Nutrient management education has been targeted and local projects seek competitive grants to deliver training. Projects are led by their own uniquely defined team, often including staff from county University of Wisconsin–Extension (UWEX), county USDA-NRCS and Land Conservation Departments, UW Nutrient and Pest Management (NPM) Program, and WI Technical Colleges.
The seventeen projects instructed more than 250 producers operating over 75,000 acres in 21 counties on nutrient management principals. Specifically, these local efforts achieved the following:
For the most recent projects that have wrapped up their work, this training grant provided $175,000 for 17 local projects that were active through 2010-2011. These projects delivered nutrient management training to more than 250 Wisconsin farmers. This mix of classroom and on-farm activities assisted farmers to develop their own nutrient management plan based on the USDA Nutrient Management Standard 590. Training is based upon the UWEX Nutrient Management Farmer Education Curriculum. Staff from the University of Wisconsin Discovery Farms Program and Environmental Resources Center provides statewide leadership and assistance for local projects.
99 181 SNAP-Plus NMPs were completed on 53,934 acres,
99 139 manure spreaders were calibrated, 99 235 NMPs meeting the NRCS 590 specifications were completed on 67,550 acres,
99 54 handwritten NMPs were completed on 13,616 acres, 99 21 NMPs that do not fully meet the NRCS 590 specifications were completed on 12,172 acres, and 99 26 producers participated in some or all of the training yet did not complete a plan. The following excerpts are from the 2010-2011 final reports that each project submits: “Our workshops are a multi-agency effort. Land Conservation staff spearheads the workshops with support from UW-Extension, NRCS and Discovery Farms;
Although each project is unique, local training efforts aim at a common objective. Each farmer receives about 20 hours of instruction including workshops focusing on crop nutrition, soil fertility and nutrient crediting associated with nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as nutrient management environmental regulations; on-farm assistance to evaluate livestock manure practices, soil & water conservation; and a session to finalize nutrient management plans. A key point in this process is that producers voluntarily participate in small groups and 1:1 activities, utilizing their own information and management goals to actively develop their own nutrient management plan. The end product is a plan that is owned, understood and implementable as a result of farmers participating in the process.
These workshops do more to put conservation and nutrient management practices on the land for a minimal cost than other regulatory programs; Our progress to meet the WI runoff rules hinges upon a solid and continuing NM education program; On-farm activities seal the success of this training program. Each producer has a unique enterprise and it is critical that we spend individual time with them so they understand details of their plan and how to implement it;
The following county projects implemented nutrient management training activities through the 2010-2011 grant cycle: Barron, Calumet, Dane, Dodge, Door, Dunn, Fond du Lac, Grant, Green, Lafayette, Manitowoc, St. Croix, , Sauk, Chippewa Valley Tech College, Northcentral Tech College (Marathon, Taylor, Clark, and Lincoln), Western Tech College (Trempealeau), and Western Tech College (Vernon).
We created a chart using current fertilizer prices to show the value of manure. The chart was used to show the importance of soil testing and became a talking point for how nutrient management is both environmentally and economically beneficial;
Along with being awarded $175,000, an additional $400,000 of in-kind support was identified by these counties and technical colleges to be provided toward individual training projects.
One landowner was skeptical of UW nitrogen recommendations on soils defined as having a lower yield potential. He worked with our UWEX 5
The Tree -Spring 2012
Ag Agent to set up a field trial. In the end he was convinced that he was over applying nutrients and had more faith in the recommendations;
Nutrient management planning is a journey that takes time for complete adoption. The fact that a NM plan does not completely meet the 590 standard when initially developed does not mean the plan is bad or that it will not be closer to being compliant in future years.”
This program brings knowledge to landowners on how to credit nutrients and see where they may be over applying. In this economy, this is a great crop production lesson we can provide, and the environmental benefits achieved are priceless;
In September 2011, UW-Extension staff conducted a request for proposals and began working with 9 new grant contracts totaling $62,813 to provide similar nutrient management training. Counties that have local projects active through 2012 include: Calumet, Dane, Dodge, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Jefferson, Polk, and Northcentral Technical College: Marathon, Taylor, Clark and Lincoln. §
Farmers say this is the most they have ever learned about soil and plant nutrition; Crop consultants and farmers have increased their knowledge of karst features (exposed bedrock, sink holes, etc) through the grant sponsored workshops; and
continued from What is Discovery Farms working on? on page 1 99 How much nitrogen is moving off fields and under what conditions; and 99 What forms of nitrogen do we see leaving the field and under what conditions does this occur? These are just some of the things that have been learned on our first generation farms. This might not seem like a big breakthrough, but compared to the lack of information that existed before we began the program, this data provides a tremendous background of information that allows us to compare farms and management practices. It also allows us to demonstrate the strong commitment that many farmers have made to protect the environment. The result of this endeavor is a wealth of information available as factsheets and other compact, easily readable formats. You can access any of this information on our website or by calling our office at (715) 983-5668 to request printed copies.
improvements in water quality.” This is not a simple goal. There have been many watershed projects conducted not only in the country, but worldwide that have not been able to show changes in water quality related to management changes on the land.
So, what’s next? Most recently, you’ve read about the two watershed-scale projects started in 2010 to assess the impact of changes in land management on water quality in two small watersheds of Western Wisconsin. Through these watershed projects we hope to be able to “to demonstrate, with tangible data, a relationship between changes in land management and
In addition to the watersheds, we worked with our steering committee last fall to identify items and projects of priority for the program for the next few years. Our committee worked hard to identify issues that are both current and emerging in agriculture. Many of 6
The Tree -Spring 2012
these issues are interrelated, meaning that doing one study will provide valuable information on other environmental challenges. Below are our plans to address these priorities as budgets and workload allow. Nutrient Management in Wisconsin This was the number one priority as set by the steering committee. The underlying principle behind this priority is to make sure that we are asking the questions that most accurately portray where, how, and to what degree nutrient management is occurring in the state. The other important piece of this work is to determine a system that farmers can use to certify competency and implementation of the practices and strategies involved in managing nutrients in the most effective manner on their own operations. We are working in partnership with producers around the state, the state agencies, and others with interest and a wealth of experience with nutrient management in Wisconsin. A strength of our program is that we will be able to tie the recommendations and implementation of nutrient management practices with tangible water quality and land management data in our watershed projects.
take place will be chosen by July 1, and equipment will be installed this summer with the goal of data collection after at least one haylage harvest and corn silage harvest. The project will be in place for several years so that a wide range of weather conditions, silage moistures, and storage conditions are evaluated. Some funding for this project will be provided through support from a partnership with the Wisconsin DNR. For sample analysis, we will partner with the UW-Madison Soils and Biological Systems Engineering Departments as they have the equipment and capacity to test samples for the proposed constituents.
Leachate from Silage and/or High Moisture By-Products Over the past fifteen to twenty years, an increasing number of Wisconsin livestock operations are shifting towards feed storage systems that allow for rapid harvest and proper storage of large quantities of feed in horizontal storage systems (bunkers, piles or bags). Silage (either corn or hay) harvested at moisture levels that provide for adequate ensiling; no matter the storage system, can produce leachate. If leachate leaves the storage area and ultimately enters waters of the state, it has the potential to be a significant pollutant. Silage leachate has been shown to have a higher biological oxygen demand and lower pH than liquid dairy manure.
Continuing Projects and Efforts In addition to these projects, we will continue the work in the two watershed-scale projects and also work to finish the process of graduating the initial core farms and special projects. The reports for the Heisner Farm will be available this month, and work has begun on the final factsheets for Riechers Beef and Bragger Family Dairy. By the end of 2013, all initial core farms and projects will be finalized, and materials from the new and current projects will be available. During 2012 and 2013, we will work with producer groups, agricultural professionals, and agency personnel to implement an information and education program which uses information highlighted in the finalized graduation reports and other factsheets. For the first time in program history, we are able to develop materials comparing data across farming systems and areas of the state to further refine the recommendations and management suggestions for Wisconsin’s agricultural producers. §
This topic was identified as a priority by the steering committee because it is an issue of concern both for the livestock industry and the agency in charge of overseeing the systems, the Wisconsin DNR. The need for, design criteria, and effectiveness of several different collection and treatment systems will be assessed. Over the next several months, an advisory committee of producers, agency personnel, and design engineers will be brought together to ensure that the study will provide data and information suitable to answer the questions posed by all stakeholders. Farms where research will 7
The Tree -Spring 2012
PIGEON FALLS, WISCONSIN 54760 NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
University of Wisconsin
PERMIT NO. 2
Cooperative Extension Trempealeau County Discovery Farms PO Box 429, 40195 Winsand Drive Pigeon Falls, WI 54760-0429
Return Service Requested
Director Dennis Frame 715-983-2257 drframe@wisc.edu Outreach Specialists Kevan Klingberg 715-983-2240 kevan.klingberg@ces.uwex.edu Eric Cooley 608-235-5259 etcooley@wisc.edu Amber Radatz 608-235-5182 aradatz@wisc.edu Program Assistant Judy Goplin 715-983-5668 jgoplin@wisc.edu
This newsletter can be found on the web at: www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org
Data/Information Systems Susan Frame 715-983-5668 susan.frame@ces.uwex.edu Research Specialist Aaron Wunderlin 920-839-5431 aaron.wunderlin@ces.uwex.edu
Regarding the mailing list, call/e-mail 715-983-5668 or jgoplin@wisc.edu. UW Discovery Farms is a producer-led research and outreach program based out of the University of Wisconsin-Extension. The program is unique in that it conducts research on working farms located throughout Wisconsin, seeking to identify the impacts of production agriculture on water quality. The program is managed by faculty from the University of Wisconsin, along with oversight from a steering committee of producers, citizens and agency personnel representing a wide variety of non-profit and government organizations. Funding has been provided by the State of Wisconsin, UW-Extension, as well as a number of annual grants from producer groups and our federal partners. An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming, including Title IX and ADA requirements. Request for reasonable accommodation for disabilities or limitations should be made prior to the date of the program or activity for which it is needed. Publications are available in alternative formats upon request. Please make such requests as early as possible by contacting the Discovery Farms office at 715-983-5668 so proper arrangements can be made.