cropping systems and soil fertility

s

Greenbook 2001Greenbook 2001Greenbook 2001Greenbook 2001Greenbook 2001Sustaining Agricultural LSustaining Agricultural LSustaining Agricultural LSustaining Agricultural LSustaining Agricultural Landscapesandscapesandscapesandscapesandscapes

!"#$%&'(")'*+,-(."(/0#'1%$.2+0-+$#'3$4%$(5Minnesota Department of Agriculture

90 West Plato BoulevardSt. Paul, Minnesota 55107

651-296-7673

!"#$%&''(

)*+,-.$/%01%23$%4#$561%7#/%8"927-#70.$%:65-;".2"5$%<5*657+%827==

>#%7;;*5/7#;$%?-23%23$%:+$5-;7#9%@-23%A-970-.-2-$9%:;2B%7#%7.2$5#72-C$%=*5+%*=%;*++"#-;72-*#%-9%7C7-.70.$%",*#%5$D"$92EFFGH% (IJ''IK&LIMN&O

F3$%P-##$9*27%A$,752+$#2%*=%:65-;".2"5$%-9%7#%$D"7.%*,,*52"#-21%$+,.*1$5E

GREENBOOK 2001 • ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Introduction to the Greenbook 2001Introduction to the Greenbook 2001Introduction to the Greenbook 2001Introduction to the Greenbook 2001Introduction to the Greenbook 2001

I am pleased to introduce the 12th edition of the Greenbook. An annual publication of the MinnesotaDepartment of AgricultureJs Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program (ESAP), the Greenbookhighlights the results of creative and innovative farmers and researchers involved with our Sustainable

Agriculture On-Farm Demonstration Grant Program. These people are dedicated to helping makeMinnesota agriculture more profitable and environmentally friendly.

Greenbook 2001 can be very helpful as you consider making changes on your farm. The articles highlightresults of the projects and provide practical and technical information. Each article includes observationsand management tips from the people already trying the practices. Of course, these participants are alsowilling to talk about their experiences with you directly. Give them a call and visit with them about theirprojects.

This yearJs Greenbook also includes two essays on what agriculture provides to the natural environmentand our communities. Often, we think that agriculture provides only food and fiber on a global scale andwe overlook what agriculture provides at the local level. Minnesota farmers are protecting the environment,spending money in their communities, and providing healthy food right here for Minnesota residents.

The Greenbook also includes updates on other ESAP projects such as low-interest loans, soil qualityresearch, monitoring at the Big Woods Dairy at the Nerstrand-Big Woods State Park, integrated pestmanagement (IPM), organic farming, and animal mortality composting.

I hope you find this issue of the Greenbook interesting and full of new ideas.

Gene Hugoson, CommissionerMinnesota Department of Agriculture


TTTTTable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contents

EssaysAltieri, M.A., !"#$%&'()#$&*+$,(*-'./*$/0$1./+.2#)3.'4$.*$56).-(7'()# ........................................................ 5USDA, !"#$8(7'.97#$,(*-'./*3$/0$:;&77 ,&);3 ............................................................................................. 9

Sustainable Agriculture Grant Program<)&*'$=)/6)&;$>#3-).9'./* ............................................................................................................................ 11

Alternative CropsBuchholZ, Leland, ?*-)#&3.*6$@#+$A7/2#)$:##+$=)/+(-'./*$B4$:&'()&'./*$/0$=/77.*&'/)3 .......................... 13Buckwheat Growers,$,7/()$A/)*$&3$&*$57'#)*&'.2#$A)/9$C$!"#$1#*#0.'3$/0$D3.*6$A/)*$,7/E#) ............ 15Dease, Patty, >#2#7/9;#*'$&*+$A/*'.*(&'./*$/0$&$A/;;(*.'4$1&3#+$:(3'&.*&B7#$F)6&*.-<)/E#)G3$A//9#)&'.2#$H$8&)I#'.*6$:43'#; ............................................................................................. 17

Petrich, Curt, ="/39"/)(3$8/B.7.J&'./*$&*+$K##+$:(99)#33./*$B4$1(-IE"#&' ......................................... 20Runck, Willis, 8&*&6#+$=)/+(-'./*$/0$K//+3L6)/E*$&*+$:.;(7&'#+$K.7+$<.*3#*6 ................................. 24Streed, Erik, M3'&B7.3".*6$56)/0/)#3')4$>#;/*3')&'./*$:.'#3$.*$8.**#3/'& ................................................ 27^eithamer, Joshua, =)/9&6&'./*$/0$%&'.2#$<)&33#3$&*+$K.7+07/E#)3$0/)$:##+$=)/+(-'./* ........................ 30

Cropping Systems and Soil FertilityBecket, Tim & Geske, Jeremy, 59974.*6$8&*()#$'/$A/)*$&'$56)/*/;.-$@&'#3 ........................................... 33Cuomo, Greg, A#)#&7$@4#$0/)$@#+(-#+$?*9('$=&3'()#$M3'&B7.3";#*'$H$M&)74$<)&J.*6 ............................ 36FernholZ, Carmen, !#-"*.N(#3$0/)$8/)#$M00.-.#*'$D'.7.J&'./*$/0$$&$O#'-"A/2#)$A)/9$0/)$A/)*$=)/+(-'./* ................................................................................................................ 40

Hansen, Mike, P.2.*6$:*/E$,#*-#3$0/)$?;9)/2#+$=&3'()#$=)/+(-'./* ....................................................... 42Hansen, Neil, P&*+$5997.-&'./*$/0$8/)'&7.'4$A/;9/3'$'/$?;9)/2#$:/.7$H$K&'#)$Q(&7.'4 ........................ 45Hart, Andy, :/.7$A/*3#)2&'./*$/0$A&**.*6$A)/9$,.#7+3 ................................................................................ 48Heimpel, George, 1./7/6.-&7$A/*')/7$/0$570&70&$17/'-"$P#&0;.*#) ............................................................... 50boehler, Jeff, !()I#4$P.''#)R$$8/)#$.3$%/'$57E&43$1#''#) .............................................................................. 52Muller, Mark, D3.*6$%(').#*'$1&7&*-#3$'/$1#*#0.'$,&);#)3$&*+$'"#$M*2.)/*;#*' .................................... 54Persons, Daniel, =)/6)&;;&'.-$599)/&-"$'/$=&3'()#$@#*/2&'./*$0/)$A#77$<)&J.*6 ................................... 57Rauenhorst, Raymond, 5#).&7$:##+.*6$K.*'#)$@4#$.*'/$%/L'.77$A/)*$H$:/4B#&*3 ....................................... 59Rosen, Dr. Carl,$56).-(7'()&7$D3#$/0$@/-I$,.*#3$&3$&$:(3'&.*&B7#$:/.7$5;#*+;#*' .................................. 62Scaife, James, M3'&B7.3".*6$&$@/'&'./*&7$<)&J.*6$:43'#;$.*$&$:#;.LE//+#+$M-/343'#;R,)/3'$:##+.*6$23S$?;9&-'./*$:##+.*6$/*$A@=$P&*+$&*+$K//+#+$T.773.+#3$D3.*6$:"##9 ..................... 65

Sovell, James, ?*-)#&3#+$,/)&6#$=)/+(-'./*$!")/(6"$A/*')/7$/0$K&'#)$@(*/00$&*+%(').#*'$@#-4-7.*6 ........................................................................................................................................ 69

Thompson, Tony, 5$$P/EL-/3'$8#-"&*.3;$0/)$?*'#)L3##+.*6$A/2#)$A)/93$.*$A/)* ................................... 72colkmann, Norman & Sallie, 8&*&6.*6$>&.)4$8&*()#$%(').#*'3$.*$&$@#-4-7.*6$A/;9/3'$=)/6)&; ........ 74Wheeler, Donald, @#+(-.*6$A"#;.-&7$D3&6#$B4$D3.*6$:/4$F.7$/*$A/)*$H$:/4B#&*3 ................................ 78

Fruits and VegetablesAbaZs, David & Lise, ?*'#6)&'.*6$P.2#3'/-I$=)/0.'&B74$?*'/$&$,)(.'$&*+$O#6#'&B7#$F9#)&'./* ................ 83Adelmann, Jeffrey & Mary, O&7(#$5++.*6$'/$:;&77$,&);3$!")/(6"$=)/-#33.*6$MU-#33$=)/+(-'./* ......... 86Bailey, Pat, M2&7(&'.*6$'"#$1#*#0.'3$/0$A/;9/3'$!#&3$'/$'"#$:;&77$8&)I#'$<)/E#) ................................. 89Friend, Catherine & Peteler, Melissa, :(3'&.*&B7#$K##+$A/*')/7$.*$&$A/;;#)-.&7$O.*#4&)+ ..................... 92Hoover, Dr. Emily, 1./LB&3#+$K##+$A/*')/7$.*$:')&EB#)).#3$D3.*6$:"##9$K//7$8(7-"VA&*/7&$8(7-"$H$A&*/7&$<)##*$8&*()# .................................................................................................... 94


TTTTTable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contentsable of Contents

Midwest Food Connection, 8.+E#3'$,//+$A/**#-'./*R$A".7+)#*$8/*.'/)$/*$,&);3 ................................ 98Reding, Donald, O.&B.7.'4$/0$K.*#$Q(&7.'4$<)&9#3$&3$&*$57'#)*&'.2#$A)/9$0/)$'"#$,&;.74$,&); ........... 101Riehle, Joe,$A/2#)$A)/93$&*+$P.2.*6$8(7-"$0/)$:')&EB#))4$M3'&B7.3";#*' ............................................ 104Seim, Peter & Bacon, Bruce, :/.7$M-/7/64$&*+$8&*&6#+$:/.7$:()0&-#3 ...................................................... 108Wildung, Dr. David, ,7&;#$1()*.*6$0/)$K##+$A/*')/7$&*+$@#*/2&'./*$E.'"$:')&EB#)).#3 .................... 111

LivestockArndt, John & Leila, K/)I.*6$=)&.).#$L$@//'3$/0$'"#$=&3'$:(3'&.*.*6$'"#$,('()# ...................................... 117Carlton County Extension, =&3'()#$5#)&'./*$&*+$.'3$M00#-'3$/*$=)/+(-'.2.'4$D3.*6$&$O&).#'4$/0$?*9('3 . 120Dingels, Stephen & Patricia, O.&B.7.'4$/0$:').9$<)&J.*6$A/)*$?*'#)L3##+#+$E.'"$&<)&33WP#6(;#$8.U'()# .............................................................................................................................. 122

Harmon, Michael, ?*-)#&3.*6$Q(&7.'4$&*+$Q(&*'.'4$/0$=&3'()#$,/)&6#$E.'"$8&*&6#;#*'?*'#*3.2#$<)&J.*6$&3$&*$57'#)*&'.2#$'/$'"#$<)&J.*6$/0$K//+#+$P&*+ .................................................. 128

Miller, Dan & Cara, P/E$?*9('$A/*2#)3./*$/0$A@=$P&*+$'/$&$T.6"$=)/0.'&B.7.'4$8&*&6#;#*'?*'#*3.2#$<)&J.*6$&*+$T&4.*6$:43'#; ..................................................................................................... 131

Northwest Minnesota GraZing Group, :(997#;#*'$,##+.*6$>&.)4$A&''7#$/*$=&3'()#$E.'"5('/;&'#+$A/*-#*')&'#$,##+#) ................................................................................................................ 135

Rabe, Dennis, K"/7#$:43'#;$8&*&6#;#*'$23S$M*'#)9).3#$8&*&6#;#*' .................................................. 138Rathke, Doug & barstens, Connie, @#2.2.*6$&*+$M*"&*-.*6$:/.73$0/)$8&U.;.J.*6=#)0/);&*-#$/0$=&3'()#3$&*+$P.2#3'/-I .................................................................................................. 142

Rolling, Joseph, 5**(&7$8#+.-$&3$&$=)/'#.*$:/()-#$.*$<)&J.*6$A/)* ........................................................ 145Schiefelbein, Frank, <)&J.*6$1##0$A&''7#$&3$&$:(3'&.*&B7#$56).-(7'()#$=)/+(-'$.*[email protected]&).&*$5)#&3 ........ 148Schilling, Peter, 5++.*6$O&7(#$0/)$'"#$:;&77$=)/+(-#)$2.&$%&'()&7$=)/+(-'./*$8#'"/+3&*+$>.)#-'$8&)I#'.*6 ................................................................................................................................. 150

Stassen, Steve, ,&))/E.*6$A)&'#3$23S$=#*3$23S$%#3'$1/U#3 ......................................................................... 151Stelling, Ralph, ,/)&6#$=)/+(-'./*$'/$8&.*'&.*$F*#$8&'()#$5*.;&7$=#)$5-)#$0/)$XY$8/*'"3 ............... 153Struxness, Don & Dan, ,.)3'$&*+$:#-/*+$Z#&)$<)&J#)3$.*$&$Z#&)$@/(*+$=&3'()#$:#''.*6:#)2#+$B4$&$,)/3'$,)##$K&'#)$:43'#; ...................................................................................................... 155

Wright County Extension, ?;9)/2#;#*'$/0$=&3'()#3$0/)$T/)3#3$!")/(6"$8&*&6#;#*'$=)&-'.-#3 ......... 158

New Demonstration Grant Projects ..................................................................... 161Completed Grant Projects .................................................................................... 163Sustainable Agriculture Loan Program ................................................................ 166Animal Mortality Composting ............................................................................ 167Big Woods Dairy at Nerstrand � Big Woods State Park ....................................... 169Soil Quality and Rainfall Simulation .................................................................... 173The Organic Industry in Minnesota ..................................................................... 174Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program ....................................................... 176About the Staff..... ............................................................................................... 178

—— 5


Essay • Altieri

The Nature and FThe Nature and FThe Nature and FThe Nature and FThe Nature and Function ofunction ofunction ofunction ofunction ofBiodiversity in AgricultureBiodiversity in AgricultureBiodiversity in AgricultureBiodiversity in AgricultureBiodiversity in Agriculture

Today, scientists worldwide are increasinglystarting to recogniZe the role and

significance of biodiversity in the functioningof agricultural systems (Swift et al., 1996).Research suggests that whereas in naturalecosystems the internal regulation of functionis substantially a product of plant biodiversitythrough flows of energy and nutrients andthrough biological synergisms, this form ofcontrol is progressively lost under agriculturalintensification and simplification, so thatmonocultures, in order to function, must bepredominantly subsidiZed by chemical inputs(Swift et. al. 1996). Commercial seed-bedpreparation and mechaniZed planting replacenatural methods of seed dispersald chemicalpesticides replace natural controls on populationsof weeds, insects, and pathogensd and geneticmanipulation replaces natural processes of plantevolution and selection. Even decomposition isaltered since plant growth is harvested and soilfertility maintained, not through nutrientrecycling, but with fertiliZers.

One of the most important reasons formaintaining and/or encouraging naturalbiodiversity is that it performs a variety ofecological services (Altieri, 1991). In naturalecosystems, the vegetative cover of a forest orgrassland prevents soil erosion, replenishesground water, and controls flooding byenhancing infiltration and reducing water runoff.In agricultural systems, biodiversity performsecosystem services beyond production of food,fiber, fuel, and income. Examples include,recycling of nutrients, control of localmicroclimate, regulation of local hydrologicalprocesses, regulation of the abundance ofundesirable organisms, and detoxification ofnoxious chemicals. These renewal processesand ecosystem services are largely biological,therefore their persistence depends uponmaintenance of biological diversity. When thesenatural services are lost due to biologicalsimplification, the economic and environmentalcosts can be quite significant. Economically inagriculture, the burdens include the need tosupply crops with costly external inputs, since

Author

M. A. AltieriDepartment ofEnvironmental

Science Policy andManagementUniversity of

California -Berkeley

EssayInformation

Excerpted fromP".2-="#;2-*#7.A-+$#9-*#9%*=

4;*.*6-;7..1I079$/:65-;".2"5$%-#%Q72-#

:+$5-;7www.cnr.berkeley.edu/

fagroeco3/multifunctional

gdimensions.htmlRS#*2$% 23$

"#/$59;*5$%-#%23$70*C$%?$0%7//5$99T

agroecosystems deprived of basic regulatingfunctional components lack the capacity tosponsor their own soil fertility and pestregulation. As functional biodiversity decreases,the requirement for higher management intensityincreases, thus monocultures must be subsidiZedwith external inputs. Often, the costs involve areduction in the quality of the food producedand of rural life in general due to decreased soil,water, and food quality when erosion andpesticide and/or nitrate contamination occurs(Altieri, 1995).

Biodiversity refers to all species of plants,animals and microorganisms existing andinteracting within an ecosystem. Inagroecosystems, pollinators, natural enemies,earthworms, and soil microorganisms are all keybiodiversity components that play importantecological roles thus mediating processes suchas genetic introgression, natural control, nutrientcycling, decomposition, etc. The type andabundance of biodiversity in agriculture willdiffer across agroecosystems which differ inage, diversity, structure, and management. Infact, there is great variability in basic ecologicaland agronomic patterns among the variousdominant agroecosystems. In general, thedegree of biodiversity in agroecosystemsdepends on four main characteristics of theagroecosystems (Southwood and Way, 1970):

1. The diversity of vegetation within and aroundthe agroecosystem.

2. The permanence of the various crops withinthe agroecosystem.

3. The intensity of management.

4. The extent of the isolation of theagroecosystem from natural vegetation.

In general, agroecosystems that are morediverse, more permanent, isolated, and managedwith low input technology (i.e. agroforestrysystems, traditional polycultures) take fulleradvantage of work done by ecological processes

6 ——


Essay • Altieri

associated with higher biodiversity than highly simplified,input-driven and disturbed systems (i.e. modern row cropsand vegetable monocultures and fruit orchards) (Altieri,1995).

All agroecosystems are dynamic and subject to differentlevels of management so that the crop arrangements intime and space are continually changing in the face ofbiological, cultural, socio-economic, and environmentalfactors. Such landscape variations determine the degreeof spatial and temporal heterogeneity characteristic ofagricultural regions, which in turn conditions the type ofbiodiversity present.

According to candermeer and Perfecto (1995), two distinctcomponents of biodiversity can be recogniZed inagroecosystems. The first component, plannedbiodiversity, is the biodiversity associated with the cropsand livestock purposely included in the agroecosystem bythe farmer, and which will vary depending on managementinputs and crops spatial/temporal arrangements. Thesecond component, associated biodiversity, includes allsoil flora and fauna, herbivores, carnivores, decomposers,etc., that coloniZe the agroecosystem from surroundingenvironments and that will thrive in the agroecosystemdepending on its management and structure. Plannedbiodiversity has a direct function. Associated biodiversityalso has a function, but it is mediated through plannedbiodiversity. Thus, planned biodiversity also has an indirectfunction, which is realiZed through its influence on theassociated biodiversity. For example, the trees in anagroforestry system create shade, which makes it possibleto grow only sun-tolerant crops. So the direct function ofthis second species (the trees) is to create shade. ietalong with the trees might come small wasps that seek outthe nectar in the treeJs flowers. These wasps may in turnbe the natural parasitoids of pests that normally attack thecrops. The wasps are part of the associated biodiversity.The trees, then, create shade (direct function) and attractwasps (indirect function) (candermeer and Perfecto,1995).

The key is to identify the type of biodiversity that is desirableto maintain and/or enhance in order to carry out ecologicalservices, and then to determine the best practices that willencourage the desired biodiversity components. Thereare many agricultural practices that have the potential toenhance functional biodiversity, and others that negativelyaffect it. The idea is to apply the best management practicesin order to enhance and/or regenerate the kind ofbiodiversity that can subsidiZe the sustainability ofagroecosystems by providing ecological services such asbiological pest control, nutrient cycling, water and soilconservation, etc.

67#'0."8'/#-9##"'(%$4/.4).:#$,.-&'(")'5+0-.;+"2-.4"(0.-&<When agricultural development takes place in a naturalenvironment, it tends to result in a heterogeneous mosaicof varying types of habitat patches spread across thelandscape. The bulk of the land may be intensely managedand frequently disturbed for the purposes of agriculturalproduction, but certain parts (wetlands, riparian corridors,hillsides) may be left in a relatively natural condition, andother parts (borders and strips between fields, roadsides,and adjacent natural areas) may occasionally be disturbedbut not intensely managed. In addition, natural ecosystemsmay surround or border areas in which agriculturalproduction dominates (Gliessman, 1998).

The heterogeneity of the agricultural landscape variesgreatly by region. In some parts of Latin America, wherecommercial, export agriculture predominates, the heavyuse of agricultural chemicals, mechanical technology,narrow genetic lines, and irrigation over large areas havemade the landscape relatively homogenous. In such areas,the agricultural landscape is made up mostly of large areasof single crop agricultural production. The expansion ofsuch agricultural landscapes disrupts natural areas in threeimportant ways. First, natural ecosystems becomefragmented and important ecological linkages may bechanged or uncoupled. For example, the conversion ofuplands from native grasslands or deciduous forest tocotton will profoundly affect the nutrient and pesticideinputs into any adjacent wetlands. Second, thefragmentation increases boundary phenomena by increasingthe proportion of area that is near a boundary. This resultsin an exacerbation of the impacts from adjacent agriculture.Third, the absolute loss of natural areas generally meansthat the remaining patches are increasingly more distantfrom each other. Thus each remnant takes on more andmore the properties of oceanic islands in the sense thatsource areas for recoloniZation are often very distant. Thus,local extinction events for both species and genes areunlikely to be balanced by recoloniZation or gene flow.Unlike real islands, remnant patches of natural ecosystemsare highly vulnerable to invasion by weedy plants andanimals from surrounding agricultural lands and arevulnerable as well to perturbations created by agriculturalproduction practices (Fry, 1995).

In peasant dominated areas, the use of traditional farmingpractices with minimal industrial inputs has resulted in avaried, highly heterogeneous landscape-possibly even moreheterogeneous than would exist naturally. In suchheterogeneous environments, natural and semi-naturalecosystem patches included in the landscape can becomea resource for agroecosystems. An area of non-crop habitatadjacent to a crop field, for example, can harbor populationsof natural enemies which can move into the field and

—— 7


Essay • Altieri

parasitiZe or prey upon pest populations (Altieri, 1994).A riparian corridor vegetated by native plant species canfilter out dissolved fertiliZer nutrients leaching from cropfields, promote a presence of beneficial species, and allowthe movement of native animal species into and throughthe agricultural components of the landscape.

On the other hand, agroecosystems can begin to assume apositive rather than a negative role in preserving the integrityof natural ecosystems. Many small scale-diversifiedagroecosystems have been designed and managed in waysthat make them more friendly to native species. Forexample, by encouraging hedgerows, vertebrates can beprovided with large habitats, better food sources, andcorridors for movement. Native plants can have moresuitable habitats and find fewer barriers to dispersal.Smaller organisms, such as below ground microbes andinsects, can flourish in organically managed soils and thusbenefit other species since they are such important elementsin ecosystem structure and function (Gliessman, 1998).

By managing agricultural landscapes from the point of viewof biodiversity conservation as well as sustainableproduction, the multiple use capacity of agriculture can beenhanced providing several benefits simultaneously(Thrupp, 1998):

j increase agricultural productivitydj build stability, robustness, and sustainability of farming

systemsdj contribute to sound pest and disease managementdj conserve soil and increase natural soil fertility and soil

healthdj diversify products and income opportunities from farmsdj add economic value and increase net returns to farmsdj reduce or spread risks to individuals, communities, and

nationsdj increase efficiency of resource use and restore

ecological healthdj reduce pressure of agriculture on fragile areas, forests,

and endangered speciesdj reduce dependency on external inputsd and,j increase nutritional values and provide sources of

medicines and vitamins.

The effects of agrobiodiversity in mitigating extremeclimatic effects, such as the drought promoted by El NikoJswere recently evident in northern Honduras. Anagroforestry project reviving the lueZungal method, anancient agricultural system, spared about 84 farmingcommunities from destruction. Farmers using the methodlost only 10m of their crops in 1998Js severe drought, andactually obtained a grain surplus of 5-6 million pounds inthe wake of Hurricane Mitch. On the other hand, nearby

communities which continued the use of slash and burn,were severely affected by El Niko phenomena, which lefta legacy of human misery and destruction of vitallyimportant watersheds.

Such agroforestry programs which reduce deforestationand burning of plant biomass can provide a sink foratmospheric carbon dioxide and also considerably reduceemissions of nitrous oxide. Recent research shows thatpromoting techniques already familiar to thousands of smallfarmers in Latin America such as, crop rotation and cuttingback on chemical fertiliZers through the use of compostingcan act as important sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxidestoring it below the soil surface.

The benefits of agrobiodiversity in enhancing themultifunctional agriculture extend beyond the abovedescribed effects as shown by the impacts of shaded coffeefarms in Latin America. Farmers typically integrate intotheir coffee farms many different leguminous trees, fruittrees, and types of fuel wood and fodder. These treesprovide shade, a habitat for birds and animals that benefitthe farming system. In Mexico, shade coffee plantationssupport up to 180 species of birds, including migratingspecies, some of which play key roles in pest control andseed dispersal.

Learning how to manage an agriculture that promotes bothenvironmental as well as productive functions will requireinputs from disciplines not previously exploited byscientists, including agroecology, ethnoscience,conservation biology, and landscape ecology. The bottomline, however, is that agriculture must adopt ecologicallysound management practices, including diversifiedcropping systems, biological control and organic soilmanagement as replacements for synthetic pesticides,fertiliZers, and other chemicals. Only with such foundationcan we attain the goal of a multifunctional agriculture.

References

Altieri, M.A. 1991. F57/-2-*#7.%=75+-#6%-#%Q72-#%:+$5-;7EThe Ecologist 21:93-96.

Altieri, M.A. 1994. U-*/-C$59-21%7#/%,$92%+7#76$+$#2%-#765*$;*9192$+9E Haworth Press, New iork.

Altieri, M.A. 1995. :65*$;*.*61H% 23$% 9;-$#;$% *=9"927-#70.$%765-;".2"5$E Westview Press, Boulder.

Fry, G. 1995. Q7#/9;7,$%$;*.*61%*=%-#9$;2%+*C$+$#2%-#7570.$%$;*9192$+9E In: Ecology and integrated farmingsystems. D.M. Glen et al. (eds). John Wiley and Sons,

8 ——


Essay • Altieri

Bristol, Ub.

Gliessman, S.R. 1998. :65*$;*.*61H%%4;*.*6-;7.%,5*;$99-#%9"927-#70.$%765-;".2"5$E Ann Arbor Press, Michigan.

Swift, M.S., J. candermeer, P.S. Ramakrishnan, J.M.Anderson, C.b. Ong and B.A. Hawkins. 1996.U-*/-C$59-21%7#/%765*$;*9192$+%="#;2-*#E In: H.A. Mooneyet al. (eds.). Functional roles of biodiversity: A globalperspective. J. Wiley and Sons, N.i., pp. 261-298.

Thrupp, L.A. 1998. )".2-C72-#6% /-C$59-21H:65*0-*/-C$59-21% 7#/% =**/% 9$;"5-21E World ResourcesInstitute, Washington, DC.

candermeer, J. and I. Perfecto. 1995. U5$7V=792% *=0-*/-C$59-21H%F3$%25"23%70*"2%57-#=*5$92%/$925";2-*#E FoodFirst Books, Oakland, CA.

—— 9


Essay • USDA

8+7..% =75+9% ;7##*2% $W-92% -#% 7% C7;""+79% 5$.-;9% *=% /719% 6*#$% 01% ,5$9$5C$/% =*523$% 2*"5-929% *5% #*927.6-7% =*5% 3*?% +*92$C$51*#$X9%65$72%657#/,75$#29% .-C$/E% %8+7..=75+9% 75$% 7% C-27.% ="#;2-*#-#6% ,752% *=% 7?*5V-#6%.7#/9;7,$%2372%-#;."/$9%!$==$59*#-7#$#25$,5$#$"59% *=% 7..% V-#/9% Y% .*;7..1% *?#$/65*;$51% 92*5$9B% 67576$9B% +7;3-#$51/$7.$593-,9% 7#/%*23$5% 0"9-#$99$9% *,$572-#6*#%7%9-+-.75%9;7.$%79% 23$% =75+$59% 23$1%0*239$5C$%7#/%/$,$#/%*#E

n Clark Hinsdale, cermont Farmer

The USDA National Commission on SmallFarms describes small farms as farms with lessthan o250,000 gross receipts annually, on whichday-to-day labor and management are providedby the farmer and/or the farm family that ownsthe production or owns, or leases, the productiveassets. This description of small farms includesapproximately 94m of all U. S. farms. Thesefarms own 75m of the total productive assets inagriculture, mostly land, and receive 41m of allagricultural receipts. This description includes41m of all farmers who consider farming theirprimary occupation and an equal percentage offarmers that work part-time on the farm and relyon non-farm jobs as their primary source ofincome.

Economic statistics speak only to the “productoutput” of farms by measures of crop andlivestock sales and they likely underestimate theeconomic contributions of small farms. Thesenumbers do not reflect the social andenvironmental goods produced by a largenumber of small farms. Some of the functionsperformed by small farms and thus the publicvalues generated by small farms include:

j Diversity: Small farms embody a diversityof ownership, of cropping systems, oflandscapes, of biological organiZation, cultureand traditions. A varied farm structurecontributes to a diversity of cropping systemsand, therefore, to biological diversity. A largenumber of smaller farms contributes to a diverseand esthetically pleasing rural landscape and

EssayInformation

Excerpted from theUSDA, :%F-+$%2*

:;2. A Report of theUSDA NationalCommission on

Small Farms,January 1998. Thecomplete report is

available atwww.reeusda.gov/

agsys/smallfarm/ncosf.htm

open space, particularly appreciated by urbanpeople as well as rural neighbors. Connectionto the land has always been central to the spiritualand cultural values of our countryJs indigenouspeople. Additionally, widespread ownership ofland is an essential principle of our NationJsearliest public policies. And land ownership andfarming provided a foundation for communityand tradition for the new settlers and pioneerswho often fled from oppressive regimes to seekgreater opportunity in America.

j Environmental benefits: Approximately 60mof all farms are less than 180 acres in siZe,indicating that the majority of farmland ismanaged by a large number of small farmoperators. Responsible management of thenatural resources of soil, water, and wildlifeencompassed by these operations producessignificant environmental benefits for society toenjoy. Therefore, investment in the viability ofthese operations will yield dividends in thestewardship of the NationJs natural resources.

j Self-empowerment and communityresponsibility: DecentraliZed land ownershipproduces more equitable economic opportunityfor people in rural communities, as well asgreater social capital. Owner-operated farmstructures offer individual self-employment andbusiness management opportunities. This canprovide a greater sense of personal responsibilityand feeling of control over oneJs life,characteristics that are not as readily availableto factory line workers. Landowners who relyon local businesses and services for their needsare more likely to have a stake in the well-beingof the community and the well-being of itscitiZens. In turn, local landowners are more likelyto be held accountable for any negative actionsthat harm the community.

j Places for families: Farms, particularlyfamily farms, can be nurturing places for childrento grow up and acquire the values ofresponsibility and hard work. The skills offarming are passed from one generation toanother under family ownership structures. When

The Multiple FThe Multiple FThe Multiple FThe Multiple FThe Multiple Functions of Small Functions of Small Functions of Small Functions of Small Functions of Small Farararararmsmsmsmsms

10 ——


Essay • USDA

farm children do not return to farming because of theirdesire for more financially secure careers, a generation offarming knowledge, skills and experience is lost.

j Personal connection to food: With less than 2m of theNationJs population engaged in farming, most consumershave little connection to agriculture and food production.As a consequence, they have little connections with nature,except as a place for recreation, and lack an appreciationfor farming as cultivation of the earth for the production offood that sustains us. Through farmers markets, CommunitySupported Agriculture, and direct marketing strategies ofsmall farmers, people are beginning to connect with thepeople growing their food. Consumers are developingmeaningful, direct relationships with farmers and aconnection with food as a product of a farmerJs cooperationwith nature.

j Economic foundations: In some states and regions ofthe country, dispersed farm operations are key to economicvitality. Historically, decline in U. S. farm numbers weremore than offset by increases in productivity and output.However, this does not appear to be the case in places likeWisconsin, a state whose farm economy has beencharacteriZed by a large number of moderate-siZed family-operated dairy farms. Since 1988, total volume of milkproduced in the state has dropped and the real value ofgross sales has also decreased. The loss of dairy farms inthis case has meant a loss to the stateJs economic output.

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

—— 11


Sustainable Grant Program • Description

Program Purpose

The Grant Program provides a uniqueopportunity for farmers, non-profit groups,agricultural researchers, and educators acrossthe state to work together and explore ways ofenhancing the sustainability of farming systems.

Program Description

The Department has received over 900 grantapplications and has approved over o2 millionin funding for 208 projects since the programbegan in 1989. Sixteen new demonstration grantprojects proposed by farmers, educators, andresearchers were funded in 2001. Projectcategories include: Alternative Crops, Fruits andcegetables, Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility,and Livestock. This year there are 49 activegrant projects throughout the state of Minnesota.

Grants provide up to o25,000 for on-farmdemonstrations that last up to three years. Theprojects demonstrate farming methods orsystems that increase energy efficiency, reduceagricultural chemical usage and showenvironmental and economic benefits. ATechnical Review Panel, made up of farmers,university agricultural researchers, extensionagents, and educators, evaluate the applicationson a competitive basis. The panel, withassistance from thestaff of the Energyand SustainableA g r i c u l t u r eProgram, will makerecommendations tothe Commissioner ofAgriculture forapproval.

Field Days

The grant projectparticipants holdpublic field toursevery year to sharewhat they havelearned and

2001 GrantTechnical

Review Panel

Steve Dingels,Farmer,

Redwood Falls,Minnesota

bendall Dykhuis,Agronomist,

St. Louis CountyExtension

Richard Handeen,Farmer,

Montevideo,Minnesota

Linda Noble,Farmer,

benyon, Minnesota

Paul Peterson,Forage Specialist,

University ofMinnesota

Greg Reynolds,Farmer,

Delano, Minnesota

Carl Rosen, SoilScientist,

University ofMinnesota

Bruce condracek,Minnesota

Cooperative Fish &Wildlife Research

Unit

accomplished in their demonstrations. Typically,there are approximately 40 field days each yearwith funding from ESAP. Many of these projectswere sponsored in cooperation with countyextension services, Sustainable FarmingAssociation, Land Stewardship Project, StateTechnical Colleges, the University of Minnesota,local units of government, private colleges, andagribusinesses.

Unfortunately, the number of field days in 2001will be greatly reduced. With the threat of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, the ESAP staff decided itwas wise to cancel field days on farms withcloven hoofed animals. This will help preventthe accidental spread of the disease should itoccur in Minnesota. As an alternative to fielddays, grantees will be asked to share informationon their projects during farmer discussion forumsthroughout the coming months.

Grant Summaries

The project summaries that follow are briefdescriptions of objectives, methods, and findingsof individual grant projects funded over the lastthree years. To find out more details about theseprojects, contact the principal investigatorsdirectly through the listed telephone numbers andaddresses.

Summary of Grant Funding (1989-2001)

17144

1613

1419162019

231716

!"#

$280,000$189,000$46,000

$177,000$85,000

$60,825$205,600$205,500$221,591$210,000

$234,500$150,000$190,000

$!%!&&%"'(

$16,500$13,500$11,500$11,000$6,000

$4,000$11,000$12,900$11,700$11,100

$10,200$8,800

$11,875

$3,000�25,000$4,000�25,000$4,000�23,000$2,000�25,000$2,000�11,000

$2,000�10,000$2,000�25,000$4,000�25,000$1,000�25,000$1,000�24,560

$3,000�21,000$4,600�15,000$5,000�25,000

19891990199119921993

19941995199619971998

199920002001

)*)+,

Total FundingNumber of

Grants Funded RangeAverage Grant

SizeYear

Sustainable Agriculture Grant ProgramSustainable Agriculture Grant ProgramSustainable Agriculture Grant ProgramSustainable Agriculture Grant ProgramSustainable Agriculture Grant Program

—— 13


Increasing RIncreasing RIncreasing RIncreasing RIncreasing Red Clover Seed Productioned Clover Seed Productioned Clover Seed Productioned Clover Seed Productioned Clover Seed Productionby Saturation of Pby Saturation of Pby Saturation of Pby Saturation of Pby Saturation of Pollinatorsollinatorsollinatorsollinatorsollinators

Alternative Crops • Buchholz

Project Summary

Leland BuchholZ has a 60 dairy cow and 300plus tillable acreage operation. He raises allfeed stuffs for his dairy operation with a rotationof corn, oats, and red clover. The soil is asandy loam and the topography is slightly hilly.All labor is provided by family members.Leland is certified for seed production in oatsand red clover. His farm is located in an areanoted for production of some of the best qualityred clover seed in the U.S. He would like toevaluate the effect of placing high levels of beesdirectly in a field of red clover on seed yield.In addition, using red clover as an alternativecrop in a rotation has environmental benefits.Some of these benefits include reducedpesticide use and reduced use of nitrogen forthe next crop. Red clover solid seeding alsoprovides excellent soil erosion control, whileproviding producer flexibility for use in a graZingprogram and harvest of hay or seed.

Project Description

In 1999, Leland placed 32 honey beehives ona 30 acre red clover field. The hives wererandomly placed on June 28 and removed onSeptember 27. He also had a control field of20 acres with no beehives. He sat in each fieldand counted bee visits as recommended by aconsultant and found he had more bee visits tored clover flowers in the field supplemented withhives.

In 2000, Leland modifiedthe procedure he used in1999. He placed 32honey beehives on a 32acre red clover field.Rather than placing thehives in a random fashion,Leland placed the 32hives in clusters of eightwith each of the fourclusters placedapproximately 1,760Japart covering the entireone-half mile length of the

PrincipalInvestigator

Leland BuchholZRR 1, Box 62A

Grey Eagle, MN56336

320-285-5401Todd County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact

Jean Ciborowski651-297-3217

Keywords

bees, beehives,pollinators, red

clover, seedproduction

field on the east perimeter. He also had a controlfield of 17 acres with no beehives. The hiveswere placed in the field on June 26 and removedin late September.

Results

In 1999, both fields were harvested on September28. Seeds were weighed on the farm and testingfor dockage was done by La Crosse Seeds.There was a five pound net gain in the “Bee TestField” that was insignificant and did not reflectthe increased number of bees visiting the testfield (Table 1). Leland was hoping for a gain of100r lb seed/A because the profit margin is low.Leland was able to sell the seed for betweeno.40/lb and o.45/lb. He needed a 65 to 70 lbseed/A increase to pay for the hive rental.

In 2000, both fields were harvested in lateSeptember. Seeds were again weighed andtested for dockage. In 2000 there was a 50 lbnet gain in the “Bee Test Field” which wassignificant. Leland received o.45/lb for his seed.The “Bee Test Field” had a net gain of o22.50/Aover the “Control” as a result of the increasedseed production (Table 1). This is still o7.50short of the cost of placing a beehive in the field.Leland would like to see a net gain of at leasto33.00 thereby giving him a minimum 10m profitmargin. Leland believes that the improved seedproduction in 2000 may be attributed to the

Beehives in the field

14 ——


Alternative Crops • Buchholz

spacing of the beehives in clusters onthe field perimeter. He will continue tospace the hives in the above fashion tosee if the spacing does indeed contributeto increased seed production.

Management Tip

Spacing of beehives, evenly and inclusters, on the perimeter of the fieldaids in improved pollination.

Cooperators

Q$5*1%@-..-7+9, Todd County ExtensionQ7//-$%4..-#6B Retired Red Clover

Specialist, University of MinnesotaA7C$%U57"V+7#B La Crosse Seeds

Project Location

From Grey Eagle take Hwy 287 north 4 miles to Todd CtyRd 8 and go west 1 mile. Turn north onto Oakhaven Rd(gravel) and go s mile then turn west on Elder Rd (gravel)and go t mile.

Other Resources

U$$%)".2"5$H%F3$%P767]-#$%*=%:+$5-;7#%U$$V$$,-#6E800-289-7668. Information is also available on the webat: http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/

Table 1. Yield of Red Clover Seed with and withoutSaturation with Pollinators, 1999 and 2000

Similar in both fields

0

139.8

0

NA

17

10

_ _ _

32

190.0

$30/hive

NA

32

10

+50.2

0

0

Avg = 3 to 4bees/sq yd

20

21

_ _ _

32

$30/hive

Avg = 5 to 6bees/sq yd

30

22

+5.59

Similar in both fields

159.24 164.83

Cost of beehivesNumber of visits bybees in a 20 minuteperiod

Number of acres

lbs of seed/A 155.30 211.1 ~201.6 211.33

% Dockage(=light immature seeds,weed, dirt or trash)

lbs pure seed/A

'---./012341

Number of beehives

!"""./012341�Bee Test Field�Control Field �Bee Test Field�Control Field

Net gain/loss(lbs pure seed/A)

Seed appearance

McGregor, S.E. (Originally published in 1976). ' >#9$;2<*..-#72-*#% *=% )".2-C72$/% )5*,% <.7#29E Updatedcontinuously and available at:http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/book/

F3$%Q7#/E Monthly periodical devoted to agriculture. POBox 3169, Mankato, MN 56002, 507-345-4523.email: thelanduthe-land.com

—— 15


Alternative Crops • Buckwheat Growers

Flour CorFlour CorFlour CorFlour CorFlour Corn as an Altern as an Altern as an Altern as an Altern as an Alternative Crop -native Crop -native Crop -native Crop -native Crop -ttttthe Benefits of Using Corhe Benefits of Using Corhe Benefits of Using Corhe Benefits of Using Corhe Benefits of Using Corn Flourn Flourn Flourn Flourn Flour

Project Summary

Flour corn has potential as an alternative cropin Minnesota and as an alternative flour forpeople with gluten allergies. Crop rotation,harvesting, and processing strategies, as well asmarketability and profitability of growing flourcorn, are being studied on farms in severalcounties.

Project Description

bathy Connell, a former Master Gardener nearSebeka, has been growing and selecting seedfor Painted Mountain flour corn. PaintedMountain seed had been selected for hardinessand early maturity in Northern Montana andshe continued that selection at her site that getsone of the earliest frosts in the fall and continuesto have damaging frosts into the very late spring.She has been hand harvesting and grinding cornflour for use in her home for over five years.Corn flour has an excellent flavor and flour-like texture and can be substituted in recipesfor pancakes, cookies, and quick breads withoutsacrificing quality or flavor.

bathy and several members of the SustainableFarming Association and the BuckwheatGrowers Association designed some trial siteswith the objective of determining if PaintedMountain could be grown and harvested as aprofitable alternative, value added product andseed crop without the use of chemicals. Theiroriginal marketing ideas were gluten-free flourfor people with gluten allergies and a flour thatwould appeal to ethnic populations. bathy,Floyd Hardy in Crow Wing County and MarvinDuhn in Douglas County agreed to becooperators for the project.

bathy recommended a three-year rotation. Theflour corn is planted following fall-seededbuckwheat that is turned under for weed control.The corn is inter-seeded with hairy vetch. Afterharvesting the corn, the stalks are cut and left inthe plot to be used with additional hay to mulchplant potatoes the second year. When thepotatoes are picked (they are not dug since they


Lynda Conversec/o Buckwheat

Growers Association20415 County Rd. 2Aldrich, MN 56434

218-445-5475 or320-594-2456

Wadena County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact

Mary Hanks 651-296-1277

Keywords

corn flour, flourcorn, gluten-free

flour, PaintedMountain corn

are not in soil), the mulch is turned under andedible beans are planted the third year. Afterthe beans are harvested, the plants are plowedin and the rotation starts again. This rotationgives the farmer an opportunity for income froma variety of crops while restoring the nutrientsto the soil.

bathy also wanted to look at the possibility ofplanting and harvesting on a larger scale usingmachinery. She had been planting, weeding,harvesting and grinding by hand for several yearsbut this would not be feasible on a larger scale.There are a number of problems with usingmachine harvesting. Even after dry down, flourcorn has a soft cob. In some soils, plants tendto have short stalks with ears forming fairly closeto the ground. These characteristics makemachine combining a challenge. A corn pickermight be the best option but the project willexplore other possibilities. As bathy selectedwithin the Painted Mountain plant population,stalk and ear height were taken into considerationto help alleviate these problems along withselecting for uniform early maturity.

Kathy Connell discusses flourcorn agronomics

16 ——


Alternative Crops • Buckwheat Growers

Results

In 2000, two of the research sites were one-half acre each andthe third was one acre. Though bathy recommended plantinginto fall-seeded buckwheat that had been plowed down forweed control, none of the sites were able to do this.

Only one of the one-half acre sites was inter-seeded withhairy vetch. Unfortunately, this created a great hiding placefor striped gophers who enjoy flour corn when itJs almostready to be harvested. The cooperators still believe inter-seeding with hairy vetch is valuable but have determinedthat it might be better to inter-seed later when the flourcorn reaches a certain height so there is less competition.

The other two sites attempted to cultivate for weed control.One farmer fertiliZed with manure before planting. Althoughthis seemed like a good idea, it contributed to the weedproblem at this site. This led the farmer to seek informationabout flame weeding. He is continuing to do research onflame weeding with the hope of building his own flamerand using this technique next year. The second site receivedtoo much rain and the flour corn was planted in an areathat had not been planted for several years. Weed controlwas difficult from the beginning and it only worsened asthe season progressed. This plot was lost. The projectwill focus on weed management research including flameweeding and the use of minimal pre-plant herbicide nextyear. They are also considering other rotations becausethere is not a great deal of interest in growing the potatoesin mulch, especially for larger sites.

The results from the first year indicate that you need toplant flour corn seeds early, no later than May 15. Theseed is very hardy and needs to get started early in orderto produce a strong stalk and, hopefully, grow taller. TheSebeka site had three killing frosts after the corn started togrow but the plants survived and produced the anticipatedearly maturing crop. The farmers recommend plantingthe flour corn in rows not less than 2J apart with plantspacing of 8 - 10” to improve growth, weed suppression,dry down and harvesting. The farmers also observed thatPainted Mountain flour corn pollinates early making it lesssusceptible to cross-pollination from neighboring varietiesof corn.

Members of the Hispanic community attended a projectfield day and are very interested in the corn flour. Theyhave not been able to grow the native flour corn of theirhomeland in Minnesota and they were very interested inthis variety. However, they would like to have a cornflour that is lighter in color. Corn flour tends to be gray-blue in color because of the multi-colored kernels. Theproject will focus on seed selection and development for

whiter corn flour for this market. In addition, one farmerwill also pursue seed selection for blue corn flour.

There also appears to be a market for the flour corn asdecorative corn. Painted Mountain is more colorful thansome other decorative corn and, even though it is moreexpensive than some other decorative corns, indicationsare its bright colors make it more desirable. This marketwill also be explored and developed more in the next year.

Farmers in Wilkin, Wadena and Todd Counties haveexpressed an interest in growing flour corn next year aspart of the project.

Management Tips

1. Plant flour corn no later than May 15. The plants needto get an early start to produce strong stalks and, hopefully,more height for easier harvesting.

2. Be aggressive with weed management.

3. Flour corn kernels are soft and the cobs have a smalldiameter. Field dry down has been somewhat successfulbut, because flour corn tends to mold easily, early harvestthen dry down in a rodent proof crib is recommended forrainy falls.

4. Watch for striped gophers and take appropriate action.

Cooperators

P75C-#%A"3#B Farmer, Carlos, MN\.*1/%^75/1B%Farmer, Brainerd, MN82$C$%7#/%_7231%)*##$..B Farmers, Sebeka, MN`.$#% U*56$5/-#6B Agriculture Resources Consulting,

Freeport, MNF*+%U-.$VB%Buckwheat Growers Association. Aldrich, MN

Project Location

Contact Lynda Converse for locations of cooperatorsJfarms.

Other Resources

\57#V%_"2V7B 2323 County Road 6, Barnum, MN 55707,218-389-3220. Frank has done quite a bit of research onflour corn and has information about machine harvestingof flour corn being done in Canada.

—— 17


Alternative Crops • Dease

Development and Continuation of a Community BasedDevelopment and Continuation of a Community BasedDevelopment and Continuation of a Community BasedDevelopment and Continuation of a Community BasedDevelopment and Continuation of a Community BasedSustainable Organic GrowerSustainable Organic GrowerSustainable Organic GrowerSustainable Organic GrowerSustainable Organic Grower�s Cooperative & Mark�s Cooperative & Mark�s Cooperative & Mark�s Cooperative & Mark�s Cooperative & Marketing Systemeting Systemeting Systemeting Systemeting System

Project Summary

Patty Dease is interested in assessing localinterest in purchasing organic fruits andvegetables and in providing small farmers witha viable income source. Working with threeother farms, she is starting a farmersJ marketlocated on her farm.

Project Description

Patty Dease wants to work with other localorganic farmers to market their produce in ajoint effort and start a farmersJ market at herfarm. She has been growing organic produceat Earthway Farm for the past 12 years and herfarm has been a community supportedagriculture (CSA) farm for three years. Drafthorses do most of the work and also give sleighrides in the winter. She gives school tours ofthe farm and last year had about 3,500 visitors.She converted one of her barns into the CountryGift Store that sells handcrafted and farm-relatedproducts made by 32 local artisans and farmers.Patty hopes to move away from crafts to sellingmore farm-related products such as goat milksoap, beeswax candles, and wool mittens. Sheand her family find satisfaction in theenvironmental rewards of organic farming. Thesoil seems healthier with each year as the fieldsgo through rotation and rest periods.

Patty is joining forces withother local organic farmersto form a farmersJ marketto sell produce at her farm.Working together allowsthem to share ideas andresources. Each farmercan concentrate ongrowing produce that bestsuites their soil andavailable labor, rather thana wide variety of crops.Marketing as a group alsosaves time and money.

Patty believes that thefuture for small,


Patty Dease15832 Cty. Road 7South Haven, MN

55382320-236-7852Stearns County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2001

ESAP Contact

Mary Hanks651-296-1277

Keywords

farmersJ markets,marketing and

promotion, organicproduce, small farm

cooperatives

sustainable farms, such as her own, lies inworking with the local community and beingmore creative in marketing farm products. Withthe farmersJ market project, she hopes toascertain the level of local interest in organicfruits and vegetables.

The challenges addressed in forming a farmersJmarket are:

1. Farmers receiving a just wage for the laborintensive efforts of growing organic foods.Farmers are working harder only to receive lesspayment for their produce. This is most evidenton the small family farms in Minnesota. Thisproject has the potential to benefit small familyfarms because it will achieve an economicallyviable income for locally produced organic farmproducts.

2. Supplying the local community with healthy,organic foods. Promoting organic food in thecommunity requires marketing skills even thoughinterest in organic food has been increasing.

The goal of this project is to establish a reliableand sustainable marketing system for locally andorganically grown products. Some of theproducts to be sold at the farmersJ market arealready being produced by area farmers. Thefarmers were not realiZing financial successbecause of low farm prices and the lack of a

Vegetables for sale on market day

18 ——



creative and detailed marketing plan. Patty hopes thathaving a marketing plan and selling directly to consumerswill help. The project fits well into PattyJs long term goalof growing organic produce, which is at the core of EarthwayFarm.

Results

The seven initial families began by dividing up labor. Theydecided who would grow what produce, who would set upthe market, who would work the market and other details.By the end of the summer, three families had dropped outof the project. Other job responsibilities proved to be toooverwhelming for them.

Patty concentrated a lot of her efforts in advertising.Advertising was heaviest in late winter and early spring,and continued throughout the summer. Ads were placed inlocal newspapers, specifically the 82E% ).*"/% F-+$9,:##7#/7.$%:/C*;72$B and the F5-I)*"#21% Z$?9. Topromote the market, Patty distributed flyers about themarket to the farmJs visitors, which numbered over 3,500people. Flyers were posted in nearby small townsJbusinesses and the Stearns County Extension Office helpedto spread word of the market through its office staff. Agreat deal of advertising was also done in the westernsuburbs - Plymouth, Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park and EdenPrairie. Two short articles written about the market andPattyJs farm were published in a local paper.

The market was held every Friday with any surplus soldon Saturday. Some of the products at the farmerJs marketinclude organic vegetables and fruit, herbs and driedflowers, poultry and eggs, cheese, soy products, honeyand beeswax, creams made from beeswax, and farmrelated products such as goat milk shampoo and soap,and lip balm made from beeswax.

Though meat was not sold at the market, fliers for localfarms that produce sustainably raised meat weredistributed.

Unfortunately, this summer was particularly dry andproduce did not grow as well as in past years. The varietyand quantity of products to sell at the market wasdisappointing because of it.

Community response was another challenge. The marketdid not receive the response Patty and the other farmershad hoped for. Patty decided that next year she will focusmore of her marketing time and money on a broader area,particularly in St. Cloud. Focusing on the St. Cloud areahas provided a good response for other local farmers and

Patty anticipates similar results. Also, marketing effortswill focus more on the summer months and less on thewinter/spring months. Patty plans on holding the marketon Saturdays rather than Fridays next year, as the weekendmay be more convenient for the customers.

Finally, Patty noticed a difference in what people wantedto purchase each week. One week, greens sold out early,the next week greens were not a valued item. This madeit difficult to plan on what produce to bring to the market.Despite the lack of desired community response, at theend of the season, regular customers expressedappreciation for the market.

Most of the growers felt that, despite the challenges, theseason went well for the first year. Most plan on continuingtheir involvement with the market. One farmer said thatshe found it satisfying to interact with the customers andsee where her produce was going. On the other hand, shemissed the grocery storeJs steady demand for her products.

Management Tips

1. When committing to a project with a group of organicfarmers, make sure that everyone is clear about their levelof commitment and involvement. Some people may beenthused about the project in the beginning but may notsee the project through to the end.

2. There is a great deal of physical labor involved in thisproject. DonJt overextend yourself or your family. Makesure that your growing area and commitments are no largerthan you or your family can handle.

3. Marketing skills need to be developed in order topromote the fruits of your labor.

4. Consult local farmers. Talk with farmers who havesuccessfully marketed their produce and find out whatworked for them in the past. Also, retired farmers are awealth of valuable information on sustainable agriculture.

Cooperators

_-+%7#/%a71%`5$6*-5$B Growers, South Haven, MN)75.%^*==+7#B Stearns County Extension, St. Cloud, MN`$*56$%P752-#%7#/%P751%^$-#], Growers,

Annandale, MN)7#/1%P"..$#, Grower, South Haven, MN:.7#7%7#/%^75*./%<57+7##%b%=7+-.1B Growers. ,

South Haven, MN

—— 19



Project Location

Take Hwy 55 west of Minneapolis. Turn right (north) onCty Rd 2 in South Haven. The farm is 4 miles down theroad.

Other Resources

Ebodaghe, Denis. 1998. 8+7..%=75+%5$9*"5;$%6"-/$E TheSmall Farm Program, USDA-CREES, Stop 2220, 1400Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-2220,201-401-4385. Available at: www.reeusda.gov/smallfarm

F3$% 8+7..% \75+$5X9% !*"5#7.E P.O. Box 1627, Sisters,Oregon 97759.

20 ——


PhosphorPhosphorPhosphorPhosphorPhosphorus Mobilization and Wus Mobilization and Wus Mobilization and Wus Mobilization and Wus Mobilization and WeedeedeedeedeedSuppression by BuckwheatSuppression by BuckwheatSuppression by BuckwheatSuppression by BuckwheatSuppression by Buckwheat

Project Summary

This project involved two farmers in the flat,fertile Red River calley area of northwesternMinnesota who are transitioning their land intoorganic production. They were concerned aboutcontrolling weeds during the transition andevaluated different cover/smother crops for theirability to suppress weeds and releasephosphorus. The three cover/smother cropscompared in this trial were buckwheat, a mixtureof oats/peas, and sorghum-sudangrass. Thesecrops were summer seeded, incorporated in thefall, and then followed by a fall-seeded rye cropthat was plowed under the following spring priorto planting soybeans. The greatest interest wasin buckwheat because it has been shown toscavenge phosphorus from low phosphorus soils.It is not known, however, if this translates intoincreased phosphorus availability to the nextcrop. Buckwheat is also a highly competitivesmother crop, but it is unknown how much ofthis effect carries over to the following year.Indicators of the success of this project includedcrop and weed biomass counts, soil tests, andtissue tests of the following yearJs rye crop.

Project Description

The farmers in this project each planted four,one acre plots which were replicated six timeson each farm, for a total of 24 acres on eachfarm. Sorghum-sudangrass, an oat/pea mixtureand fallow were the threetreatments compared withbuckwheat. Sorghum-sudangrass and oats werechosen because they havesimilar smother cropeffects to buckwheat,although they are notknown to mobiliZephosphorus. Oats waschosen based on itsreputation as a soilconditioner. The peas andoat combination couldimprove the soil nitrogenlevels.


Curt PetrichRoute 3, Box 95Crookston, MN

56716218-281-1293

Polk County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

buckwheat,phosphorus,

sorghum-sudangrass, weed

suppression

Robin Brekken drilled his cover crops on June16, 1999 into soil that had been cultivated threetimes in the previous month with a field cultivatorand chisel plow. He controlled weeds in thefallow plot with several diskings, and diskeddown the buckwheat, oats/peas and sorghumbetween July 28-30, 1999 (Table 1).

Curt Petrich planted his oats/peas mix in lateJune and his buckwheat and sorghum on July 7,1999. The buckwheat had to be replanted onJuly 22, 1999 because of soil crusting and sealingfollowing heavy rains. Curt didnJt disk his fallowplot and so it grew weeds. Curt disked downthe cover crops in late August.

Both farmers seeded their rye in September, andplowed it down to plant soybeans in May 2000.

Just before the cover crops were plowed down,weeds growing in them were counted andsampled for dry matter yield. The cover cropstands were also counted and sampled for drymatter yield and P content. In November 1999,soil samples were collected for analysis of Pcontent and aggregate stability, an indicator ofsoil tilth. In May 2000, weeds growing in therye were counted and the rye was sampled fordry matter yield and P content. In July 2000, onthe Brekken farm only, weeds in the soybeanswere counted and sampled for dry matter yielddsoybeans were sampled for analysis of P uptake.

Buckwheat in test plot

Alternative Crops • Petrich

—— 21



Results

No data from any measurement at thePetrich farm in 2000 producedstatistically significant differences. Thiswas probably due to the patchiness ofthe cover crop stands due to extremelywet conditions in that field in 1999.Although he did take 1999measurements from those areas wherethe cover crops were thick, in 2000,he could not distinguish those areasfrom the areas where there had hardlybeen any cover crop. Thus, it seemsthat in 2000, the measurements did notaccurately distinguish betweentreatments. Thus, most of the resultsbelow are from the Brekken farm.

=##)' *+>>$#,,.4"<% The farmersJconclusions at the end of last year didnot prepare them for what they observedthis year. Last year they thought theyhad discovered two winners: buckwheatand sorghum-sudangrass, both of whichwere very thick and competitive withweeds. Weed counts taken in thestanding cover crops at BrekkenJs in1999 found 50m fewer weeds in thebuckwheat and 37m fewer weeds in thesorghum-sudangrass than in the oats/peas. If they assumed that the oats/peashad 10m fewer weeds than anuncultivated fallow would have (datafrom PetrichJs), this would have been a55m weed reduction by buckwheat anda 43m reduction by sorghum-sudangrass. However, this project wasdesigned to look at residual weedcontrol the year following the covercrops. In May 2000, there were veryfew weeds in any of the rye plots,probably because the rye waseffectively suppressing them, combinedwith it being early in the season. By early July, the soybeanplots showed visually distinct differences.

The truly surprising observation was that the weedsfollowing sorghum were much higher. Weed numbers(Figure 1) were almost five times higher following sorghumthan following the next highest treatment (oats/peas)dpigweed numbers were 6.5 times higher. Weed dry matter(Figure 2) was 1.7 times higher. Robin Brekken observedthat by harvest time pidgeon grass was thick in the

sorghum-sudangrass plots whereas it was almost completelyabsent from the buckwheat plots. Lambs quarters werealso a problem in the sorghum-sudangrass at harvest.Clearly, any weed suppression they saw in the standingsorghum-sudangrass did not have a residual effect. Rather,it suggests that sorghum-sudangrass residues may have astimulatory effect on weeds.

The differences among the other three treatments were notgreat enough to be statistically significant, but there was a

Table 1. Comparison of Practices

June 16, 199960 lb/A20 lb/A

30 lb oats/90 lb peas/A

Sept. 10, 1999~May 16-26, 2000

Disked once during season

July 7, 1999 (replanted July 22 )60 lb/A20 lb/A

80 lb oats/50 lb peas/A

Not disked, weeds allowed togrow

Sept. 29, 1999May 16, 2000

563378. (control)

9378:78;BuckwheatSorghum-SudangrassOats/Peas

July 28, 1999 (7 weeks)Chopped July 28, 1999

Plow-down Aug. 5, 1999July 28, 1999 (7 weeks)

Aug. 25, 1999 (5 weeks)Aug. 25, 1999 (5 weeks)

Aug. 25, 1999 (5 weeks)

/<0Seeding DatePlowdown Date

904=>?@

936;4>;ABuckwheatSorghum-SudangrassOats/Peas

B=0CC0;

May 28, 2000, 23" rows May 16, 2000, solid seededD7<E06; planting

Figure 2. Soybean and Weed Dry Matter, Brekken Farm July 2000

Figure 1. Weed Populations in Soybeans, Brekken Farm July 2000

22 ——



consistent trend for improved weed control followingbuckwheat than following either oats/peas or fallow. Weedpopulations (Figure 1) following buckwheat were slightlylower than following fallow, which were slightly lower thanfollowing oats/peas. Weed dry matter (Figure 2) followingbuckwheat was about a quarter of weed dry matterfollowing oats/peas or fallow, though this is not enough tobe considered a significant difference. Still, consideringthat these are weeds that germinated almost 11 months afterthe cover crops were plowed under, this data suggests thatbuckwheat does have a weak residual weed control ability.

374,>74$+,'?4/.0.@(-.4"<% In soil samples taken atBrekkenJs in November 1999, three months after the covercrops were plowed down, soil phosphorus did not differsignificantly among buckwheat, fallow, or oats/peas thoughit was significantly lower following sorghum-sudangrass.This was probably due to the phosphorus that was stilltied up in the sorghum-sudangrass residues which werestill visible at the time of sampling. Buckwheat and oats/peas residues, though also still visible, were much morebroken down. The high phosphorus in the fallow plots isexplained by the repetitive tillage which would have brokendown soil organic matter, releasing phosphorus to the soil.This may be beneficial in the short term but, in the longrun, it depletes soil organic matter and ruins soil tilth.

In May 2000, the effect of residues on subsequent cropgrowth could be seen in the field. There was a visibleyellowing of rye following sorghum. Rye dry weight wassignificantly reduced, relative to the fallow plots, followingall of the cover crops, with greatest suppression followingsorghum-sudangrass, then buckwheat, then oats/peas.Nitrogen uptake by rye was also reduced, in the same orderas dry weight was reduced. This strongly suggests nitrogentie-up by cover-crop residues. The greatest suppressionoccurred with sorghum which has the highest C:N ratio,and thus the highest potential to tie up N. Thesmallest suppression occurred with the oats/peas mixture which, because of N-fixation bypeas, has a more favorable C:N ratio. It is likelythat the cover crop residue tied up soil nitrogen.If nitrogen was limiting, this could affect theirattempt to study phosphorus uptake.

The results for soybeans were confounded bya different unrelated nutrient deficiency: thesoybeans were all affected by iron-deficiencychlorosis. The distribution of the chlorosis wasrandom with no differences attributable to covercrop treatments. It seemed to be limiting to Puptake.

The dry weights of soybeans following buckwheat andfallow were significantly lower than following sorghum-sudangrass or oats/peas. However, since soybeans areknown for their ability to grow out of early season stresses,there was not a concern about a possible reduction in grainyield. This early suppression of growth does not correlatewell with the lower dry weight of weeds followingbuckwheat and fallow.

1%%$#%(-#'*-(/.0.-&< Last fall, both growers appreciatedthe soil conditions left by both buckwheat and sorghum-sudangrass. The soil was especially “mellow” followingbuckwheat. Laboratory analysis of aggregate stability, ameasure of soil tilth, failed to show any significantdifferences among the treatments though there was a trendfor it to be best after buckwheat or sorghum and worstafter oats/peas. This was consistent with both farmersJobservations that oats/peas left the soil in a soddy or stickycondition.

Management Tips

1. Cover crops need a thick stand to provide maximumbenefit. Good seedbed preparation is very important,especially for the smaller-seeded buckwheat and sorghum-sudangrass. They need to be planted shallow (less thanone inch) in a firm seedbed. A high seeding rate is alsobest. The rates used here (60 lb for buckwheat, 80/50 lbfor oats/peas, and 20 lb for sorghum-sudangrass) areadequate if tillage, moisture and soil conditions are optimalfor good germination, but not if conditions are poor.

2. It is important to plow down buckwheat before its seedsmature or else it may itself become a weed problem thenext year. The first flowers can set viable seeds beforefull bloom so a farmer has to be watchful. It can flower asearly as five to six weeks after planting.

Sorghum-sudangrass in test plot

—— 23



3. Sorghum-sudangrass can either be disked under whenit is five to six feet tall or it can be shredded with a mowerand allowed to regrow. Advantages to letting it regrow arethat it then covers the soil and smothers weeds for a longerperiod of time and it contributes more organic matter tothe soil. Shredding it seems to stimulate more vigorousgrowth and also offers an opportunity to get rid of anycompetitive weeds, that might otherwise go to seed.

4. Plowing down cover crops with high production of highC:N ratio residues, such as sorghum-sudangrass maytemporarily tie up soil N, with the potential to suppressgrowth of subsequent crops, especially those with high Nrequirements. This can be counteracted by planting themin mixtures with leguminous cover crops, such as peas.

5. Aggregate stability is most enhanced by high C:N ratiocrops, such as sorghum-sudangrass. Adding a legume to agrain may enhance N fertility, but it will also decomposefaster, with less benefit to soil organic matter.

6. Weeds can contribute organic matter to a soil, withbenefits to tilth and soil fertility, just like intentionallyplanted cover crops. However, you must plow them underbefore they set seed.

Cooperators

a*0-#%U5$VV$#B Farmer, Crookston, MN4.-]70$23%A1;VB Southwest Research & Outreach Center,

Lamberton, MN

A$0*573%:..7#B University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNQ*-9%U57"#B%Agricultural Resources Consulting,

St. Paul, MN

Project Location

From Crookston on Hwy 9, go 7 miles south from thejunction with 102. Turn east onto a gravel road. RobinBrekkenJs plots are on the southeast quarter of the sectionto the north, just west of the gravel road at 1s miles.Continue east another 2 miles to Hwy 48 (also gravel),then south another 2 miles to Hwy 41. Curt PetrichJs plotsare on the east side of Hwy 48, on the northwest quarter ofthe section just south of Hwy 41.

Other Resources

>#2$5#72-*#7.%A$C$.*,+$#2%a$9$75;3%)$#25$E Ottawa,Canada. Cover Crops for Sustainable Agriculture.http://www.idrc.ca/covergcrop/

P7#76-#6%)*C$5% )5*,9% <5*=-270.1 (2nd Ed.). 1998.Sustainable Agriculture Network. Available in book form,CD-ROM, or html or pdf versions. http://www.sare.org/

)$#2$5% =*5% Z$?% )5*,9% b% <.7#2% <5*/";29E PurdueUniversity. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/

[#-C$59-21%*=%)7.-=*5#-7B%8"927-#70.$%:65-;".2"5$%a$9$75;37#/%4/";72-*#%<5*657+E%%Cover Crop Resource Pageweb site: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/ccrop/

24 ——


Alternative Crops • Runck

Managed Production of WManaged Production of WManaged Production of WManaged Production of WManaged Production of Woods-grownoods-grownoods-grownoods-grownoods-grownand Simulated Wand Simulated Wand Simulated Wand Simulated Wand Simulated Wild Ginsengild Ginsengild Ginsengild Ginsengild Ginseng

Project Summary

Willis Runck and his family have been growingwoods-grown ginseng since 1974. There is littleinformation available on this production system.This project will demonstrate establishment,maintenance, and harvesting techniques as wellas seed production and stratification methods.

Project Description

Our family farm operation has a total of 440acres of land located in the Minnesota Rivercalley. Approximately 290 acres are used forthe production of corn, soybeans, and springwheat. The other 150 acres consist of densehardwood forest. We planted our first plot ofwoods-grown ginseng, about 5,000J, in 1974 withthe intention of making more productive use ofthe woodland. Today, the total managedwoodland area planted to ginseng is about sixand one-half acres plus one-third acre ofcultivated ginseng under artificial shade. Ourginseng beds are separated based on age of theplantsd we have some new plantings as well assome that are 20 years old. Except for sprayingfor disease control, all work is done manually.

Ginseng S<7#7W% D"-#D"$=*.-"9T is a slowgrowing, perennial plant. It is a medicinal herbcultivated for its root. Ginseng develops fromseed planted in the fall. Plants emerge whentemperatures reach about 50°F. Plants reach aheight of about 1 s to 2Jafter three to four years.A ginseng root can growfor 70 to 90 years or morebut woods-grownginseng is harvested after8 to 12 years of growthdolder roots are morevaluable. Woods-grownginseng more closelyresembles wild ginsengand is more valuable thancultivated ginseng (grownin cultivated fields undershade cloth).


Willis RunckRR 1, Box 172New Ulm, MN

56073507-359-4308Brown County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

ginseng, woods-grown ginseng

Successful woods-grown ginseng productionrequires an intensive management system withtechniques that differ from cultivated ginsengproduction. We developed our methods andtechniques from trial and error. There is limitedpublic information available on growing woods-grown ginseng, much of it adapted fromcultivated ginseng production methods. Wewanted to demonstrate our techniques becausemany of the cultivated techniques will not resultin high quality woods-grown ginseng roots.Many farmers have wooded lots where ginsengcould provide additional income whilereestablishing this plant to its natural habitat.

Today, cultivated ginseng is being overproduced while wild ginseng is becomingextinct. The Chinese have always placed thehighest value on American wild ginseng sinceit was first exported to China in 1717. TheNorth American continent has the onlyremaining wild ginseng in the world. As a result,woods-grown ginseng will continue to gain invalue as it replaces the wild roots. The latestmarket values for the three types of ginsengroot are:j Cultivated roots, 3 to 4 years old

o10 to o20/ lbj Woods-grown, 8 years old

o150 to o190/ lbj Wild roots, unsorted

o450 to o500/ lb

Woods-grown ginseng plant with seeds

—— 25



Results

The most critical decision that a woods-grown ginsenggrower will make is the selection of a site. Ginseng prefersmoist but well-drained soils with high organic matter contentand a pH between 5.5 and 6.5. It requires only 20m sunlightand will die if light intensity is above this level. If a flat,forested area is chosen, it must have mature hardwoodtrees. Otherwise, only sloped, wooded terrain facing tothe north or east should be chosen. These sites will havecooler ground temperatures during the growing seasonwhich results in less disease incidence, particularly lessPhytophthora root rot. Soil temperatures are six to eightdegrees lower in these forested plantings when comparedto cultivated plots with artificial shade. Sloped areas facingto the south and west should be avoided.

Planting should be done in the fall because early sproutingcan occur with spring planting. To prepare the plot, removeunderbrush to reduce competition, and lower tree limbs toimprove air circulation. Areas with poorairflow will have more diseaseproblems. When planting the seeds, Irake back the leaves then lightly rakethe seeds into the soil. Planting ratesof 20 to 30 lb are best for limiting rootdisease spread. Root disease may stilloccur at these rates but its spread fromplant to plant is slower and can be bettercontrolled with cultural practices.

I cover everything with leaf mulch, nomore than 2” for seedlings. If othermulch is used, make sure it is weed free.The mulch prevents the seed fromdrying out, keeps the soil temperaturecool, and prevents the soil fromsplattering the plants during heavy rains.

Disease is the single most limiting factorfor successful ginseng production. Woods-grown ginsengcan be harvested after seven or eight years. However, theolder the roots, the higher the price. Most people have adifficult time reaching this maturity because of diseaseproblems. Once the roots reach seven years, the outerskin becomes tougher and develops some resistance to theroot rots. Cultivated ginseng growers use 15 to 18applications of fungicide each season to prevent Alternariablight. Woods-grown plots will normally see six to eightapplications of fungicide. Plots on my farm have cartways,or trails, around them to allow access for sprayer equipmentthat blows the fungicide onto the plants.

Even though woods-grown ginseng plots have lower disease

incidence, we still used nine fungicide applications on olderginseng plots in 1999. Seven of the nine sprays containedcopper sulfate, also called Bordeaux Mix. Copper sulfateis also classified as a fertiliZer and would qualify for usein organic farming. This was the second year we usedcopper sulfate. It provided excellent control againstAlternaria blight and possibly provides some protectionagainst other fungal diseases such as Botrytis blight andRhiZoctonia crown and root rot. But we also noticednegative factors associated with copper sulfateapplications. Copper sulfate is very caustic (pH 4) andmust be mixed with lime to neutraliZe the solution. Thisrequires a good filter system on the sprayer to prevent thespray noZZles from plugging and it also requires non-corrosive sprayer parts. This spray can cause a slightbronZing, or burning, of the leaves. Spraying in the eveningwhen the air temperature is below 80°F can diminish thisproblem. Table 1 describes the main disease problemsand control methods that we have used.

In our experience over the years, weJve found how importantit is to control mice and moles in woods-grown ginsengplots. Mice eat the berries containing the newly formedseeds and moles dig tunnels in the plots causing theuprooting of plants. We use poison set in approvedcontainers to control the mice and find that setting traps inmole tunnels is the best way to control moles. WeJve hadlittle success with mole poisons or gas pellets.

We estimate start-up costs for establishing one acre ofwoods-grown ginseng at about o12,000 for new growers.As an established grower, I can start a new one-acre plotfor about o7,000. Ginseng production is very laborintensive and, at the same time, requires the investment in

Table 1. Disease Problems in Woods-grown Ginseng

*=A6;>1F

air-bornefungus

soil-bornefungus

soil-bornefungus

D<FG47F1

attacksleaves &

stems, killstop of plant

attacks rootand kills it

attacks leavesand stems

H7;:>4>7;1

warm, humidweather

wet and warmsoil conditions

wet and warmsoil condition,

warm and humidweather

H7;4=73

good aircirculation;

copper sulfate,Diathane M45,Manzate 200

well drained site;systemic

fungicides,Ridomil and

Aliette

well drained siteand good aircirculation;systemic

fungicide, Aliette

AlternariaBlight

PhytophthoraRoot Rot

PhytophthoraLeaf Blight

I>10610.J6F0

26 ——



labor-saving equipment. Our labor inputs range from 1,000to 1,100 hours annually to plant, maintain, and harvest thesix and one-half acres of ginseng. iounger plantings requiremore time, mainly for weed control that is done by hand.Three to six year old plantings require thinning andtransplanting to attain proper spacing. We also spend timeeach year spreading wood chips in the plantings to helphold leaf mulch in place as well as providing ground coverthemselves. All root harvesting is done by hand.

Drying roots is accomplished by placing the roots on screen-bottom trays which are placed evenly in a single layer in adrying room. The drying room should have an airtemperature between 70 to 90°F and be equipped with adehumidifier or ventilation fans. Roots are dried to about10 to 12m moisture which takes about 15 to 20 days. Ifroots are dried too fast or exposed to sunlight, they becomebrittle and discolored.

We harvest seed as well as roots. Ginseng plants usuallyproduce seed the third year. The seed is contained in theberries that we pick by hand. When seed is harvested, theginseng embryo is immature and small so seed must gothrough a stratification process (cold/warm/cold sequence)that lasts about 12 months. Seed is first depulped byfermentation then the green seed is washed and mixed withclean sand in equal amounts in a wooden box. The box isabout 6” deep with the bottom covered with fine meshscreen to allow for good drainage. The seed/sand mixtureis placed in the box, ending with a layer of fine sand and awire screen on top to keep rodents from getting into theseed. The box is then buried at a depth 2” to 4” deeperthan the box in an area that is not in direct sun. The burialsite is filled with 2” to 4” of mulch. The mixture is burieduntil late summer following the year it was harvested.

Management Tips

1. Site selection is critical. Make sure the siteis well drained, provides 70 to 80m shade,preferably an east, northeast or north facingslope.

2. Growing ginseng is very labor intensive.Start with small plots and increase your plantingsas you gain experience.

3. Disease is the limiting factor for successfulwoods-grown ginseng. Rotate fungicides so thatthe disease organisms do not develop resistanceto one fungicide.

4. Proper stratification of seed is essential.Watch out for poor quality seed.

5. Stay ahead of mice and moles. Use poisons in approvedcontainers for mice and traps in tunnels for moles.

6. Be aware that ginseng plots are attractive to thieves. Agood, loud guard dog helps with security.

Cooperators

U5";$%<*22$5B Southwest Research and Outreach Center,Lamberton, MN

A5E%U5-7#%^"/$.9*#B%Department of Horticulture,University of Wisconsin

@71#$%8;3*,$5B Brown County Extension,Sleepy Eye, MN

`5$6%!*3#9*#B Minnesota DNR, New Ulm, MN

Project Location

Contact Willis Runck for directions to the farm.

Other Resources

Epler, J. W. 1985. :..% :0*"2%`-#9$#6E CornhuskersPress, Hastings, Nebraska.

Parke, J. I. and b. M. Shotwell. 1989. A-9$79$9% *=)".2-C72$/%`-#9$#6E WI No. 3465. University ofWisconsin, Agricultural Experiment Station, Madison,Wisconsin 53706.

Scott, J. A., Jr., S. Rogers and D. Cooke. 1995. @**/9I`5*?#%`-#9$#6E West cirginia University ExtensionService. Morgantown, West cirginia 26506-6108.http://www.wvu.edu/fagexten/fldcrps/ginseng.htm

@-9;*#9-#%`-#9$#6%`5*?$59X%:99*;-72-*#E 500 Third St.,Suite 208-2, Wausau, Wisconsin 54401, 715-845-7300.

Cold treatment frame for ginseng seed

—— 27


Alternative Crops • Streed

Establishing AgroforestrEstablishing AgroforestrEstablishing AgroforestrEstablishing AgroforestrEstablishing Agroforestry Demonstrationy Demonstrationy Demonstrationy Demonstrationy DemonstrationSites in MinnesotaSites in MinnesotaSites in MinnesotaSites in MinnesotaSites in Minnesota

Project Summary

During 1999 and 2000 the Center for IntegratedNatural Resources and AgriculturalManagement (CINRAM) worked with fivelandowners to establish six agroforestrydemonstration sites. The sites will demonstratethe effectiveness of living snow fences, alleycropping, windbreaks and wildlife habitat,riparian buffers around wetlands, and forestfarming under mature oak-hickory forest.Because the trees are still getting established,results of the plantings will not be known forseveral years. CINRAM will assist the farmercooperators for many years in assessing thepotential of agroforestry to improveenvironmental sustainability and produce acommercially valuable product such as fruits,nuts, medicinals and botanicals.

Agroforestry Site Descriptions andResults

A.:."%'*"49'B#"2#< A highbush cranberry livingsnow fence was planted in May of 1999 along adriveway on the Murl Nord farm in northernMinnesota. Murl tested the potential for growinghighbush cranberry on a large scale in northernMinnesota and evaluated its effectiveness forstopping snow. After two years, there was goodestablishment of the bushes and they are growingwell.

100#&'C$4>>."%<' Jerry Stensing, near Waskishin northern Minnesota, demonstrated plantingblueberries in the alleys between various typesof fruit shrubs. Jerry is using fruit shrubs, plantedin May 1999, such as pin cherry, highbushcranberry, and wild plum to create windbreaksthat cause snowdrifts to insulate the blueberriesand help them survive the extreme coldconditions. The shrubs will provide high qualityfruits for sale and habitat for wildlife.

The project is progressing well with good growthon the shrubs. However, Jerry experienceddifficulty in eliminating some old fruit trees,shrubs, and weeds from the areas between thenew shrubs where new blueberries will be


Erik StreedCenter for Integrated

Natural Resourcesand Agricultural

Management,College of Natural

Resources,University of

Minnesota115 Green Hall1530 Cleveland

Avenue NorthSt. Paul, MN 55108

612-624-4299stree015utc.umn.eduhttp://www.cnr.umn.

edu/FR/cinram/

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2000

ESAP Contact

Wayne Monsen651-282-2261

Keywords

agroforestry, alleycropping, blueberry,

filter strips, forestfarming, golden

seal, highbushcranberries, hybrid

haZelnuts, livingsnow fence, riparianbuffers, windbreak/

wildlife habitat

planted in 2001. He has used several types ofherbicides, burning and tillage and still some ofthe old rootstock has survived. Jerry feels thata problem with old rootstock is very site specificand would not be a problem at all plantings.

=.")/$#(8,'(")'=.0)0.;#'D(/.-(-< Phil cotrubanear Bemidji looked at the effectiveness ofplanting windbreak and wildlife habitat adjacentto a reclaimed landfill. The species plantedincluded several types of berries and trees suchas oak, ash, white pine, Norway pine, and whitespruce. The main objectives of this project were:1) to provide wind protection and diminish theloss of soil humidity on this site due to poor,sandy, droughty soils, and strong winds, 2) toprovide wildlife habitat, and 3) to provideaesthetic value to an area on a major road thatpreviously was a landfill.

Phil is pleased with the progress of the planting.Even with the poor soil conditions and the highmaintenance requirements to reduce animaldepredation, the trees are doing extremely well.

Jason Wiebke examines agolden seal seedling

28 ——



E.>($.("'F+;;#$<% Paul Olsen near Alexandria demonstratedthe establishment of approximately 300 hybrid haZelnutseedlings as a buffer around a wetland. Paul is testing theability of hybrid haZelnuts to provide wildlife food andhabitat, produce edible nuts, and filter agricultural runoffinto a wetland.

It appears that weed control during the first two years wasnot adequate and the survival rate was very low. PhilRutter, hybrid haZelnut breeder at the Badgerset ResearchFarm that supplied the seedlings, says that often haZelnutswill develop a root system before growing biomass aboveground. He suggests that it is possible that there are actuallymore bushes surviving than are currently visible.

B4$#,-'B($5."%<% Jason Wiebke near Winona demonstratedforest farming with golden seal grown under mature oak-hickory forest hillside woodlots in southeast Minnesota.Golden seal is a medicinal herb that is used to increaseimmune system effectiveness in humans. In the fall of1998, Jason established a quarter acre plot of golden sealunder natural forest cover. Jason had already establishedtwo one-third acre plots under artificial shade. He plansto evaluate the economic implications of both productionmethods in future years when the golden seal becomesmarketable siZe.

The natural shade plots were prepared by clearing out theunderstory brush, logs, rocks, etc., and planting golden sealrootlets, or cutlets, directly into the forest floor. Theartificial shade plots are on open ground and covered withblack plastic mesh. No weeding or irrigation was doneduring 1999 and 2000. The golden seal is spreading throughrhiZomes and a dense patch is developing in both the naturaland artificial shade plantings. Jason anticipates somegolden seal will be ready for harvest in 2004 or 2005.

Management Tips

1. Plastic mats covered with wood chips helpmaintain moisture and provide excellent weedcontrol.

2. If the site is located in an area where ongoingmaintenance will be hard, it is crucial to takeextra steps to control weeds and animal damageduring establishment.

3. It is possible that hybrid haZelnuts aredeveloping a root system even if there is nogrowth above ground.

Cooperators

P"5.%Z*5/B Black Duck, Beltrami County!$551%82$#9-#6B Waskish, Beltrami County<3-.%c*25"07B Bemidji, Beltrami County<7".%d.9$#B Alexandria, Douglas County!79*#%@-$0V$B Winona, Winona County

Project Location

Contact Erik Streed at CINRAM for directions to the farmsinvolved in this project.

Other Resources

:65*=*5$9251%:/C7#276$%Z$?9.$22$5E Published at theUniversity of Minnesota. For free newsletter subscriptions,call 612-624-4299.

U7/6$59$2%a$9$75;3%\75+E%Phillip A. Rutter, RR 1, Box141, Canton, MN 55922, 507-743-8570. Research,cultivation, and sales of hybrid haZelnuts.

Center For Rural Policy and Development. 2001. 83*52a*272-*#%@**/1%)5*,9H%%:%5*.$%=*5%23$%9272$%*=%P-##$9*27EFinal report and policy recommendations of the advisorycommittee addressing agroforestry. Mankato, MN.Available at: 507-389-2599 or www.ruralmn.org

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1999.:65*=*5$9251% -#%P-##$9*27H%:% 6"-/$% 2*% 5$9*"5;$9% 7#//$+*#92572-*#%9-2$9E MN No. BU-7275. St. Paul, MN,800-876-8636. Price: o10.00 plus shipping.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1999.)72;3-#6%23$%9#*?%?-23%.-C-#6%9#*?%=$#;$9E MN No. MI-7311. St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636. Price o65.00 plusshipping.

Blueberries in an alley croppingsystem on the Jerry Stending farm

—— 29



University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1999.)*++$5;-7.%^7]$.#"29%-#%P-##$9*27E MN No. FO-7280.St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1999. ̂ 105-/<*,.75%<5*=-29E MN No. FO-7279. St. Paul, MN,800-876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1999. Q-C-#68#*?%\$#;$9E MN No. FO-7277. St. Paul, MN,800-876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1998.P75V$2-#6%8,$;-7.21%\*5$92%<5*/";29E MN No. FO-7278.St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

[8A:%Z72-*#7.%:65*=*5$9251%)$#2$5%SZ:)TE East Campus-UNL, Lincoln, NB 68583-0822, 402-437-5178. The centerinteracts with a national network of cooperators to conductresearch, develop technologies and tools, establishdemonstrations, and provide useful information onagroforestry.

30 ——


Propagation of Native Grasses andPropagation of Native Grasses andPropagation of Native Grasses andPropagation of Native Grasses andPropagation of Native Grasses andWWWWWildflowers for Seed Productionildflowers for Seed Productionildflowers for Seed Productionildflowers for Seed Productionildflowers for Seed Production

Project Summary

Joshua ^eithamer wants to increase theefficiency, profitability and production on hissmall acreage by planting and harvesting nativegrass and wildflower seed. He will demonstrateplanting, maintenance and harvestingtechniques using specialiZed equipment as wellas modified conventional farm equipment. Thecost of establishment and the return on theinvestment will be reported.

Project Description

Joshua ^eithamer wants to increase theefficiency, profitability and production on his52 acres of tillable land. For the past five years,Joshua, who just graduated from high school,has grown conventional crops such as wheat,rye, buckwheat, and soybeans with onlymarginal financial results because of the highoverhead associated with raising these cropson limited acres. However, he gainedexperience with a variety of crops and has takenan adaptive approach to farming, looking forimprovement over more conventional methods.

During the summer of 1998, Joshua worked forPrairie Land Management (PLM) planting nativegrasses and wildflowers. This ignited his interestin growing his own prairie. He was convincedthat propagating and harvesting indigenous cropswas an excellent way to ensure environmentalbenefits as well as aneconomic return that iswell above conventionalcrops.

Joshua saw that nativegrasses and wildflowerplantings have economicand environmentalbenefits:

1. Erosion will bevirtually nonexistent bykeeping the groundcovered year round withperennials.


Joshua ̂ eithamer3844 Englund

Road SWAlexandria, MN

56308320-762-1798

Douglas County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

big bluestem,Indiangrass,maximillian

sunflower, nativegrasses, perennial

plants, purpleconeflower, sideoats

grama, wildflowers

2. There will be a long-term benefit from a singleplanting.

3. Natives will provide good cover for wildlife.

4. Natives have deep root systems that pullnutrients from lower in the soil profile, can out-compete weeds once the natives are established,and discourage gophers.

5. There is a growing market for native seedwith the potential to increase income from theseacres.

JoshuaJs goal is to grow native crops and harvestthem for seed, using modified conventional farmequipment rather than labor-intensive handharvesting. He used a Truax drill to plant theseed. This drill is specifically designed forplanting native prairie seeds, which increases thegermination rate because it places the seeds atthe correct depth, providing a consistent rate ofseeds per acre. Native seeds are either too smallor too fluffy to pass through a conventional drill.Hand seeding is usually not a good choicebecause it involves too much room for humanerror and the cost of these seeds is too high towaste any.

The goal of the first year was to attain the beststand possible. By the end of the second growingseason, Joshua harvested seed. At the beginning

Josh out standing in his fields of Echinacea

Alternative Crops • Zeithamer

—— 31



of the third growing season, Joshua willperform a prescribed burn. The specieshe planted will regrow more rapidly anddenser after a fire. Seed productionshould increase each production year.Joshua expects the change fromconventional crop production to nativeseed production to increase his incomeand, therefore, his college fund.

Results

Beginning in the early spring of 1999,Joshua prepared a firm and levelseedbed then let the fields develop acanopy of weed growth until late June.Then, using a Truax drill, sideoatsgrama, Indiangrass and big bluestemwere planted in ten-acre plots. Two,one-half acre plots of purple coneflower and maximilliansunflower were planted at the same time. Within fourdays after planting, an herbicide burndown was made toeliminate the weed canopy and give the newly planted seedsan excellent start. Once the native plants emerged, Joshuamonitored plant densities and heights and controlled theweeds by mowing. Seeding rate, cost of seed, plantdensities and heights for the plantings are shown in Table1. No seed harvest was planned the first year althoughsome of the grasses had seeded out despite having onlyhalf of a growing season. It was hoped that those seedswould drop to the ground and germinate in the spring of2000, providing an even thicker stand of native plants.

In 1999, the maximillian sunflower plot became the homeof a spectrum of songbirds, insects, rabbits and a henpheasant. The hen was the first pheasant Joshua had seenin his county in many years. The height of the cover, aswell as the food the seeds provide, probablyattracted the wildlife.

There was above average weed growth in thespring of 2000, causing concern aboutcompetition with the native grasses. Joshua hadoriginally planned to control weeds with mowingbut he was forced to use a broadleaf herbicideto reduce weed competition, especially thistles.Since he planned to harvest seed this year, itwas particularly important to have relativelyclean fields. Plant densities and heights for thesecond season are shown in Table 1.

To harvest the grasses and purple coneflowers,Joshua first windrowed them to dry them out.He used a retrofitted “b” Gleaner to do the

threshing. The sideoats grama seed was very clean butthe fluffier seeded species, big bluestem and Indiangrass,were not as clean because the seeds were very light andhard to separate from the chaff. To try to get cleanerseed, Joshua turned off all of the wind on the combine andopened up the sieve and chaffer as much as possible withoutthrowing seed out the back of the combine.

Joshua was not able to finish cleaning the seed before thereport was printed. He plans to build new sieves for anolder fanning mill and use that to finish the job. iields ofseed from the 2000 cropping year will be published in nextyearJs report with an economic analysis of the project andcomparison with conventional cropping systems.

Management Tips

1. Begin a project with an open mind and a firm and levelseedbed.

Table 1. 1999 and 2000 Native Species Planting and RateCost, Plant Density and Height

12

18

12

12

65

60

36

24

Indiangrass!"#$%&'()*+, -*)'-(.

Sideoats Grama!/#*)01##*', 20$)340-5*1'.

57 67

Big Bluestem!6-5$#4#%#-, %0$'$53.

20001999

936;4.I0;1>4<K936;41L<:MN

17*

19

14

18

19

19

18

19

14 18

20001999

$152.50

$159.50

$106.40

$380.00

$400.00

H714. 7O. D00:G0=.+?=0

10

10

8

5

5

936;4>;A/640. K3EL+N

Purple Coneflower!72&3-'20', '-%*()38#13'.

Maximillian Sunflower!9013'-)&*(,+':3+3113'-3.

* Numbers are averages of multiple counts within plots of species.

+PAM.Q0>A@4K>;?@01N

Josh (middle) describes the art ofgrowing wild flowers for seed

32 ——



2. Remember that native grasses and wildflowers are notconventional crops. It will not look as pretty the first yearas 180 bu corn planted in neat rows with no weeds.

3. Maximillian sunflower is really impressive. It canreplace existing corn plots and only needs to be plantedonce. This saves time, erosion, and money, and promoteswildlife all at the same time.

Cooperators

_1.$%F3*+,9*#B Prairie Land Management,Glenwood, MN

A7C$%<$,$5B%Alexandria High SchoolQ7551%e-..-*WB%Douglas County Extension, Alexandria, MN!$551%^766$#+-..$5B Douglas County SWCD,

Alexandria, MN

Project Location

The ^eithamer farm is 4.2 miles west of Alexandria onHwy 27 then 1/10 mile north on Englund Rd. The house isthe first driveway on the left.

Other Resources

Henderson, Carrol L. 1994. Q7#/9;7,-#6% =*5%?-./.-=$EMN Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Rd.,St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-6157.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 1998. 49270.-93-#67#/%+7-#27-#-#6%?75+%9$79*#%65799$9%SZ72-C$%65799$9TEp. 26-29. ># Greenbook 98. MN Department ofAgriculture, 90 W. Plato Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55107,651-296-7673. email: Linda.Bougieustate.mn.us

Sedivec, b. b. and W. T. Barker. 8$.$;2$/%Z*523%A7V*277#/%P-##$9*27% 57#6$% ,.7#29E ND No. EB-69. NorthDakota State University Extension Service, Fargo, ND.

Wendt, beith. 1984. :%6"-/$%2*%P-##$9*27%,57-5-$9E MNDepartment of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Rd., St.Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-6157.

—— 33


Applying Manure to CorApplying Manure to CorApplying Manure to CorApplying Manure to CorApplying Manure to Cornnnnnat Agronomic Ratesat Agronomic Ratesat Agronomic Ratesat Agronomic Ratesat Agronomic Rates

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Becket/Geske

Project Summary

The nutrients found in manure are valuable ascrop fertiliZer. However, when not managedproperly, they are a potential source of surfacewater and ground water pollution. Waterpollution commonly occurs when thecombination of manure and commercialfertiliZer exceeds crop demand. Our goal forthis project is to demonstrate proper manurenutrient planning, manure testing, manurenutrient crediting and spreader calibration. TwoDakota County farms (a dairy and a hogenterprise) have developed manuremanagement plans and are comparing manureto commercial fertiliZer for their ability to deliverplant nutrients to row crops. In 1998, cornfertiliZed with manure yielded the same as corngrown with commercial fertiliZer. Wetconditions in 1999 reduced nutrient availabilityfrom dairy manure but not hog manure. In2000, we fine tuned a starter fertiliZer to accountfor the slow release nature of the nutrients inthe manure. Consequently we eliminated thespring nitrogen deficit. These farmers aredemonstrating an overall economic savings(o5,100 in reduced fertiliZer cost on TaylorFarms in 1998) showing that it pays to testmanure and follow a manure nutrientmanagement plan.

Project Description

In an increasingly urbancommunity, manure andfeedlot issues are agrowing concern. Ray andben Taylor (TaylorFarms) and Blake Otte(Square Deal Dairy) areinterested indemonstrating to theirneighbors that profitableagriculture does not haveto come at the expense ofthe environment. BothTaylor Farms and SquareDeal Dairy are interestedin following manure

PrincipalInvestigators

Tim Becket andJeremy Geske

Dakota CountyExtension/SWCD

4100 - 220th St. W.Farmington, MN

55024651-480-7704Dakota County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact

Mark ̂ umwinkle651-282-6204

Keywords

input reduction,manure

management, waterquality

nutrient management plans. Proper utiliZationof the manure should achieve desired crop yieldsand reduce commercial fertiliZer expenses. Bothfarms realiZe that sound nutrient management isessential if they wish to continue farming wellinto the future.

Dakota County Extension and SWCDs havecombined efforts to provide a manure nutrientmanagement program to benefit Dakota Countyfarmers and the environment. Together, theseorganiZations provide technical, educational andfinancial assistance to livestock producers whowant to refine their handling of manure.

In our extensive experience working withfarmers, we find that many are not properlyaccounting for the nutrients in the manure theyapply. In order for manure to be a reliablesource of plant nutrition, the farmer needs toknow how much is being applied. This canonly be achieved by knowing the quantity ofnutrients contained in the manure and the rateat which the manure is applied to the land.Farmers regularly have their soil sampled forfertility but they do not test their manure fornutrient value. Manure spreaders are notcommonly calibrated for the rate of manurebeing applied. Thus, manure is viewed byfarmers as an undependable fertiliZer source.Manure and/or commercial fertiliZer is thenover-applied, increasing the potential for ground

Tim and Jeremy review plantavailable nutrients from manure test

34 ——



water and surface water pollution. This is not only harmfulto water quality, but is an economic loss to the farmerwhen commercial fertiliZer is unnecessarily applied to landthat has received adequate nutrients from manure.

B($5')#,2$.>-.4",< Taylor Farms consists of 400 acresof corn and soybeans on fine sandy loam with 2-6m slopes.The Taylors custom background 1,600 gilts. Liquid manureis sweep injected. At Square Deal Dairy, Blake Otte milks330 cows and raises 750 acres of corn and alfalfa on aloam soil with minimal slope. Manure with bedding isbroadcast and incorporated within 12 hours.

!G>#$.5#"-(0' )#,.%"< At both farms randomiZed fieldsiZed plots (30J x 400J) were replicated three times tocompare the dependability of manure nutrients withcommercial fertiliZer. Treatments at both farms included:

1. Commercial fertiliZer at U of M recommended rate.

2. Manure at U of M recommended rate (plus starterfertiliZer in 2000).

3. Control (no fertiliZer).

Manure application rates at both farms were based onprojected nitrogen availability from a laboratory manureanalysis (see Table 1) and nitrogen needs of the corn basedon standard U of M criteria (see samplemanure rate calculations for TaylorFarms in Table 2). In 1998, a fourthtreatment included manure applied attwice the recommended rate todemonstrate the wastefulness of such apractice. This treatment wasdiscontinued in 1999. We wanted toshow that following a sound nutrientmanagement plan would be financiallybeneficial to the farm so we tracked thefertiliZer replacement value of themanure.

On July 2, 1998, corn leaf tissue wastested for nitrogen status using achlorophyll meter. The meter actuallymeasures leaf “greenness.” A greenerleaf means more chlorophyll and betternitrogen nutrition. This method ofmonitoring nitrogen status was notuniformly dependable in 1998. Wewould not have been able to use thetechnology to deliver a metered nitrogenside-dress so the activity wasdiscontinued in 1999.

Results

HIIJ< At Taylor Farms, the corn fertiliZed with hog manurehad the highest average yields (Table 3). Statistically, yieldswith hog manure were similar to yields with commercialfertiliZer. The control treatment (no fertiliZer or manure)had the lowest yields. Over-application of manure did notproduce higher yields. iield results at Square Deal Dairywere consistent with Taylor Farms. Again, well managedmanure was competitive with commercial fertiliZer. Overallyields were lower due to extremely wet conditions. Wewere surprised that the surface applied, unincorporatedmanure produced approximately the same yield as theincorporated manure.

HIII<' As expected, the plots fertiliZed with hog manure atTaylor Farms produced identical yields to those fertiliZedwith commercial fertiliZer. By following the nutrientmanagement plan, the Taylors were able to achieve their140 bushel yield goal and save money on fertiliZer. iieldsat Square Deal Dairy were affected by wet weather. Overallyields were low and manured plots yielded significantlyless than commercially fertiliZed plots but still much higherthan the unfertiliZed control. This is likely due to the highamount of organic nitrogen in the dairy manure (comparedto the TaylorJs hog manure). Wet conditions on the heaviersoil slowed the early season release of nitrogen from theorganic form.

Table 2. Taylor Farms Manure Application Rate to Corn(Sample Calculation)

Corn

8 lb/A

140 bu/ASoybeans

low

0 lb/A

102 lb/A

Yield goalPrevious cropSoil organic matter

N requirement 110 lb/A

2nd year N credit

3rd year N credit

Crop

N to apply in manure

Actual manure rate

!"""'--# '---

Corn

140 bu/ACornlow

32 lb/A

118 lb/A

0 lb/A

150 lb/A

Corn

180 bu/ACornlow

27 lb/A

95 lb/A

26 lb/A

150 lb/A

104 lb/AN from manure 87 lb/A 87 lb/A

0 lb/AN from fertilizer 27 lb/A 8 lb/A

11,400 gal/A 5,700 gal/A 5,700 gal/A

Table 1. Taylor Farms Liquid Hog Manure Nutrient Analysis

RJ24=>0;4 3EL'%""". A6337;1

0.170.050.13

NitrogenPhosphorusPotassium

14410

—— 35



KLLL<% Poor corn yields at Taylor Farms resulted from acombination of herbicide damage and dry midsummerweather. As in the previous two years, manured cornyields were equal to the commercially fertiliZed plots. AtSquare Deal Dairy, manured plots had the highest yieldsbut the difference was not significant. The drier seasonfavored corn production on this farmJs heavy soils. TheunfertiliZed control plots yielded much higher thananticipated (154 bu/A).We wanted to show that farmers could benefit economicallyby following a sound manure nutrient management plan.

Taylor Farms has incorporated the information from thefirst year of this demonstration into their fertiliZer program.As a direct result of manure testing and better planning,they are now able to fertiliZe 160 acres of corn exclusivelywith liquid hog manure. They achieved a savings of o31.90/A or o5,100 in reduced commercial fertiliZer cost in 1998.Nitrogen savings alone were o16.25/A (125 lb x o.13/lb)or o2,600 over the whole farm.

Nitrogen fertiliZer prices are projected to remain very highthrough the spring planting season of 2001. Currently,nitrogen is o.24/lb when applied as anhydrous ammonia.This is compared to o.13/lb when we started this projectin 1998. The fertiliZer equivalent value of the manure atTaylor Farms this coming spring will likely exceed o45.00/A or o7,200 applied to 160 acresw

The cost of engaging in the nutrient planning process issimply the cost of manure nutrient sampling plus the timeinvested in working through the plan. Manure samplescurrently range from o12-o20. They should be taken forthree consecutive years to build a dependable baseline foreach farm. Farmers should expect to spend from one-halfto one day to work through a nutrient management plan,depending on the complexity of the operation. Two hours

Table 3. Grain Yield: Manure vs. Commercial Fertilizer

!""".S>03:(bu/A)

'--#.S>03:(bu/A)

'---.S>03:(bu/A)

929181---

157154154------

154152117---

13115067------

168167131153

13514377138133

D>40 50=4>3>T0=

TaylorFarms

SquareDealDairy

Liquid hog manure, injected1

CommercialControlDouble rate hog manure

Solid Dairy Manure, Inc.2CommercialControlDouble rate dairy manureDairy Manure left on surface

1 Included starter fertilizer in 2000 consisting of (9-0-9) applied at 25 gal/A.2 Included starter fertilizer in 2000 consisting of (8-0-20) applied at 100 lb/A.

will be invested in sampling manure and spreadercalibration. With all those nutrient dollars waiting to becaptured from the manure, we hope more farmers willengage in a similar planning process.

Our goal to show the dependability of manure as a primarynutrient source is supported by this demonstration. Wehave also shown that over-application of nutrients, whetherfrom manure or commercial fertiliZer, does not increaseyields, wastes money and risks a potential pollution haZard.

Management Tips

1. Test your manure for nutrient content.

2. Calibrate your spreader for actualmanure delivery rate.

3. Contact local professional staff tohelp build a nutrient management plan.

4. Monitor the crop response to tailoryour plan to your resources. A nitrogenstarter fertiliZation may be used toovercome delayed release of manurenitrogen.

Cooperators

a71%7#/%_$#%F71.*5B%Northfield, MNU.7V$%d22$B%Randolph, MN!*$%P$1$59B%Hampton, MN

Project Location

To Taylor demonstration: go north on Hwy 3 fromNorthfield 1 mile to Hwy 47. Go northeast 1 mile to CtyRd 94. Go east 1s miles to Cty Rd 59. Go south t mileto farm on 310th St. E.

To Square Deal Dairy demonstration: go southwest onHwy 47 from Hampton 1s miles to Cty Rd 83. Go south2 miles to farm on northwest corner of Cty Rd 83 and270th St E.

36 ——


Cereal RCereal RCereal RCereal RCereal Rye for Rye for Rye for Rye for Rye for Reduced Input Peduced Input Peduced Input Peduced Input Peduced Input PastureastureastureastureastureEstablishment and Early GrazingEstablishment and Early GrazingEstablishment and Early GrazingEstablishment and Early GrazingEstablishment and Early Grazing

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Cuomo

Project Summary

One of the primary obstacles to establishmentof perennial pastures for graZing or hayproduction is weed competition. Herbicides arenot always desirable or available for establishingpastures so alternatives would be valuable tofarmers who were interested in reducing chemicaluse. Cereal rye has been used in crop rotationsto suppress weeds in subsequent crops but littlework has been done in pasture settings. In thisproject, perennial forage crops will be screenedfor suitability for seeding into rye stubble. Ryewill also be graZed to determine its benefits toextending the graZing season and for overallforage production.

Project Description

Perennial forage crops are relatively slow toestablish and weeds can be very competitive,especially if moisture is limiting. Currently,when establishing forage crops, weeds are eithernot controlled, resulting in competition andpotential stand reduction, or are controlled withherbicides which increases the cost of standestablishment.

A group of farmers in West Central Minnesotaworking with Greg Cuomo, then graZingspecialist at the West Central Research andOutreach Center (WCROC), became interestedin ryeJs potential to: control weeds for pastureestablishmentd provide analternative companioncrop for the establishmentof perennial forage cropsdand, supply green foragefor early spring graZing.Before herbicides wereavailable, farmers tookadvantage of ryeJsallelopathic characteristicsto help control weeds intheir crops. And, cerealrye is well adapted to thecold Minnesota wintersand is one of the few


Greg CuomoUniversity of

Minnesota,West CentralResearch and

Outreach Center,State Highway 329

Morris, MN 56267320-589-1711Stevens, Pope,

Lac lui Parle, andChippewa Counties

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

cereal rye, extendingthe graZing season,

pastureestablishment,

rotational graZing,weed suppression

crops that can be fall planted and consistentlysurvive the winter.

In addition to reducing herbicide use andsupplying early spring forage, cereal rye couldalso serve as a companion crop to reduce erosionand moderate soil temperature during perennialforage crop establishment. A benefit of usingcereal rye as a companion crop compared tomore traditional companion crops is that cerealrye generally stops growing relatively early insummer. Oats, barley and wheat are planted inspring and grow during the summer.Midsummer, when moisture may be limiting, isthe time when companion crops tend to be mostcompetitive with establishing perennial foragecrop seedlings. When cereal rye is used, therye and the planted forage crop growth cyclesoverlap early in the growing season whenmoisture is usually more abundant. Rye hasessentially ceased growing by midsummer andwill not compete as much for moisture or lightas do the other companion crops.

While rye has been effective at controllingweeds in field crops, it is not known whetherthe allelopathic chemicals released by the ryewill also inhibit the establishment of foragecrops. This project evaluated forage cropestablishment and weed control following fallplanted rye to determine if rye is an option forsupplying green forage for graZing in early spring.

Greg at Struxness rye research site

—— 37



The results of the two year research suggests that cerealrye does not offer any obvious benefits for establishmentof forage crops.

Two demonstration sites were established in 1998 for earlyspring graZing and for forage establishment research. Twoadditional sites were planted in 1999 for research in 2000.

*-$+G"#,,'B($5<% %At the Struxness farm, 90 lb/A of ryewere drilled into ten acres of prepared seedbed in August1998 on a well drained, loamy soil site that had previouslybeen in CRP. One acre was tilled and left fallow forcomparison. The fall planted rye was graZed early in thespring of 1999 when it was 6 to 8” tall and before theperennial pastures were ready for graZing, lengthening thegraZing season for the StruxnessJ cow/calf and stockeroperation. Forage yield, animal gain and graZing days peracre were recorded.

When perennial pastures were ready for graZing and thebeef herd could be moved to them, grasses and legumes(Table 1) were planted in 1) the fallow groundd 2) the areaplanted to rye, graZed in spring, and sprayed with glyphosate(Roundup) one day before planting to reduce ryecompetitiond and, 3) the area planted to rye, spring graZed,and not sprayed with glyphosate before planting.Emergence and establishment of grass and legume seedlingswere used to evaluate the impact of cereal rye on reducingweed competition during establishment of the perennialforage crops. The area sprayed withglyphosate was evaluated for theallelopathic effect of the rye on foragecrop establishment. The area notsprayed was used to evaluate the impactof both allelopathy and competitionfrom the rye. The potential that theallelopathy from rye would reduceestablishment of the forage cropsthemselves was also evaluated.

!)0+")'B($5<% The Edlund farm is arow crop and cow/calf farm that alsoproduces alfalfa hay for sale andfeeding. The demonstration site is onwell drained, loamy soil with a 6 to 12mslope. Grass pastures on this farm tendto be on land that is marginal or notsuited for row crop production and ithas been a challenge to establish alfalfa.

About 90 lb/A of rye were planted atthe Edlund site in August 1999 for usein 2000. No graZing was done here.

The cereal rye was allowed to grow until mid-May thenthree perennial forage crop establishment treatments weretried. The treatments were 1) mow and leave residue 1-day before plantingd 2) spray rye with glyphosate 1-daybefore plantingd and, 3) plant into fallow wheat stubble.By not graZing, the additional rye biomass on the plot areaswill help assess the impact of cereal rye on weeds and theestablishment of the forage crops. Emergence andestablishment of perennial forage crops were evaluated inareas planted to rye and compared to emergence andestablishment in the control areas.

=#,-'C#"-$(0'E#,#($27'(")'M+-$#(27'C#"-#$'*.-#< Aboutfour acres of rye were planted at the WCROC in August1998. The rye was no-till planted into oat stubble. Therye germinated then an extended dry period eliminated therye on the sandy soil at the Center. Rye was replanted inOctober but the stand was not satisfactory in the spring of1999 and the site was not used.

The WCROC site was planted again in August 1999. Thissite was used in 2000 to evaluate both graZing (like theStruxness site) and the rye accumulation impacts onperennial forage crop establishment (like the Edlund site).Evaluations of graZing and forage crop establishment similarto Struxness and Edlund sites were made.

Table 1. Forage Crops Establishment on Struxness Farm, 1999

- - - Visual Stand Rating* - - -;##1, "0'(#-,<$'((0(Smooth BromegrassOrchardgrassReed CanarygrassTimothyPerennial Ryegrass

)=064F0;4Rye Grazed,

No HerbicideFallow and

TilledRye Grazed,Glyphosate57=6A0.DG0?>01

6.3**4.32.82.87.3

3.3 (52) ***0.3 (7)0.3 (11)0.0 (0)0.0 (0)

4.3 (68)1.8 (41)1.0 (36)1.0 (36)1.0 (14)

='$+,"0'(#-,<$'((0(Big BluestemSwitchgrassIndiangrass

1.81.80.5

0.3 (17)0.0 (0)0.0 (0)

0.8 (44)0.5 (44)0.5 (100)

>0%*+0(AlfalfaBirdsfoot TrefoilKura CloverRed Clover

6.36.85.08.5

5.0 (79)1.8 (26)2.8 (56)4.5 (53)

6.3 (100)2.5 (37)3.3 (66)5.3 (62)

* Stands were visually estimated using a 0-9 scale with 0=no plants and 9=full stand.** LSD at 0.05=1.5 and is suitable for comparison within and between columns.***Numbers in parenthesis are the percents of the fallow and tilled check for that treatment.

38 ——



Results

Perennial forage crop establishment datafrom the three sites are shown in Tables1 through 3. The average percentestablishment of cool season grasses andlegumes compared to the tilled checkaveraged across the sites is presentedin Table 4. At the Struxness site inSpring 1999, beef cattle graZed the ryefrom the time it was 6 to 8” tall untilperennial pastures were ready forgraZing. The ten acres supported 1,109graZing days (110 days/A) between April30 and June 3. A mixed group of beefsteers and heifers averaged 1.89 lb ofgain/day or 210 lb of gain/A over the34-day graZing period.

Results were similar across all sites:

j Perennial forage crop establishmentwas better in fallow and plowedground compared to establishment incereal rye. The only exception to thiswas legumes in some treatments at theWCROC in 2000.

j Legumes tended to establish betterthan grasses. This indicates that theymay be better able to compete withthe stress of competition with thecereal rye. This response was due inlarge part to the alfalfa and red cloverseedlings ability to aggressivelyestablish themselves. However, in the2000 planting year, perennial ryegrasswas often the best establishing foragecrop. In general, alfalfa and red cloverestablished relatively well regardlessof planting method.

j Of the grasses planted, perennialryegrass established best acrossplanting methods. Although atStruxnessJs, smooth bromegrassestablished better in areas where ryewas planted.

j There were no consistent impacts ofgraZing or herbicide use detected onperennial forage crop establishmentwhen cereal rye was planted.

j Warm season grasses did not establishwell in the first year at any location.Warm-season grasses can be slow toestablish and may thicken with time at these locations.

Table 2. Forage Crops Establishment on Edlund Farm, 2000

- - - Visual Stand Rating* - - -Birdsfoot TrefoilSmooth BromegrassReed CanarygrassOrchardgrassKura CloverRed CloverPerennial RyegrassAlfalfa

)=064F0;4Rye Grazed,

No HerbicideFallow and

TilledRye Not Grazed,

Glyphosate57=6A0.DG0?>01

9.08.08.36.86.89.09.08.5

4.0 (44)**3.0 (38)2.0 (24)5.5 (81)2.8 (41)7.8 (86)7.8 (86)8.0 (94)

3.0 (33)3.3 (41)1.8 (21)2.3 (33)3.3 (48)6.0 (66)3.5 (38)6.5 (76)

* Stands were visually estimated using a 0-9 scale with 0=no plants and 9=full stand.**Numbers in parenthesis are the percents of the fallow and tilled check for that treatment.

D00:>;A./640(Lb/A)

6.720.87.35.16.88.219.211.2

Table 3. Forage Crops Establishment on West CentralResearch and Outreach Center, 2000

)=064F0;4

Rye NotGrazed,

Glyphosate

Fallowand

Tilled

57=6A0.DG0?>01

D00:>;A/640

(Lb/A)

- - - Visual Stand Rating* - - -Birdsfoot TrefoilSmooth BromegrassReed CanarygrassOrchardgrassKura CloverRed CloverPerennial RyegrassAlfalfaSwitchgrassIndiangrassBig BluestemTimothy

5.56.57.54.34.36.89.07.01.01.01.02.0

3.5 (64)4.5 (69)4.3 (57)3.5 (82)4.5 (106)7.3 (107)5.8 (64)7.0 (100)1.3 (125)1.3 (125)1.0 (100)1.3 (63)

* Stands were visually estimated using a 0-9 scale with 0=no plants and 9=full stand.**Numbers in parenthesis are the percents of the fallow and tilled check for that treatment.

6.720.87.35.16.88.219.211.29.620.513.88.0

Rye NotGrazed, No

Herbicide

4.8 (86) **3.8 (58)3.3 (43)3.0 (71)3.3 (76)5.8 (85)6.0 (67)6.5 (93)1.5 (150)1.5 (150)1.3 (125)1.5 (75)

RyeGrazed, No

Herbicide

2.5 (45)4.0 (62)3.8 (50)2.3 (53)2.0 (47)7.3 (107)5.3 (58)4.3 (61)1.0 (100)1.0 (100)1.0 (100)2.8 (138)

RyeGrazed,

Glyphosate

4.0 (73)3.8 (58)3.8 (50)3.0 (71)5.5 (129)8.0 (119)8.5 (94)8.5 (121)1.0 (100)1.0 (100)1.0 (100)2.8 (138)

Table 4. Average Percent Establishment of Forage Crops Across Locations Compared to Fallow & Tilled Check, 1999 and 2000

)=064F0;4Rye Not

Grazed, NoHerbicide

57=6A0.)<G0

Cool Season GrassesCool Season Legumes

5077

* Stands were visually estimated using a 0-9 scale with 0=no plants and 9=full stand.1Numbers are the percent establishment compared to fallow and tilled checkaveraged across two planting locations, either Struxness 1999 and WCROC 2000 orEdlund 2000 and WCROC 2000.

Rye NotGrazed,

Glyphosate

59*77

RyeGrazed,

Glyphosate

5789

RyeGrazed, No

Herbicide

3851

—— 39



In almost all instances, these forage crops established betterin tilled ground than with any combination of cereal ryeand glyphosate use. One reason why perennial forage cropestablishment was reduced when planted into cereal ryecompared to fallow ground may have been due to earlycompetition of the rye with the forage crop seedlings.Although there was less competition for moisture inmidsummer when using cereal rye as a companion crop,competition between the rye and the seedlings may stillcome at a critical time resulting in reduced establishment.

Even in the areas where rye was planted, there were weedinfestations. In the fallow and plowed areas, a heavy standof foxtail developed but did not reduce forage cropestablishment to the levels in the cereal rye plots. Foxtailtends to emerge and grow later in the summer which mayhave given the seedlings in the fallow areas adequate timeto get started ahead of the weed competition. Althoughcomparisons were not made in these experiments, it appearsthat cereal rye presents competition to establishing perennialforage crops similar to other cover crops. As such, cerealrye did not offer any obvious benefits for establishment.

Cooperators

A7#%7#/%P-991%825"W#$99B Appleton, MNA*#%825"W#$99B%Milan, MNQ$a*1%4/."#/B%Cyrus, MN

Project Location

Contact Greg Cuomo at WCROC for project locations.

Other Resources

Alderfer, R., et al. 1992. 4==$;29% *=%+7#76$+$#2% *=% 7?-#2$5%51$%;*C$5%;5*,%9192$+%*#%657-#%1-$./B%?$$/%;*#25*.B7C7-.70.$%9*-.%?72$5B%7#/%#$2%5$2"5#%,$5%7;5$%-#%;*5#%7#/9*10$7#9E Unpublished. Contact Greg Cuomo, WCROC,Morris, MN, 320-589-1711.

:,,5*,5-72$%F$;3#*.*61%F57#9=$5%=*5%a"57.%:5$79%S:FFa:T.P. O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702, 800-346-9140.Website: http://www.attra.orgExtensive material on non-chemical weed control for rowcrops.

University of Saskatchewan. @-#2$5% 51$% ,5*/";2-*#EAvailable at: http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci//wintergcereals/wintergrye/cvrye.htm

Warnes, D., et al. 1990. 4==$;2%*=%,5$;-,-272-*#%*#%23$%"9$*=%?-#2$5% 51$% 79% 7#% 7..$.*,723-;% ;*C$5% ;5*,% -#% 9*10$7#,5*/";2-*#E Unpublished. Contact Greg Cuomo, WCROC,Morris, MN, 320-589-1711.

40 ——


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Fernholz

TTTTTechniques for More Efficient Utilization ofechniques for More Efficient Utilization ofechniques for More Efficient Utilization ofechniques for More Efficient Utilization ofechniques for More Efficient Utilization ofa Va Va Va Va Vetch Cover Crop for Coretch Cover Crop for Coretch Cover Crop for Coretch Cover Crop for Coretch Cover Crop for Corn Productionn Productionn Productionn Productionn Production

Project Summary

Hairy vetch has shown potential as a greenmanure to add biological nitrogen for fall soilcover for weed suppression through allelopathy(some plants release toxic substances(allelochemicals) into the immediateenvironment of other plants) and for inter-rowcompetition with weeds. Establishment of vetchhas been successful with seeding in late summerafter a small grain crop. The question thatCarmen would like to answer is how can he bestutiliZe vetch seeded following a small grain cropto reduce the energy costs of corn productionrelated to inputs of fertiliZer, fuel and labor. Hewould like to identify combinations ofmanagement practices that 1) allow the greatestutiliZation of biologically fixed nitrogen, and 2)allow reduced tillage while maintainingsatisfactory weed control in an organic vetchbased system.

Project Description

In August, 2000, following a crop of springwheat, about five acres of wheat stubble waschisel plowed and hairy vetch was broadcastover the tilled ground at a rate of 15 lb/A. Inthe spring of 2001, the vetch will be evaluatedfor growth and survivability. Corn will beplanted in 30” rows into the vetch to assess thecontribution of the vetch cover crop to nitrogenand weed control in corn production. Controlplots using cultivation for weed control will beincluded in the experimental design. Weedcontrol, crop and vetch development will bemonitored throughout the season.

Eight treatments will be replicated three times.Each treatment consists of 12 rows that are 200Jlong and 30J wide. The treatments include:

1. Z*%c$2;3B%Z*%Q-C$92*;V%P7#"5$%)3$;VH Cornwill be planted in late May into fall chiseledwheat stubble. Weed control in corn will consistof row cultivation.

2. ^-63%F-..% c$2;3% F5$72+$#2H Corn will beplanted in late May into fall chiseled wheat


Carmen FernholZRoute 2, Box 9A

Madison, MN56256

320-598-3010Lac lui Parle

County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

allelopathy,biologically fixed

nitrogen, greenmanure, hairy vetch,

small grains

stubble seeded to vetch. cetch will beincorporated by disk prior to corn planting. Post-planting weed control will be provided by rowcultivation.

3. a$/";$/%F-..76$%c$2;3%8192$+%(H Corn willbe planted in late May into fall chiseled wheatstubble seeded to vetch. cetch in early to fullbloom will be suppressed (in late May) by rollingwith cultipacker or similar implement prior tocorn planting. cetch mulch will be relied uponfor weed control in corn.

4. a$/";$/%F-..76$%c$2;3%8192$+%&H Corn willbe planted in late May into fall chiseled wheatstubble seeded to vetch. cetch in early to fullbloom will be suppressed (in late May) by rollingwith cultipacker or similar implement prior tocorn planting. Additional suppression of vetchand weeds will be provided by one or morepasses with a spring tooth harrow modified toprevent crop damage. Harrow adjustments andmodifications will knock down vetch leavingsubstantial living and dead mulch.

In treatments one through four, no fertiliZers willbe applied because this is an organic system andCarmen wants to test whether or not it will workwithout fertiliZer.

5. Z*% c$2;3B% Q-C$92*;V% P7#"5$% :,,.-$/F5$72+$#2H Corn will be planted in late Mayinto fall chiseled wheat stubble. Weed controlin corn will consist of row cultivation.

6. ^-63% F-..% c$2;3% F5$72+$#2%?-23% Q-C$92*;VP7#"5$H%Corn will be planted in late May intofall chiseled wheat stubble seeded to vetch.cetch will be incorporated by disk prior to cornplanting. Weed control will consist of rowcultivation.

7. a$/";$/% F-..76$% c$2;3% 8192$+% (% ?-23Q-C$92*;V%P7#"5$H Corn will be planted in lateMay into fall chiseled wheat stubble seeded tovetch. cetch in early to full bloom will besuppressed (in late May) by rolling withcultipacker or similar implement prior to corn

—— 41


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Fernholz

planting. cetch mulch will be relied upon for weed controlin corn.

8. a$/";$/%F-..76$%c$2;3%8192$+%&%?-23%Q-C$92*;V%P7#"5$HCorn will be planted in late May into fall chiseled wheatstubble seeded to vetch. cetch in early to full bloom willbe suppressed (in late May) by rolling with cultipacker orsimilar implement prior to corn planting. Additionalsuppression of vetch and weeds will be provided by oneor more passes with a modified spring tooth harrow.

In treatments five through eight, manure will be springapplied at an approximate rate of 4,000 gal/A.

Results

Plots were set up and seeded in August, 2000.Unfortunately, it was very dry from the time of seedingthrough late October. It was only after some significantrains in late October that the seeded vetch finally beganto sprout. The vetch began to emerge when the colder,sub-freeZing temperatures arrived. Carmen is still in doubtas to whether any of the newly sprouted vetch will surviveover the winter because of its tender state of growth atthe time of freeZe up. Carmen will evaluate the plots inthe spring once the snow has melted.

Management Tips

1. cetch, although it can be planted quite shallow or spreadon the top of the soil, still needs cool, moist weather to

germinate. If seeded in mid- to late August, the moist coolconditions will allow the plants to grow and developadequate root systems before freeZe-up. This also helpsin winter survival, especially if there is minimal snow cover.

2. If the management practice is to spread vetch seed overthe top of chisel plowed wheat stubble, a precautionarymeasure might be to harrow the seed immediately. Thisallows even minimal rain showers to help germinate theseed that will have been lightly covered by soil from theharrow. Carmen neglected to harrow his fall seeding andeven though there were some significant fall showers, nonewere adequate to get the germination started until late inOctober when there were three days of heavy rains. Atthis point, the vetch germinated. Now Carmen is wonderingif the vetch had adequate growing time before freeZe up.There has been significant snow cover that may be helpfulin protecting the vetch from cold temperatures.

Cooperators

_$C-#%U$229%b%A*#% >/$B Perennial Weed ManagementProject, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics,University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

8"927-#70.$%\75+-#6%:99*;-72-*#

Project Location

CarmenJs farm is located 1s miles east of Madison onMN Hwy 40.

42 ——


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Hansen, Mike

Living Snow FLiving Snow FLiving Snow FLiving Snow FLiving Snow Fences for Improvedences for Improvedences for Improvedences for Improvedences for ImprovedPPPPPasture Productionasture Productionasture Productionasture Productionasture Production

Project Summary

Three Coteau Ridge livestock farmers areplanting living snow fences (tree windbreaksdesigned to even out snow cover). The goal isto capture snow water, reduce pasture foragewinterkill, and lengthen the graZing season. Overthe past three years windbreak seedlingestablishment has been hampered by very dryweather and grasshopper infestations. Thefarmers are searching for alternative measuresto protect the young plantings.

Project Description

Living snow fences have great potential tobenefit livestock and pasture production insouthwestern Minnesota. Many farmers withinthe Coteau Ridge Sustainable FarmingAssociation have been moving away from corn-soybeans row cropping. The Coteau Ridge isminimally suited to the corn-soybean rotationgiven the steeply sloping topography and thedrier, colder climate in relation to adjacent areasof southwestern Minnesota. As an alternative,farmers are focusing on livestock production(beef, hogs and sheep) and the establishmentand maintenance of high quality pastures.

Looking southwest from the Mike Hansen farm,one can see the expanding development of windgenerators on the Coteau Ridge. This isconsistently one of the windiest regions in thenation. A major obstacleto pasture development onthe Coteau Ridge is thetendency for snow to blowacross the landscape andaccumulate in lee areas.This leaves large areasbarren of snow andsubject to severe wintertemperatures. Along withthe freeZe-out of bothgrasses and legumes, lackof snow cover delaysspring soil warm up andthus delays spring graZing.


Mike HansenRR 2, Box 173

Hendricks, MN56136

507-694-1825Lincoln County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

pastureimprovement, water

cycle, windbreaks

This project looks at the design, planting andmonitoring of living snow fences in an attemptto distribute snow evenly across the landscape.The hope is that the insulating properties ofevenly distributed snow will lead to the followingbenefits:

j increased survival and early spring growthof forages, especially susceptible legumes

j greater spring recharge of soil moisturej less runoff and downstream floodingj more favorable (warm and humid)

microclimate for forage during the growingseason

j reduced wind-chill on livestock, reducingstress and feed requirements

j increased window for winter graZing ofstockpiled forage

Results

HIIJ< Living snow fences were planted on theMike Hansen farm, the Jim Sovell farm and theRolling Acres farm. All three farms are locatedon hilly ground in the Ivanhoe, MN area. Inearly June, we planted single row living snowfences of Siberian larch every 300J through thepastures. The rows run east and west and areused as paddock dividers. Livestock fenceshave been installed ten feet on either side of eachnewly seeded tree row. Siberian larch waschosen because it loses its needles in the fall.

Snow captured by young eastern red cedarwindbreak after a 60 mph Alberta clipper

—— 43



This means that in winter, the snow fence would be partiallyopen, allowing some distribution of snow. In summer,leaves would more extensively block the wind, creating awarmer microclimate with less evapotranspiration.

A single row windbreak in an adjacent field was plantedon each farm to a variety of fruit and nut trees to test forsurvivability of trees that might produce a cash crop. Thisrow consisted of haZelnut and caragana on all farms andManchurian apricot (on the Hansen farm) or Freedomhoneysuckle (on the Sovell farm). The Sovells also planteda windbreak of eastern red cedar and Black Hills spruce.In order to facilitate even snow distribution across the field,the distance between plants in the row was expanded toone and one-half times the normal spacing (the trees wereplanted 30J apart). We hope that the semi-permeablewindbreak created by the single rows and wide spacing inthe row will prevent excessive snow buildup immediatelydown-wind from the trees.

All tree seedlings were hand planted into the sod afteropening a hole with a post hole auger. A mechanical treeplanter would have created continuous furrows up and downthe slope, exposing hilly land to erosion. Tree mats wereused to suppress weeds and conservemoisture. We observed an unexpecteddrawback to the use of the weedsuppressing mats. The mats are darkcolored and warm and attract insects oncool summer nights. Grasshoppersspending the night on the mats are likelyto eat the closest food, that being theyoung saplings, early the followingmorning.

Sapling survival in the first year wasdisappointing. The combination of atwo year drought and a grasshopperinfestation took a toll on the newplantings. The larch, haZelnut andcaragana were severely damaged but theFreedom honeysuckle, Black Hillsspruce and eastern red cedar survivedand performed very well.

HIII<$ This was our third dry year in a row. Spaces wheresaplings did not survive the first year were replanted in1999. The Siberian larch saplings do not seem to be ableto withstand our harsh climate without added protection.The plants exposed to cold temperatures without snowcover did not survive the winter. Cold temperatures aloneare likely not the culprit. Siberian larch can thrive in evenmore northerly regions than ours but they are usually aided

by surrounding woods that help hold snow cover in place.We found evidence for this in the few surviving seedlingson our farms. The surviving Siberian larch are all locatedin landscape positions where snow accumulated andprevented desiccation.

In an attempt to protect the young seedlings from wind andlack of snow cover, four rows of field corn were plantedupwind from the trees. However, extensive graZing by deerprevented the corn from protecting the new plantings. Wewant to try this concept again using tall wheatgrass insteadof field corn.

KLLLS As of early spring, we had effectively no topsoil orsubsoil moisture. We eventually received 15.9” ofprecipitation this year compared to an average of 23”. Ourattempt to establish windbreaks over the last three yearsshould be considered a worst case scenario. The speciesthat have survived should do even better under more normalprecipitation and snow cover conditions. The species thatcontinue to appear to be most adaptable to our harshconditions are the eastern red cedar, Freedom honeysuckleand Black Hills spruce (Table 1). Saskatoon serviceberrieswere planted last year and survived well.

Eventually, when adequate rainfall allows the saplings todevelop to a height of five feet, the effectiveness of theplantings as a windbreak will be monitored through thefollowing series of measurements:

j snow depth and distributionj soil temperature and moisture through the growing

seasonj forage composition, ground cover and yield

Table 1. Windbreak Seedling Survival Rates on the RollingAcres and Jim Sovell Farms as of Fall 2000

D2=P>P63./640R

0

0 50 50

20

100

60

100

100

0

DG0?>01

Manchurian ApricotNanking Cherry

Saskatoon Serviceberry

Caragana (Siberian Peashrub

Black Hills Spruce

Siberian Larch

Eastern Red Cedar

Eastern Red Cedar

Freedom Honeysuckle

/774.D47?C.H7;:>4>7;64.936;4>;A

Bare root

Potted

Bare rootBare rootBare root

Bare root

Potted

Bare root

Bare root

Bare root

Hazelnut

44 ——



These measurements will be taken on a transectperpendicular to each snow fence to map the windbreakeffect across the field.

We are excited about the survival of the eastern red cedar,Black Hills spruce, Freedom honeysuckle, and Saskatoonserviceberry. We will be planting more of these species assoon as weather allows. The spruce and cedar were theonly species purchased as potted nursery stock. For largerplantings, the cost of potted stock is prohibitive. We paido5.00 for potted stock versus o.20 for saplings.

Management Tips

1. Potted seedling stock withstands harsh conditions betterthan bare root seedlings.

2. For large plantings, continual water hauling is too laborintensive. Rely instead on physical protection forestablishment.

Cooperators

a-;375/%7#/%!*$%a*..-#6, Ivanhoe, MN!-+%8*C$.., Ivanhoe, MN

Project Location

From Ivanhoe, go west on Hwy 19 to the intersection ofHwys 19 and 75. Go exactly 4 miles west on Hwy 19 andturn south on gravel road for 1-1/2 miles. The Hansenfarm is on the left.

Other Resources

)72;3-#6% 23$% 8#*?%?-23% Q-C-#6% 8#*?%\$#;$9E 1999.Publication MI-7311-S. University of Minnesota ExtensionService, St. Paul, MN, 612-625-8173.

Q*;7.%8*-.%7#/%@72$5%)*#9$5C72-*#%A-925-;2%*==-;$E

—— 45


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Hansen, Neil

LLLLLand Application of Mortality Compostand Application of Mortality Compostand Application of Mortality Compostand Application of Mortality Compostand Application of Mortality Compostto Improve Soil and Wto Improve Soil and Wto Improve Soil and Wto Improve Soil and Wto Improve Soil and Water Qualityater Qualityater Qualityater Qualityater Quality

Project Summary

In cooperation with the Minnesota Departmentof Agriculture, an animal mortality compostingfacility was constructed at the West CentralResearch and Outreach Center (WCROC) inMorris, MN. Educational programs conductedat the WCROC composting facility havegenerated substantial interest among livestockproducers in the use of mortality composting.However, concern is often expressed over useof the finished compost material. This concernsurrounds issues of odor, aesthetics and safety.The purpose of this project was to demonstratehow land application of finished mortalitycompost could enhance selected soils within alandscape. Specifically, we demonstrated theeffects of target applying compost to a sandysoil in an attempt to improve soil moisture andto an eroded soil to reduce runoff and erosion.

Project Description

At WCROC, we have successfullydemonstrated mortality composting of sheep,swine, and cattle. The composting isaccomplished using solid barn bedding materialas the co-composting material. The beddingprovides both the carbon and nitrogen neededin the composting process. The finishedcompost is being land applied at the followingtwo sites.

*.-#' H<' 'The objective atthis site was todemonstrate the value ofland applying compost toa sandy soil to improvemoisture holding capacity.The site chosen for thedemonstration was in theWCROC sheep pastureresearch area. The sitehas a Sioux GravelySandy Loam soil. This isa common soil type in thePomme de Terre Rivervalley and is commonlyused for pasture. The soil


Neil C. HansenUniversity of

MinnesotaWest CentralResearch and

Outreach CenterState Hwy 329

Morris, MN 56267320-589-0397

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

mortality compost,phosphorus,

sediment, soilmoisture

has high fertility and can produce good pasturewhen moisture is adequate. However, it is verysusceptible to dry conditions and graZing on thissoil is limited by low forage production duringsummer months.

For this demonstration, soil moisture wascompared between compost amended and controlplots with three replications each. Plots were10J x 20J in siZe. Compost amended plotsreceived a 40 T/A (dry basis) application ofcompost on May 12, 2000. The compost wasincorporated with a chisel plow to a depth offive inches. The control plots were similarlyplowed on the same date. The site was seededto a mixture of alfalfa (12 lb/A) and bromegrass(6 lb/A) on June 1, 2000. Weekly soil moisturedeterminations were made throughout thesummer to assess the impact of the compostapplication on moisture holding capacity.

*.-#'K< The objective at this site was to comparerunoff water quality and soil erosion from plotsfertiliZed with compost and conventionalfertiliZer. Several studies have shown that freshmanure application to eroded soils can increaseinfiltration and reduce the resulting runoff. Itwas anticipated that compost would provide asimilar effect.

The Edlund farm is a row crop and cow/calffarm that also produces alfalfa hay for sale and

The animal mortality composting facility at theWest Central Research and Outreach Center

46 ——



feeding. The demonstration site is on a Barnes-LangheiLoam with an 8m slope. The site is part of the ChippewaRiver basin. This soil was formed in glacial moraine, iswell drained, strongly calcareous, and subject to erosion.The site was cropped to alfalfa prior to the demonstration.At this site the fertiliZer and compost application rates werecalculated to supply phosphorus, since soil potassiumlevels were very high.

The treatments at this site were mortality compost andconventional phosphate fertiliZer, each replicated threetimes. Mortality compost was applied at a rate of 4.5 T/A(dry basis). Assuming an 80m availability of phosphorusin compost, the available phosphorus application rate was105 lb/A. An equivalent amount of phosphorus was appliedto the conventional fertiliZer treatment. Compost andfertiliZer were incorporated with a tractor mounted rototillerand alfalfa was seeded on June 8, 2000 at a rate of12 lb/A.

Simulated rainfall events were conducted for all plots atsite 2 on August 17-18, 2000. The rain event was 2.0”/hrfor 1.2 hr. The rate of runoff was determined every tenminutes throughout the event and water samples werecollected for analysis at the same times. Samples wereanalyZed for total phosphorus and total sedimentconcentrations.

Results

The finished compost generated at WCROC was analyZedto determine its nutrient content. The compost had 49mmoisture and had a carbon to nitrogen ration of 25:1. Thisis an ideal C:N for compost and illustrates the effectivenessof mortality composting with the solid barn bedding materialproduced on the farm. The compost contained a goodbalance of nitrogen, phosphorus, andpotassium (Table 1). We have no odorproblem associated with thecomposting process, but flies have beena challenge at times.

*.-#'H< Soil moisture varied widely overthe summer of 2000. Early summerconditions were wet and the soilmoisture was near field capacity. Belownormal precipitation in late summerresulted in a steady decrease in soilmoisture, reaching a minimum of about15m by mid-August. Soil moisture washigher for the compost amended plotsthroughout the summer. During the dryperiods, soil moisture was

approximately 3m higher in the compost amended plots.For a 10” depth, this amounts to approximately 0.5” moreavailable water for the crop. The higher moisture holdingcapacity is due to the increase in soil organic matter fromthe applied compost. Organic matter levels increased from6.5m to 7.7m. It is anticipated that the increase in moistureholding capacity will translate into an increase in forageproduction. However, due to the late seeding date and tohigh weed pressure in 2000, a yield comparison was notpossible. A yield comparison will be made in the summerof 2001.

*.-#'K< Due to lower than normal precipitation, the soilwas very dry at the time of the rain simulations, resultingin very low runoff amounts. There were no statisticaldifferences in runoff, total phosphorus loss, or sedimentloss between the compost and conventional fertiliZertreatment (Table 2). This did not confirm our hypothesisthat the mortality compost would reduce runoff andcontaminant transport relative to fertiliZer as has beenobserved for manure in similar studies. The effects of thetwo treatments on alfalfa yield will be determined in 2001.

*+55($&< Mortality composting is a low cost methodthat generates little or no odor and recycles nutrients into auseful by-product. Mortality composting can be doneusing materials available on the farm. In the WCROCcompost facility, sheep, swine, and cattle mortalities havebeen successfully composted using solid barn beddingmaterial as the co-composting material. In this project,we demonstrated the usefulness of finished compost fortargeted application on the farm. Applying compost to asandy soil increased soil organic matter content and waterholding capacity. Compost did not reduce runoff fromthe eroded site. iield comparisons at both sites will bedone in 2001.

Table 1. Elemental Analysis of Mortality Compost Producedat the West Central Research and Outreach Center

U04.B61>1. K3EL47;N U04.B61>1.KRN

205002827

Total NitrogenTotal CarbonPhosphate (P205)Potassium (K20)

1.0251.21.0

Table 2. Comparison of the Effects of Compost andConventional Fertilizer on Runoff and ContaminantLosses from Simulated Rainfall

)=064F0;4

CompostFertilizer

0.090.10

D0:>F0;4. K3EL+N

5866

)7463.9@71G@7=21. K3EL+N/2;7OO . K>;N

0.110.13

—— 47



Management Tips

1. Maintaining a compost temperature of at least 130° fortwo weeks is sufficient to eliminate pathogens.

2. When compost is available in limited quantity, it canbe targeted to soils with low water holding capacity.

Cooperators

U-..%^$7/, Department of Animal Science and WCROC,University of Minnesota

Project Location

The University of Minnesota WCROC is east of theUniversity of Minnesota, Morris campus and just off ofState Hwy 59 on the left.

Other Resources

Glanville, Thomas Dean. 1996. )*+,*92-#6% /$7/.-C$92*;VH%:%#$?%9*."2-*#%2*%7#%*./%,5*0.$+E PublicationNo. SA-8. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

48 ——


Soil ConserSoil ConserSoil ConserSoil ConserSoil Conservation of Canning vation of Canning vation of Canning vation of Canning vation of Canning Crop FCrop FCrop FCrop FCrop Fieldsieldsieldsieldsields

Project Summary

There were over 35,000 acres of peas and sweetcorn planted in southeastern Minnesota this year.Most of these acres are left open to wind andwater erosion for seven to ten months out of theyear. For example, an early pea crop may beplanted in mid-April and harvested in mid-June.This field is then left untouched and exposed toerosion until the following April. By includinga cover crop after pea harvest, we can protectthe soil, build organic matter, and encourageearthworm activity, providing a loose soilcondition for the next yearJs crop. A good soilcondition allows us to use no-till in the followingcrops of field corn and soybeans.

Our goal for this project is an attempt to expandthe practice of cover cropping in vegetable cropfields, specifically in sweet corn and peas. Wewant to show how cover crops can reduce soilerosion and promote land stewardship. We wantto investigate the potential for cover crops topositively affect yields of the next yearJs crops.

Project Description

This project was initiated in 2000 by plantingtest strips of oat and barley cover crops aftersweet corn and peas. We know that the cost ofestablishment of the cover crops is a majorimpediment to adoption of this practice so wetried to establish these plots at a low cost. Thetreatments were chosen tohighlight severalestablishment optionsavailable to area farmers.We can then compare thequality of the stand to thecost of establishment. Inall, ten test strips were setup including:

j two checks with notillage or planting

j one conventionalcheck, disked and leftunplanted

j seven combinations of


Andy HartR., C. and A. Hart

Farms10723 Cty. Rd. 11 NE

Elgin, MN 55932Olmsted County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2003

ESAP Contact


Keywords

cover crops, soilconservation,

vegetableproduction

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Hart

tillage, seeding and cover crop options (seeTable 1)

We are evaluating the test strips by comparingthe residue or ground cover available to reducewind and water erosion. The greater the groundcover, the better the soil erosion protection. Thiscoming spring, we will plant this entire field tofield corn using a no-till planter. Next fall wewill do corn yield comparisons on the ten strips.We believe the strips with the cover crops willshow higher corn yields

Results

All of the cover crop strips developed significantstands in the fall of 2000. Ground coverincreased from August 31 to October 15sufficiently enough to protect our soil (Table2). Ground cover in the cover crop strips rangedfrom 60m to 90m but ranged from only 15m to41m without cover crops. The only visuallynoticeable soil erosion occurred in the pea plotswithout cover crops. Since all establishmentoptions performed quite well, we feel it makessense to encourage the use of the lower costmethods. For example, seeding barley with anair flow fertiliZer spreader provided adequateground cover at the lowest cost (o6.25/A).

Cover crop test strips of barley and oats plantedafter canning peas and sweet corn

—— 49


Compaction is a common problem whenraising canning crops. In two of the teststrips we are comparing fall chiselplowing to the use of a DMI deep ripperjust prior to planting the cover crop asways to alleviate compaction. Thisyear, the midsummer deep tillageproduced a good cover crop andavoided exposing soil in the fall. Incomparison, the fall chisel plowingdramatically reduced the cover cropbenefit, reducing cover to 30m.

In addition to this demonstration, weplanted 27 fields in two counties totalingmore than 1,500 acres this year to covercrops after harvesting peas or sweetcorn. Oats and barley were used untilSeptember 1 when a switch was madeto winter rye. The winter rye will makea good stand in late fall. It will notwinterkill and provides a good livingcover in the following spring. Webelieve these 1,500 acres of cover cropsplanted across a diversity of farmlandscapes show that this system canbe adapted to any farm.

Management Tips

1. Plant the cover crop as early aspossible after harvest, even if the soilis dry. It takes very little moisture toget good germination.

2. DonJt be afraid to shop around for agood price on cover crop seed.

Cooperators

A7C$% QE% )*,$.7#/B NRCS District Conservationist,Olmstead County, MN

Project Location

From Rochester, go north on US Hwy 63 for 5 miles toOlmsted Cty Rd 21. Turn right (east). Travel 2 miles onCty Rd 21 to Cty Rd 128. The plot is located in the NWcorner of the intersection of Olmsted Cty Rds 21 and 128.

1Oats and barley seeded at 1 bu/A

Table 2. Fall 2000 Ground Cover After Peas & Sweet Cornwith Oat & Barley Cover Crops Using SeveralDifferent Tillage & Seeding Equipment Combinations

3018322535

3432

22

31

nonenoneregular grain drillregular grain drillno-till grain drill

no-till grain drillno-till grain drill

air flow fertilizer spreaderair flow fertilizer spreader

D00:>;AVW2>GF0;4

)>336A0VW2>GF0;4

nonedisknonedisknone

fall chisel plowDMI deep ripperdisk

none

nonenoneoatsoatsoats

oatsoats

barley

barley

H7P0=H=7G'

H7P0=. KRN

*;.*?47E0=.'-*;.+2A214.X'+O40=9061

+O40=H7=;

4928605060

6056

38

51

2515959895

2597

85

60

4123959895

3097

90

85

+O40=9061

+O40=H7=;

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Hart

Table 1. Cost of Establishment of Oat and Barley Cover CropsUsing Several Different Tillage and SeedingEquipment Combinations (Dollars/A Based onCustom Hire Rates)

nonedisknonedisknone

fall chisel plowDMI deep ripperdisk

none

)>336A0VW2>GF0;4

nonenoneregular grain drillregular grain drillno-till grain drill

no-till grain drillno-till grain drill

air flow fertilizer spreaderair flow fertilizer spreader

D00:>;AVW2>GF0;4

0.0010.000.0010.000.00

10.0010.00

10.00

0.00

H714

0.000.008.008.0012.00

12.0012.00

5.00

5.00

H714

nonenoneoatsoatsoats

oatsoats

barley

barley

H7P0=H=7G'

0.000.002.252.252.25

2.252.25

1.25

1.25

H714

0.0010.0010.2520.2514.25

24.2524.25

16.25

6.25

)7463

1 Oats and barley seeded at 1 bu/A

50 ——


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Heimpel

Biological Control of AlfalfaBiological Control of AlfalfaBiological Control of AlfalfaBiological Control of AlfalfaBiological Control of AlfalfaBlotch LeafminerBlotch LeafminerBlotch LeafminerBlotch LeafminerBlotch Leafminer

Project Summary

The primary goal of GeorgeJs project was tointroduce and release a parasitoid of the alfalfablotch leafminer (ABLM) into Minnesota alfalfafields. The recent invasion of the alfalfa blotchleafminer into Minnesota apparently occurredwithout simultaneous invasion of the parasitoid,Dacnusa dryas (D. dyras), and leafminerdamage has been high in some areas of the stateas a result. This parasitoid has been releasedin the eastern U. S. and Canada from Europe,and has provided excellent biological controlof alfalfa blotch leafminer in those areas.GeorgeJs objective was to repeat that experiencein Minnesota.

By releasing D. dryas in the state, George hopedto alleviate the need for growers to applypesticides to alfalfa fields. Such applicationsnot only pose environmental and health risks,but also endanger the currently successfulbiological control of alfalfa weevil and peaaphids from which growers benefit.

Project Description

The main objective of this project was toestablish the parasitoid D. dryas in Minnesotain order to control populations of the ABLM, apest of alfalfa that invaded Minnesota in 1994.Populations of this pest increased alarminglybetween 1994 and 1999, prompting somegrowers to useinsecticides. Thesechemical inputs not onlyrepresent financial andtime costs to the farmer,but they put at riskcurrently successfulbiological control of thealfalfa weevil and one ormore aphid species inalfalfa.

The work was conductedat two sites. The first sitewas in Ontario whereparasitoids were collected


George E. HeimpelDepartment of

EntomologyUniversity of

Minnesota1980 Folwell Ave.219 Hodson Hall

St. Paul, MN 55108612-624-3480

heimp001utc.umn.eduRamsey County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

alfalfa, alfalfablotch leafminer

(ABLM), biologicalcontrol,

ChrysocharisliriomyZae, Dacnusa

dryas, parasitoid

for release in Minnesota. The second site wasin Minnesota where releases were made.

C400#2-.4",'."'M"-($.4< Parasitoid collectionswere made in two adjacent alfalfa fields at anagricultural experiment station of the Universityof Guelph located in Winchester, Ontario. Eachfield was approximately two acres in siZe.George collected approximately 2,000 pupae andreared them on 116 plastic petri dishes in groupsranging between 6 and 25 per petri dish at 22°C,with 16 hours of light and eight hours of dark,and 65m x 10m R.H. The dishes were checkedfor emergence of ABLM flies and theirparasitoids until no more emergence wasobserved.

E#0#(,#,' ."'?.""#,4-(< Releases of theparasitoids (D. dryas), collected from the abovefields, were done in an alfalfa field in Ham Lake,MN (Anoka County). The field is owned byGary Sullivan and the alfalfa is mainly sold ashorse feed. Releases were done within fourlarge field cages (2 x 2 x 2 m) at the Sullivanfarm on June 7, 1999. Releases in these cageswere needed because the rest of the field hadbeen mowed at this time. The alfalfa underthe cages supported a moderate infestation ofABLM. One-hundred and twenty D. dryaswere released into each cage (approximately90m of these were females). The cages wereremoved one week after the release. ABLM was

George in insect rearing lab

—— 51


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Heimpel

sampled in the subsequent generation along transectsoriginating from the release sites. Samples of ABLM larvaewere taken 10, 50, 100, and 250 meters from the releasesites and larvae were reared out in the lab to determineparasitism rate.

N.,24:#$&' 4;' (' "#9'1FA?'>($(,.-4.)' ."'?.""#,4-(<During GeorgeJs collections in Minnesota, he discoveredthat a parasitoid previously unknown in Minnesota wasparasitiZing ABLM. This is Chrysocharis liriomyZae(previously known as C. punctifacies), a species that wasintroduced into the Eastern U. S. in the 1970Js. This speciesbecame established there, but it is unclear what role itplayed in biological control of ABLM in that area. Thefact that he found it parasitiZing ABLM in Minnesotasuggests that it has migrated here from the Eastern U. S.Apparently, this is a more mobile species than D. dryas,which is not present in Minnesota (apart from this release).

Results and Observations

Releases of D. dryas were done in the summer of 1999 inAnoka County and George had determined during thatseason that reproduction of D. dryas had occurred. Hisgoal in the summer of 2000 was to determine whetherthese parasitoids had overwintered. Samples from 2000revealed that D. dryas had successfully overwintered inMinnesota. Parasitism levels were low (y5m), however,and the parasitoid that he discovered in Anoka County in1999 (C. liriomyZae) was dominant, with parasitism levelsz30m at the Anoka site. George also sampled from analfalfa field in Houston County, and found the samepattern: relatively high parasitism by C. liriomyZae andno parasitism by D. dryas (no releases of D. dryas hadbeen made at this site). George plans to continuemonitoring the overwintering and establishment of theintroduced parasitoid D. dryas.

Management Tip

Growers should use caution when applying pesticidesagainst alfalfa pests due to the possible damage toparasitoids that may be present.

Cooperators

\57#;*-9%P$.*;3$B%Agriculture Canada Eastern Cereals andOilseeds Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada

!*3#%`7C.*9V-B Manitoba Agriculture Soils and CropsBranch, Manitoba, Canada

`751%8"..-C7#B%Ham Lake, MN@E%AE%̂ "2;3-9*#B%a*0%c$##$2$B%%45-;%U"5V#$99B%b%!*#7237#

Q"#/65$#B Department of Entomology, University ofMinnesota

A7C-/%̂ *66%b%F-+*231%A7C-9, Department of Entomology,University of Wisconsin

a*0$52%@-$/$#+7#, Center for Economic Entomology,Champaign, Illinois

!*3#%d051;V-, Department of Entomology, Iowa StateUniversity

Project Location

Contact George Heimpel for directions to release site.

Other Resources

Heimpel, G.E. 2000. :.=7.=7% 0.*2;3% .$7=+-#$5% ",/72$HU-*.*6-;7.% ;*#25*.% 23$% 0$92% .*#6I2$5+% *,2-*#. ForageClippings 7: 1-2.

Lundgren, J.G., R.C. cenette, J. Gavloski, W.D. Hutchisonand G.E. Heimpel. 1999. A-925-0"2-*#%*=%23$%$W*2-;%,$92B:65*+1]7%=5*#2$..7%SA-,2$57H%:65*+1]-/7$TB%-#%P7#-2*07B)7#7/7E Great Lakes Entomologist 32:177-184. Journalarticle documenting presence of ABLM in Manitoba.

cenette R.C., W.D. Hutchison, E.C. Burkness, and P.b.OJRourke. :.=7.=7%U.*2;3%Q$7=+-#$5H%a$9$75;3%[,/72$EA$,752+$#2%*=%4#2*+*.*61B%[#-C$59-21%*=%P-##$9*27E Apamphlet that describes the spread of ABLM. Availableat RadcliffeJs IPM World Textbook:http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/venette.htm

52 ——


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Koehler

Project Summary

Turkey litter is a very valuable source of plantnutrients. However, the overuse of turkeymanure will overload the soil with phosphoruscausing environmental pollution. The overapplication of livestock manure may lead toregulations on the amounts of manure that canbe applied to farmersJ fields. The wise use ofturkey litter is important so that farmers willhave land available to apply litter well into thefuture.

In this project, we are trying to determine theoptimum amounts of turkey litter to applywithout applying excess nutrients for cropneeds. We will use late spring nitrate tests todetermine if additional nitrogen is needed tocomplete the cropsJ nutrient needs. Farmers willbe able to save money on fertiliZer costs withthe use of turkey litter. The average corn growerspends over o40/A for fertiliZer on corn. Withthe use of turkey litter, farmers should be ableto lower their fertiliZer costs by more thano10/A.

Project Description

This is a group project between the Meierhoferturkey farm and three area crop farmers.Meierhofer Farms produce approximately 4,000tons of turkey litter annually and markets litterto area farmers. With the Belgrade Co-op, weare trying to determine how much manure toapply to crop fields. The three cooperatingfarmers will provide two 20 acre fields eachyear for manure application trials.

Turkey litter will be bulk spread at three differentrates: Zero, 3 tons/A, and 5 tons/A. The latespring soil test will be used to determine anysupplemental needs for nitrogen fertiliZer tosupply crop needs.

Results

We had hoped to get results in 2000 withdifferent rates of turkey litter on corn.However, we did not get many results from


Meierhofer Farmsc/o Jeff boehler

218 Wells St.Belgrade, MN

56312320-254-8231

jeffkubelgradecoop.com

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact

Wayne Monsen 651-282-2261

Keywords

phosphoruscrediting, spring

nitrate tests, turkeylitter application

rates

TTTTTurkurkurkurkurkey Litter: ey Litter: ey Litter: ey Litter: ey Litter: More is Not Always BetterMore is Not Always BetterMore is Not Always BetterMore is Not Always BetterMore is Not Always Better

the first year of the project. One farmer had theturkey litter spread before the field plots werelaid out so there were not any different rates oflitter applied. Another farmer used turkey litteron a sweet corn field. The canning companyharvested this field so we had no way ofdetermining yield results.

Dennis ^enner used the variable rates of turkeylitter but decided to switch to dry edible beansas the crop on this field instead of corn. Dennisused the following turkey litter rates and fertiliZercombinations in the plots.

Strip 1n5 tons turkey litter100 lb starter

Strip 2n3 tons turkey litter100 lb starter, 90 lb actual area

Strip 3nNo turkey litter90 lb actual area

The starter fertiliZer had an analysis of N-12, P-12, b-45, and S-8. The beans were planted onMay 15. The urea was side-dressed on June 15when the beans were between six and eight inchestall. The field was cultivated to incorporate theurea.

The yields for the dry beans were the same forall three treatments in 2000. The added nutrientsand the costs for the turkey litter did not giveany added returns this first year. The cost offive tons of turkey litter was o27.50/A and thecost for three tons was o16.50 with theapplication rate of o2.50/A.

We plan to test the turkey litter on corn in 2001and 2002. We hope to show the benefits in bothyield and crop input savings. With the costs ofnitrogen fertiliZer rising, turkey litter will be agood alternative to commercial fertiliZers.

Management Tips

1. Take a look at the wise use of turkey litterbecause it is an environmentally sound nutrientmanagement tool on your farm.

—— 53


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Koehler

2. The average corn grower spends over o40/A on fertiliZer.With turkey litter and side-dress nitrogen, the cost can beunder o30/A.

Cooperators

!$551%`5"0$5B Farmer, Belgrade, MNF*+%a17#B%Certified Crop Consultant, Belgrade, MNA$##-9%e$##$5B Farmer, Belgrade, MNa*0$52%e$##$5B Farmer, Belgrade, MN

Project Location

Contact Jeff boehler at the Belgrade Co-op for directionsto the farms involved in this project.

Other Resources

Blackmer, Alfred. 1992. )3$;V%Z%.$C$.9%-#%+7#"5$%=*5;*5#=-$./9E Publication No. IC 478R3. Iowa StateUniversity, Ames, IA, 515-294-5247.

Blackmer, Alfred. 1998. Z-25*6$#% 7C7-.70-.-21% =5*+*567#-;%=$52-.-]$59E Publication No. IC 478R8. Iowa StateUniversity, Ames, IA, 515-294-5247.

Schmidt, M. A. 1992. \$52-.-]-#6%;5*,.7#/%?-23%,*".251+7#"5$E% Publication No. AGFO 5881. University ofMinnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

Schmidt, M. A. 1998. P7#"5$%+7#76$+$#2%-#%P-##$9*27EPublication No. FO-3553-c. University of MinnesotaExtension Service, St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

54 ——


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Muller

Project Summary

Excessive nutrients have become a serious issuewith impacts on drinking water sources, fishhabitat, and even the viability of fisheries inthe Gulf of Mexico. The Minnesota RiverBasin, and Mountain Lake in particular, hassuffered from excessive nutrient inputs.Mountain Lake has had two fish kills in recentyears due to excessive phosphorus. What wasonce one of the best fishing locations in southernMinnesota has been lost. Community membersare working to restore the lake to its priorvitality.

From 1996 to 1998, several farmers in thewatershed assisted with the development of theNutrient Management iardstick (iardstick), abookkeeping tool designed to help farmersunderstand and better utiliZe the flow of primarynutrients on their farms. The iardstick, alongwith soil tests and advice from crop consultants,can help farmers find ways to reduce nutrientinputs.

This project continued this education processof utiliZing the iardstick worksheets with eightparticipating farmers. The iardstick has provento be an effective method for increasing farmerinterest in nutrient management, both forfinancial benefit and environmental protection.

Project Description

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy(IATP) started developing the NutrientManagement iardstick for use in the Midwestin 1996. The iardstick provides a simplenutrient balance to help farmers better understandhow nutrients flow on and off of their farm. IATPbelieves that there are considerable opportunitiesfor farmers to reduce nutrient “leaks” on theirfarm that will also save them money. Theiardstick is a bookkeeping tool designed to helpfarmers understand and better utiliZe the flow ofprimary nutrients on their farms. The iardstick,along with soil tests and advice from cropconsultants, can help farmers find ways to reduce


Mark MullerInstitute for

Agriculture andTrade Policy

2105 - 1st Ave. S.Minneapolis, MN

55404612-870-3420

mmulleruiatp.orghttp: //www.iatp.org

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

nutrient balances,Nutrient

Managementiardstick, nutrient

worksheets

Using Nutrient Balances to BenefitUsing Nutrient Balances to BenefitUsing Nutrient Balances to BenefitUsing Nutrient Balances to BenefitUsing Nutrient Balances to BenefitFFFFFarararararmers and the Environmentmers and the Environmentmers and the Environmentmers and the Environmentmers and the Environment

nutrient inputs and identify nutrient leaks on theirfarms.

The iardstick is innovative because it addressesnutrient management from a differentperspective. Instead of recommending specificbest management practices to farmers, theiardstick only provides information on nutrientflows specific to the farm. Instead of regulationor persuasion, the iardstick uses informationto focus farmers on nutrient management. Thisfrequently opens the door for crop consultantsor extension educators to work more closelywith the farmer.

IATP, in cooperation with the CottonwoodCounty Soil and Water Conservation District,completed the iardstick worksheets on eightfarms in the Mountain Lake area in the pastfour years. All eight farms had corn andsoybeans as their primary crops. Three farmsraised hogs, two farms raised turkeys, one farmwas a dairy, and two farms had no livestock.Four of the farms relied primarily on theindividual farmer for labor while the other farmshad extensive hired labor. The average farmsiZe was approximately 350 acres.

Results

Each winter and spring, Dave Bucklin ofCottonwood County SWCD and Mark Mullerof IATP went to each of the farms participatingin the iardstick for at least one two-hour session.They discussed nutrient management andcompleted the iardstick forms. After the datawas compiled and analyZed, they discussed theresults with the farmers and suggested ways oftightening nutrient flows.

The iardstick worksheets gave the farmers agood picture of where the nutrients move on theirfarms. Average nutrient flows for nitrogen,phosphorus, and potassium were determined onthe six livestock farms for 1997 and 1998.Nitrogen enters the farm from feed purchased,fertiliZer and manure, nitrogen fixing plants, andthrough rainfall (Figure 1). Nitrogen leaves the

—— 55


farms through animal products, crops,animals, and manure. Twenty-sixpercent of the nitrogen is either storedon the farm or lost to the environment.

Phosphorus and potassium both enterthe farms through feed inputs, fertiliZerand manure and leave the farms throughanimal products, crops, animals,manure, and lost to the environment(Figures 2 and 3). Thirteen percent ofthe phosphorus and 36m of thepotassium is either stored on the farmor lost to the environment.

The iardstick scores for theparticipating farms from 1997 to 1999show decreases in excess phosphorusand potassium. However, there wereincreases in nitrogen scores from thefarms (Figure 4). This indicates thatthe farmers are incorporating theinformation they obtain from theiardstick program for phosphorus andpotassium into their nutrient plans ontheir farms. However, since nitrogenscores rose during this time, farmers stillfeel the need to supply the crop withmore nitrogen than the iardstick scoresindicate is needed.

The participating farmers used soilsamples in conjunction with theiardstick to plan for the nutrient needsof the crops. Farmers determine themost cost-effective amount of nutrientapplication then apply the amount offertiliZer that will supply the cropnutrient needs and achieve the goal ofvery low amounts of nutrients being lostto the environment. The farmers werepleased with the yield results from 1997to 2000 as they are very close to theaverage yields of farms in the area.

The most important source forevaluation is farmer implementation ofimproved nutrient managementpractices. Participants are learning fromthe project and we have received lotsof inquiries from other organiZationsthroughout the Midwest. IATP has

Figure 3. Average Potassium Fluxes on Six Livestock Farms in Cottonwood County, 1997 and 1998.


Figure 1. Average Nitrogen Fluxes on Six Livestock Farms in Cottonwood County, 1997 and 1998.

Figure 2. Average Phosphorus Fluxes on Six Livestock Farms in Cottonwood County, 1997 and 1998.

56 ——



worksheets and other materialsavailable that farmers can obtain to usefor their farm nutrient managementplanning.

One of the biggest hurdles to farmersadapting better nutrient managementpractices seems to be the fear ofreduced yields. “Green” insuranceprograms and other methods of reducingthe risk that farmers entail from reducingnutrient inputs may be a good next stepto getting greater participation in theiardstick and other nutrientmanagement programs.

Management Tips

1. The Nutrient Management iardstickis a series of worksheets that providesinformation on nutrient flows on a farm.The iardstick programs, over the courseof a few years, will help you see the trends of nutrientflows on your farm.

2. The iardstick worksheets help you recogniZe bothfinancial and environmental concerns.

3. The iardstick gives the farmer another piece ofinformation when making decisions on nutrient management.

4. Rather than a prescriptive formula that tells a farmerwhat to do, the iardstick is a knowledge-building tool thatlets the farmer make his or her own decision.

Cooperators

A7C-/% U";V.-#B Cottonwood County Soil and WaterConservation District

!*#7237#%:/5-7#B%P-V$%:/5-7#B%:.C-#%A-;VB%82$C$#%A-;VBQ7"5$#%̂ 75/$5B%<3-.%̂ 75/$5B%a*#7./%_.799$#%b%a*0$52<7#V572]B Farmers, Mountain Lake, MN

Project Location

Contact Mark Muller for directions to the farms involvedin this project.

Other Resources

Busch, D., L. Busman, and P. Nesse. 1998. A$C$.*,-#67%+7#"5$%+7#76$+$#2% ,.7#H%:% ,.7##-#6% 7#/% 5$;*5/V$$,-#6% 6"-/$E% MN No. BU-6957-D. University ofMinnesota Extension Service. St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

)*#9$5C72-*#%F$;3#*.*61% >#=*5+72-*#%)$#2$5E765-494-9555. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/ctic/faq.htmlConservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) is anonprofit, information and data transfer center that promotesenvironmentally and economically beneficial naturalresource systems.

\$$/92"==9% a$=$5$#;$% >99"$E% 2000. Miller PublishingCompany, Minneapolis, MN. An annual publication thatcontains detailed information on the animal feed and feedingindustries, nutrient requirements of livestock and poultry,ingredient analysis data and an extensive buyers guide.Available by calling 800-441-1410 or on the web at:http://www.feedstuffs.com/subnew2.htm

Rehm, G., M. Schmitt, and R. Munter. 2001. \$52-.-]$55$;*++$#/72-*#9%=*5%765*#*+-;%;5*,9%-#%P-##$9*27E MNNo. BU-6240-GO. University of Minnesota ExtensionService, St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636. Available at:http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC6240.html

Rehm G., M. Schmitt, J. Lamb, G. Randall, and L. Busman.1998. [#/$5927#/-#6% ,3*9,3*5"9% =$52-.-]$59E MN No.BU-6288-GO. University of Minnesota Extension Service,St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636. Available at:http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC6288.html

Figure 4. Yardstick Scores for Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium for Participating Farms, 1997 to 1998.

—— 57


Project Summary

Land that has been in the Conservation ReserveProgram (CRP) will be brought into productionusing cell graZing with a beef cow/calf herd andstockers. The majority of the pastures will bekept in the graZing cycle while renovations occur.Many of the renovations will deal with heavyweed infestations and gophers.

Project Description

The Rafter P Ranch is a grass-based beef andsheep operation in West Central Minnesota. Theranch consists of 480 acres of hay and graZingland set in the rolling hills along the ChippewaRiver. The ranch is currently stocked with about70 stock cows and 50 ewes. Lambing occurs inFebruary and calving occurs in April. Cows aregraZed from April 15 to November or December.

Much of the land that is being graZed was formercrop ground that was seeded to alfalfa andorchardgrass in 1997. When we seeded theranch, we realiZed that we would have torenovate it someday to maintain high qualitypastures. In 1999, we rented 160 acres of formerCRP ground. This ground needed renovationand provided us with the impetus to do theadditional renovation on the home place. Gophermounds, thistles, and rocks are particularproblems we needed to deal with in the formerCRP areas.

Because the ranch has afixed livestock base, wewanted to do therenovation so thatpastures were notremoved from the graZingschedule. The renovationwould have to besystematic and take placeover a three year periodor longer.


Daniel PersonsRafter P RanchRR 1, Box 82

bensington, MN56343

320-589-1711rafterpurunestone.net

Grant/DouglasCounties

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact

Mary Hanks 651-296-1277

Keywords

beef cow/calf, CRPland, grass-based,

pasture renovation,rotational graZing,

sheep

Programmatic Approach to PProgrammatic Approach to PProgrammatic Approach to PProgrammatic Approach to PProgrammatic Approach to PastureastureastureastureastureRRRRRenovation for Cell Grazingenovation for Cell Grazingenovation for Cell Grazingenovation for Cell Grazingenovation for Cell Grazing

Results

We chose to begin renovation on two sites. Weused five acres at each site. The first parcelwas on the home place, the upper half of a nineacre field with steep slopes and a heavy thistleinfestation. The second was a 28.6 acre formerCRP field that has sloping land and a gopherproblem. Over time, the gophers in the CRPfield were not as much of a problem as thethistles on the home field. The gophers wereprobably the cheapest tillage we have. The grasswas always the tallest around and on the top ofthe mounds. The thistles were so thick in thehome field planned for renovation that the cattlewould not graZe the area, leaving a highpercentage of the forage untouched. At bothsites, we used a field cultivator with 7” sweeps.This worked to knock down the gopher moundsand scratch a shallow seedbed.

The seeding consisted of 50 lb each oforchardgrass, annual ryegrass, perennialryegrass, alfalfa and red clover seed mixed withfertiliZer and spread over ten acres. Seed wasspread by the co-op in early April followed bya light dragging. In late summer, we made thedecision to spray part of the new planting with aherbicide to control the thistle, sacrificing thelegume plants to save the grass. We willreintroduce alfalfa and clover in the coming yearwhere herbicide was applied in 2000 to controlthistles.

Dan (far right) explains his pasture renovation plan

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Persons

58 ——


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Persons

The results of the renovation are goodso far, with very good stands at bothsites. The home parcel was graZed threetimes. About 100 animal units graZedthis site on May 29 for two days, only50 days after it was seeded. The secondparcel was clipped to a height of 6”early in June. About 100 animal unitsgraZed this site for two days on June29. The two renovated pastures carriedabout 800 animal unit days or a total of26 AUM (animal unit months) or 2.6AUM/A for the year even though theyhad been worked to the point of bareground in early April. This comparesto 3.27 to 3.82 AUM/A in 1999. Weare very pleased with the ability of theserenovated pastures to keep on producingeven during the establishment year.Renovation expenses are shown in Table 1.

The field cultivator did a fair job of knocking down thegopher mounds but left a very fluffy seedbed. We thinkthis may have reduced our stands because poor seedgermination resulted from poor seed to soil contact. Nextyear, we are going to try to use a 12J box scraper to levelgopher mounds early in the spring then use a no-till drillinstead of the field cultivator.

We also learned that we need to be more aware of ourfertility needs as we push the pastures to produce morebeef. We believe that nitrogen was limiting forageproduction on the renovated areas this year. We did notfertiliZe for nitrogen even though the soil test called for atleast 60 lb. We plan a light application of nitrogen in mid-June next year after the seedlings are established to addsome vigor to the seedlings.

We are trying to renovate the home sites without anyadditional fencing to see if it is feasible to renovate withoutrestricting livestock access to the newly seeded areas. Therenovated area on the rented site has been fenced separatelyso that we can control livestock access. We will continueto compare these two approaches.

In 2001, we plan to renovate another 15 acres at twosites.

Management Tips

1. Plant forages that have good cash markets such asorchardgrass and alfalfa. Make sure that you canmechanically harvest excess forage at peak productiontimes.

2. Chemical control of thistles was worth the expense. Thecompetition for nutrients is just too great and the cattledonJt like eating around them.

3. Make a light application of nitrogen in mid-June afterseedlings are established. This should eliminate some ofthe reduction in forage yields during the renovation year.

Cooperators

U5$22%d$.V$B Grant County Extension, Elbow Lake, MN45-;%F"=2*#B Hoffman Co-op Agronomy Center,

Hoffman, MNU-..%U$5#-#6B%Alexandria Technical College,

Alexandria, MNA$##-9% !*3#9*#B West Central Research and Outreach

Center, Morris, MN`5$6%)"*+*B West Central Research and Outreach Center,

Morris, MN

Project Location

From Hoffman, MN at Hwy 55, go south on Grant Cty 5for 3-1/8 miles to the intersection with an unnumberedtownship road on the left. Turn left. The driveway (whichis 1/2 mile long) is 3/4 mile on the right. Or, frombensington, at Hwy 55, go south on Douglas Cty 1 to theedge of town, turn right on Township Rd 99. Go 3-1/2miles, the driveway is on the left.

Other Resources

:,,5*,5-72$% F$;3#*.*61% F57#9=$5% =*5% a"57.% :5$79S:FFa:TE P. O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702,800-346-9140. Available at: http://www.attra.org

Table 1. Renovation Expenses per Acre, 2000

$24.31

$41.60

$9.23

$4.40

$24.00

$4.50

$12.75

Fertilizer (21N, 100P, 20K)

Seed: 5 lb/A -Penlate orchardgrassLinn perennial ryegrassTetraMax perennial ryegrassHurricane annual ryegrassColumbia 2000 alfalfaMarathon red clover

Chemical: 2 pt/A Curtail

Spray chemical

Field cultivation: 4 passes @$6.00/A/pass

Apply fertilizer and plant seed

Drag fields: 3 passes @$4.25/A/pass

Y;G24 VZG0;10.G0=.+?=0

)7463.H714.90=.+?=0 $'!"M[-

—— 59


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Rauenhorst

Project Summary

Over the years, Minnesota farmers have tendedto specialiZe in either row crops or livestock.Farmers in row crops no longer have availablea diversity of natural/organic tools such as hay,small grain, or manure. For many farmers, thisamounts to an intense and tight rotation betweencorn and soybeans. As a result, we have anincreased incidence of crop diseases and pestssuch as soybean cyst nematode (SCN), soilerosion, and natural fertility problems. Manyfarmers have expressed the need for a thirdcrop in their rotation. My goal is to test thefeasibility and benefits of interplanting a thirdcrop of winter rye (non-harvestable) into thetwo year corn-soybean rotation.

Project Description

I farm 1,080 acres in a corn-soybean rotation.The corn is strip-tilled and the beans are no-tilled. I have been in no-till since 1992. Oursoil textures vary extensively, ranging from light,rolling sandy (droughty) soil to flat, wet groundhigh in organic matter.

Faribault County was the first county inMinnesota to detect SCN (in 1978). Since then,some local farmers have been forced to quitgrowing soybeans altogether as the yield lossesto SCN became insurmountable. Thesefarmers were forced into continuous corn whichhas its own set of insect,disease, and yieldproblems.

I have witnessed firsthandthe benefits of longerrotations on my farm.During the years of farmacreage set-asideprograms, I consistentlyexperienced a five to eightbushel soybean yieldincrease when soybeansfollowed set-aside smallgrain versus a corn crop.This also led to the


RaymondRauenhorst

16502 - 480th

AvenueEaston, MN 56025

507-787-2514Faribault County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

cover crops, inter-seeding, soil

erosion, soybeancyst nematode

AAAAAerial Seeding Werial Seeding Werial Seeding Werial Seeding Werial Seeding Winter Rinter Rinter Rinter Rinter Rye intoye intoye intoye intoye intoNoNoNoNoNo-till Cor-till Cor-till Cor-till Cor-till Corn and Soybeansn and Soybeansn and Soybeansn and Soybeansn and Soybeans

soybeans looking much healthier all year long.It has been suggested by many leadingresearchers that the best potential for controllingSCN may lie in the alteration of soil biology.Some researchers feel that there may be a benefitfrom the decaying residue of small grain. Afterseeing all the problems associated with shortercrop rotations and all the benefits of longer, morevaried rotations, I decided to try winter rye inter-seeded in late summer into standing corn andsoybeans.

By inter-seeding rye into corn and beans, I hopeto achieve these objectives:

j determine the feasibility of getting a rye standestablished

j improve crop yieldsj reduce SCN pressurej reduce incidence of diseasesj reduce erosionj increase soil biomassj check compatibility/antagonism of rye with

the planted crop

On September 4, 1999, 46 acres of winter ryewere aerial seeded at a rate of 90 lb/A into threecornfields and one soybean field. There is astrong possibility that corn yields may bereduced when immediately following rye dueto allelopathy or water or nutrient use.Consequently, the acreage of rye planted intosoybeans is being kept to a minimum. Rye

Early spring rye regrowth in strip-tillcorn stubble on the Rauenhorst farm

60 ——


seeding was accomplished using aturbine air tractor with a 50J spread.Each rye plot is approximately ten acresin siZe and is located in the middle ofthe field, providing a no-rye comparisonon either side of the rye strip. On April24, 2000, the rye was burned down withRoundup and planted the followingweek to corn after beans or vice versa.

The test strips are being monitored forcash crop yield, rye population andbiomass production, changes in SCNegg counts, and available nutrients inthe soil. Soil erosion is being monitoredby observing the formation of rills.

Results

C4:#$' C$4>' !,-(/0.,75#"-<' Wereceived 1.1” of rain during the weekfollowing the rye aerial seeding in thefall of 1999. The cover crop germinated in four days andwas four inches tall one week after planting. The followingspring season started with very dry conditions. I wasworried that the rye could be using the remaining limitedmoisture reserves needed for cash crop production. Inhind sight, it may have been beneficial to burn down therye a week earlier. The rye was 10” tall at spraying onApril 24. On April 29, the rye in the test strips was sampled.The rye plant population averaged 50 plants/ft2. The ryebiomass production was 2,400 lb/A after soybeans and1,500 lb/A after corn.

C(,7'C$4>'O.#0),< The soybean yield response to the ryedepended on the extent of exposure to saturated soil fromheavy spring rains. Soybean field {2 (see Table 1) is hillyand sandy. This well drained field recoveredquickly from rains of 5.4” on May 17 and 2.0”on June 1. The rye was beneficial at this site,preventing erosion and allowing rainfall torecharge subsoil moisture. Soybean yields werehigher in the rye strip than in the control.

Soybean field {3 is low on the landscape, highin organic matter, and poorly drained. Rains of8.5” on May 17 and 4.7” on June 1 flooded thisfield. The rye increased the flood damage byretaining water and then later delaying therecovery of the soybeans.

The field planted to corn after rye was clearlyset back by the rye. The corn recovered in

midseason but the early season stunting was expressed inlower yields at harvest (Table 1). It is possible that thecorn suppression is due to allelopathy or reduced accessto nutrients, especially nitrogen. Next year a small strip ofcorn in the rye plot will be sidedressed with nitrogen todetermine if the rye is excessively tying up this mostimportant nutrient in the spring.

*CP'34>+0(-.4"< SCN egg counts this year showed thatthe rye cover may have a desirable effect on this seriouspest. All soybeans used in this test were non-SCN resistantvarieties. The rye reduced SCN egg numbers in all threesoybean fields (Table 2). The greatest effect was in field{2 which produced the strongest stand of rye. Soybeanyields were also excellent in field {2. When averaged

Burned down rye is ready forsoybean planting in mid-May


Table 1. 2000 Corn and Soybean Yields as Affected by RyeCover Crop

CornSoybean Field #1*Soybean Field #2Soybean Field #3**

110---

50.823.5

123---

47.027.1

!"""H=7G

H=7G.S>03:. KE2L+NJ7./<0U>4@./<0.H7P0=

*Yields not taken due to yield monitor problems**Flooded on May 17 (8.5� rain) and on June 1 (4.7� rain)

Table 2. Soybean Cyst Nematode Egg Counts as Affected byRye Cover Crop

CornSoybean Field #1Soybean Field #2Soybean Field #3Soybean (average)

-31+53-15

+62+40

-80+60

+1253+129+123

!""".H=7GH@6;A0.>;.VAA.H72;41.O=7F.DG=>;A.47.5633.KRN

J7./<0U>4@./<0.H7P0=

—— 61



across all three soybean fields, SCN egg counts after oneyear in soybeans only increased 40m in the rye plots butincreased 123m in the no-rye control.

=##)'C4"-$40< cisual observation revealed that the ryecover helped control foxtail, lambsquarters, and pigweedbut had no effect on wooly cupgrass.

!($0&'C4"20+,.4",< It appears that getting a rye cropestablished into standing corn or beans is very feasible.There is evidence that the rye may help reduce SCNpressure. Beans may be preferable to corn when plantinginto the killed rye. This technology may be mostappropriate on well drained soils.

Management Tips

1. Rye burndown in spring should be timed to optimiZeresources for both the cover crop and the cash crop.

2. Rye established in corn provides an opportunity to graZeboth crops in late fall. This does not significantly affectthe spring regrowth of the rye.

Cooperators

<7".%<*52$5B%Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics,University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Project Location

From I-90, take exit 128 (Cty Rd 17) north 4s miles. Goeast 1 mile on 160th St., then north s mile on 480th Ave.The farm is in the grove on the east side of the road.

Other Resources

University of California-Davis. %)*C$5%;5*,9E% Databaseavailable at: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sarep.

62 ——


Project Summary

Each year in Minnesota, over 50 million tonsof aggregate (primarily gravel and sand) areproduced for road and building construction.A by-product of aggregate production is rockdust or “fines” that are generated during thecrushing process. Currently, rock fines arebeing stockpiled as a waste product and we areevaluating them as a nutrient source for cropproduction. If rock fines can be successfullyrecycled as a viable soil amendment, their usecould be an unexpected gain for state agricultureand reduce the amount of land used for surfacestorage. For organic operations, rock fines mayprove to be an economic alternative to expensiveimported mined minerals.

In this demonstration, we are applying rockfines to perennial forages and corn at three farmsites that are low in fertility due to many yearsof cropping with minimal inputs. Rock fineswere applied only in 1999 and soil fertility andcrop response are being measured from 1999through 2001. Initial analysis of rock fines fromseveral local sources show that they contain anappreciable amount of potassium. However,soil and plant analyses in 1999 and 2000 donJtshow the potassium becoming available to thecrop. Monitoring will continue one more year.

Project Description

All three farmers in thisproject are looking for along-term supply ofnutrients to sustain cropproduction. They had allheard of rock dust in theorganic literature.However, tests to supportthe use of this material asa nutrient source arelacking. These farms areideal for this studybecause they are all lowin fertility.

The 147 acre Phil Arnold


Dr. Carl RosenUniversity of

MinnesotaDepartment of Soil,

Water and Climate439 Borlaug Hall

St. Paul, MN 55108

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

organic farming, rockfines, soil fertility

Agricultural Use of RAgricultural Use of RAgricultural Use of RAgricultural Use of RAgricultural Use of Rock Fock Fock Fock Fock Fines asines asines asines asines asa Sustainable Soil Amendmenta Sustainable Soil Amendmenta Sustainable Soil Amendmenta Sustainable Soil Amendmenta Sustainable Soil Amendment

farm, located near Gutches Grove, MN, has beenorganically certified since 1992. Animalproduction, including beef, sheep, and chickensare the main source of income. Phil rotateslegumes and grass (for hay and pasture) withsmall grain. The soil is loam to silt loam intexture. Soil tests show medium levels ofpotassium and low levels of phosphorus. Philis interested in trying to bring up phosphorusand potassium levels for his alfalfa/grass forage.These crops were already established so rockfines were top-dressed over the hay field in1999. Phil wanted to also look at incorporatingthe rock fines so he replanted a field to oats andalfalfa after rock fines incorporation.

The Bob Gustafson farm, near Gutches Grove,MN, uses a corn, oats and legume hay rotation.Animals are not raised on this farm so fertilityfrom manure is limited and nutrient levels havedeclined over the years. Soil potassium levelsare low. A small amount of inorganic fertiliZeris used as a starter for corn. Bob is interestedin improving his corn yields, using a long-termapproach to fertility. In 1999, rock fines werebroadcast and incorporated to a depth of six toeight inches and then planted to corn.

C and R GraZers farm is a 240 acre dairy nearEagle Bend operated by Craig Williams andRandy Pitcher. A grass/legume mix is raisedfor graZing and hay. Turkey manure is used to

Lime truck spreading rock fines

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Rosen

—— 63



improve fertility but quantities needed for the farm are notalways available. Soil test potassium levels are very low.In 1999, rock fines were top-dressed on a field recentlyplanted to grass and clover.

!G>#$.5#"-(0'N#,.%"< At each site, three different sourcesof rock fines were applied at two rates (1x and 2x) with alime spreader. The 2x rate was obtained by simply drivingover the same plot twice. These six treatments along witha no-input control were applied and replicated three timeson the Gustafson and the C and RGraZers farms. The plots are 30J wideby 100J long. On the Arnold farm, theplots are 300J long and not replicated.

?#(,+$#5#"-,< Soil samples werecollected in the spring of 1999 todetermine the initial soil test levels atthe 0-6 and 6-12” depths. Samples arebeing collected from each plot in thefall of each year at the same depths todetermine changes in nutrient status.Samples are being analyZed for all majorand minor essential plant nutrientsexcept nitrogen. Plant tissue samplesare taken at each crop harvest andanalyZed for the same elements. Cropyield is being measured as total aboveground biomass weight for the foragesand as grain and stover weight for corn.

If soil test nutrient levels, plant tissue nutrient levels, orbiomass yields increase with rock fines application, thenwe can conclude the rock fines may have a beneficial use.The second and third year of the project focus on monitoringthe long-term effects of the rock fines applied in 1999.

The sources of rock fines used in this study include:

j Basalt from Dresser, Wisconsinj Granite from Meridian luarry in St. Cloudj Granite from Meridian luarry in Granite Fallsj Granite from Cold Spring luarry in St. Cloud

Results

C45>4,.-.4"'4;'E428'B."#,<% %Results from the physical(texture) and chemical (nutrient) analysis of the rock finesshow that they vary from a sand to a silt texture (Table 1).Those rock fines sources that have a finer particle siZealso have more available nutrients. For example, theGranite Falls and Cold Spring granites have relatively highlevels of silt and clay. They also have the highest overalllevels of nutrients. This is to be expected. The smaller

particles have a larger surface area, increasing nutrientrelease from the minerals. Extractable calcium andmagnesium were relatively high in all rock fines sources.Extractable potassium was highest in the Granite Falls andCold Spring granites. Phosphorus was low in all samples,suggesting that the rock fines would have little impact onimproving phosphorus nutrition. Trace elements werepresent in low concentrations in all samples (see Table 2,phosphorus and some trace element data not shown).

Results from a potassium extraction study (Table 3) indicatethat over time, the granite rock fines have the potential tosupply potassium. The basalt rock fines may also supplysome potassium but higher application rates would berequired. Rock fines would need to be applied at rates of15 to 20 T/A to meet potassium needs for two to threeyears, assuming all of the potassium from the concentratednitric acid extraction is available.

O.#0)<$ For all sites, rock fines did not significantly affecthay or corn yields in 1999 or 2000 (Tables 4-6). Theseresults clearly show that the effects of rock fines on cropyields will not be realiZed in the short term. Because ofthe slow release nature, monitoring will continue for onemore year.

*4.0'1"(0&,.,<% Overall, the effects of rock fines on soilchemical properties were minimal. Dresser basalt and ColdSpring granite tended to increase soil copper levels.

6.,,+#'1"(0&,.,< Granite rock fines at the higherapplication rate tended to increase plant tissuemolybdenum. Molybdenum is an essential trace elementneeded for plant growth. It is involved with nitrogen

Table 1. Particle Size Distribution of Rock Fines by Source

80

19

69

8

10

3

19

2

10

78

12

90

Granite�Granite Falls

Granite�St. Cloud

Granite�Cold Spring

Basalt�Dresser, WI

/7?C.5>;01.D72=?0 R.H36< RD6;:RD>34

Table 2. Chemical Properties of Rock Fines by Source

/7?C.5>;01.D72=?0

5.9

1.4

9.9

1.2

2,888

1,343

2,510

6,333

146

49

525

30

251

71

153

60

37

17

14

6

37

14

239

10

\KGGFN

]AKGGFN

];KGGFN

50KGGFN

H2KGGFN

Granite�Granite Falls

Granite�St. Cloud

Granite�Cold Spring

Basalt�Dresser, WI

6

1

7

5

9.0

8.6

8.8

9.4

GQ H6KGGFN

HVHKF0WL'""AN

64 ——


metabolism within the plant and innitrogen fixation reactions in legumes.Molybdenum levels higher than 10 ppmcan cause molybdenosis in ruminantanimals if copper levels are low. In thisstudy, molybdenum levels were below10 ppm and copper levels were in theadequate range so this should not be aproblem.

While not significant, tissue potassiumlevels tended to be higher in the rockfines treated plots than in the control.Despite the fact we could not detect achange in soil potassium, we areencouraged to see corn ear leaf sampleshigher in potassium in these plots.

Management Tips

1. Lime spreader calibration will varywith rock fines texture and moisturecontent.

2. Apply rock fines when soil is leastsusceptible to compaction.

Cooperators

A*#%c51B Aggregate and Ready MixAssociation Committee Chair, St.Cloud, MN

<3-.%:5#*./%b%U*0%`"927=9*#B ToddCounty, Long Prairie, MN

)57-6%@-..-7+9B Todd County, EagleBend, MN

Project Location

From Sauk Centre, take Hwy 71, 15miles to Cty Rd 10. Turn left and go 4miles to Gutches Grove. Turn left onCty Rd 11 and go s mile. Take a lefton the gravel road at the church and thefirst right to the Phil Arnold farm.

Other Resources

Barker, A. c., T. A. OJBrien, and J.Campe. 1998. 8*-.% 5$+-#$57.-]72-*#=*5%9"927-#70.$%;5*,%,5*/";2-*#E% % pp.405-413. In S. Brown, J. S. Angle, andL. Jacobs (eds.). Beneficial co-utiliZation of agricultural, municipal andindustrial by-products. bluwerAcademic Publishers.


Table 3. Pounds of Potassium per Ton in Rock Fines Based onTwo Extractants

Granite�Granite FallsGranite�St. CloudGranite�Cold SpringBasalt�Dresser, WI

0.290.101.100.06

11.910.28.62.0

/7?C.5>;01.D72=?0

*;0.J7=F63.+FF7;>2F+?04640'

H7;?0;4=640:.J>4=>?+?>:!

974611>2F. K3EL)NX

1Estimate of availability in first year.2Estimate of availability over three to four years.3To convert to K2O, multiply by 1.2.

Table 4. Phil Arnold Farm: Rock Fines Effect on Alfalfa Yield(6-9-00)

2.11.72.12.31.91.82.1

017332959816

ControlBasalt�Dresser (1x)Basalt�Dresser (2x)Granite�St.Cloud (1x)Granite�St.Cloud (2x)Granite�Cold Spring (1x)Granite�Cold Spring (2x)

/640. K47;1L+N K47;1L+N/7?C.5>;01.D72=?0

)=064F0;4 S>03:.I=<.]6440=

Table 5. Bob Gustafson Farm: Rock Fines Effect on CornStover and Grain (9-26-00)

ControlBasalt�Dresser (1x)Basalt�Dresser (2x)Granite�St.Cloud (1x)Granite�St.Cloud (2x)Granite�Cold Spring (1x)Granite�Cold Spring (2x)

/7?C.5>;01.D72=?0

)=064F0;4

081621411428

/640. K47;1L+N

1.91.81.62.41.81.81.8

D47P0=K47;1L+N

100879611310910197

^=6>;KE2L+N

Table 6. C&R Grazers Farm: Rock Fines Effect on HayYield (2000 Season Total from Four Cuttings)

3.53.12.83.23.22.9.34

0214119391429

ControlGranite-Granite Falls (1x)Granite-Granite Falls (2x)Granite�St.Cloud (1x)Granite�St.Cloud (2x)Granite�Cold Spring (1x)Granite�Cold Spring (2x)

/640. K47;1L+N K47;1L+N/7?C.5>;01.D72=?0

)=064F0;4 S>03:.I=<.]6440=

—— 65


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Scaife

Project Summary

Much of Jim ScaifeJs land was in theConservation Reserve Program (CRP) and hewas interested in turning that land into qualitypasture for sheep. Land coming out of CRP isoften highly erodible due to steep slopes and,while it may have a good grass cover, there maybe a substantial amount of weeds. Jim wantedto avoid tilling with its potential for soil erosionand destruction of the existing grass cover. Helooked at alternative methods of improving thisland for sheep graZing. Frost seeding wascompared to impaction seeding using sheep topress several types of legume seeds into existinggrass. Several acres of poor quality forestdominated by weedy tree species were also toosteep for tillage so similar seeding methods weretried on these wooded hillsides to turn them intoproductive semi-wooded pasture.

Project Description

Jim ScaifeJs farm includes 154 acres located inthe bluff country of southeast Minnesota. Sixtyacres are steep, wooded hillsides which areovergrown with non-productive tree speciesincluding box elder, prickly ash, birch, andmisshapen elms. Another 54 acres are tillableground that has been in CRP. The remainingacreage is steep and grassy, some of which isold pasture. Jim turnedthe entire farm intopaddocks for a rotationalgraZing system that hehoped will support 150ewes and 300 lambs. Hecurrently has 80 ewes thatproduce about 160 lambseach spring.

Jim had two areas that hewanted to improve forsheep graZing - the formerCRP land and the poorquality wooded hillsides.On much of this land,


James ScaifeRR 2, Box 93Rushford, MN

55971507-864-2896

Fillmore County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

Alice graZing whiteclover, birdsfoottrefoil, CRP land,

forages, frostseeding, impaction

seeding, ladinoclover, red clover,

sheep, woodedpastures

Establishing a REstablishing a REstablishing a REstablishing a REstablishing a Rotational Grazing System in a Semi-otational Grazing System in a Semi-otational Grazing System in a Semi-otational Grazing System in a Semi-otational Grazing System in a Semi-wooded Ecosystem: Fwooded Ecosystem: Fwooded Ecosystem: Fwooded Ecosystem: Fwooded Ecosystem: Frost Seeding vs. Impactionrost Seeding vs. Impactionrost Seeding vs. Impactionrost Seeding vs. Impactionrost Seeding vs. ImpactionSeeding on CRP LSeeding on CRP LSeeding on CRP LSeeding on CRP LSeeding on CRP Land and Wand and Wand and Wand and Wand and Wooded Hillsides Using Sheepooded Hillsides Using Sheepooded Hillsides Using Sheepooded Hillsides Using Sheepooded Hillsides Using Sheep

machinery driven tillage was not an option. JimJsinitial questions were, “How well do certainpasture species germinate when planted by frostseeding or animal impact with sheep instead oftillage|” and “Can we turn poor quality forestinto productive semi-wooded pasture usingsheep to control the growth of unwanted trees|”The answers to these questions were crucial fordetermining the best way to use the land and togive him insight into the relative effectivenessof seeding procedures and species on CRP fieldsand the shaded hillsides of the farm. Jim feltthat this study would provide information on thealternative uses for poor quality woodland thatabounds in the state. It should also provideinsight into the larger questions of the relationshipbetween woodlands and livestock and therelationship between shaded areas and theestablishment of forage species.

In the first year of the project (1998), Jimconcentrated on testing seeding methods in twoformer CRP fields to judge the effectiveness ofdifferent methods of planting three commonpasture improving species - red clover, AlicegraZing white clover, and birdsfoot trefoil. Priorto planting, Jim heavily graZed the former CRPfields with his sheep in the fall of 1997. In thespring of 1998, he divided the two fields in halfusing temporary fencing. One-half of each field

Ewes eating box elder regrowth

66 ——


was frost seeded and the other half was impaction seeded.He then divided each half of each field into three sections.Jim then broadcast his forage seed using one species (redclover, Alice graZing white clover, or birdsfoot trefoil) ineach section of each half. Additionally, Jim comparedgermination rates and stands in areas where seed impactionwas done with different stocking rates. After 82 days, Jimdid vegetative transects to count the seedlings of eachforage in each plot.

Jim turned his attention to the wooded hillside during thesummer of 1998 and into 1999. This hillside faces north-northwest and was so full of non-productive trees that thecanopy allowed little light to hit the ground, resulting inmuch bare ground. Jim divided the 4.7 acre field into foursections to represent various combinations of shade andground cover and to accommodate impaction and frostseeding trials.

During the summer of 1998, Jim did timber standimprovement by removing much of the non-productive treecover and thinning other species. He designed this area toserve as the boundary between field and deep forest so hesaved, with appropriate spacing, a variety of tree speciesincluding oak, maple, birch, cedar, elm, ash, apple, cherry,plum, poplar and dogwood. He hopes that this diversitywill be a favorable environment for birds and wildlife whileallowing enough light penetration to establish a groundcover of forage species.

Following the thinning, Jim fenced the entire 4.7 acres withfour strands of temporary electric wire then graZed the areawith the sheep flock to nibble away the regrowth from thestumps and to reduce the grass growth in areas where therewas some grass. Then, in early April 1999, Jim seededthis area of the hillside with a mixture of red clover,birdsfoot trefoil and ladino white clover. The Alice graZingwhite clover that was tried last year was replaced withladino white clover because its poor germination wouldmake it difficult to compete well with the red clover nowthat the forage species are mixed together rather than plantedalone as they were in 1998 on the former CRP fields.

Immediately after seeding, the sheepwere fed hay for eight days in a .25 acreimpaction area that had been fenced offfrom the rest of the seeded hillside area.Jim reduced the impaction seeding sitesto .25 acre based on visits with otherproducers and his 1998 results on theCRP. There seems to be a significantimprovement in seed germination atstocking rates of about 300 adult sheep

per acre. Jim calculated that for his flock of 80 ewes, thesiZe of the area should be .25 acre. The remainder of thearea was the frost seeding trial. The spring was unusuallywarm with plenty of rain but there were only two frostsafter seeding. However, there was still frost in the groundthat provided a certain amount of heaving of the soil toplant the seeds. Throughout the spring and summer of 1999,the sheep were graZed in the area to attack the regrowthfrom the tree stumps and keep the area open to sun.

Beginning with the 2000 season, the former CRP and hillsideareas seeded in 1998 and 1999 were graZed the way Jimexpected to use them in the future. His primary questionthis year was how much graZing could he get from the shady,hillside paddocks. Due to the slope and position of thesepastures, graZing was begun on May 16 to allow the forageto get off to a good start before the trees had full leaf cover.He kept track of the graZing periods and graZing days onthese paddocks compared to paddocks with full sun andless slope. GraZing was halted in early autumn to allowthe pasture to regenerate before the end of the growingseason. Jim is also watching for regrowth of the box elderstumps in the paddocks.

Results

The main method of evaluation of seed germination in boththe CRP seeding and the wooded hillside planting wasvegetative transects. Jim used a 1J wire square whichwas laid on the ground and two people counted the seedlingswithin the square. Five samples were randomly selectedand counted for each treatment. Jim knew the number ofseeds that were planted in each section and was thereforeable to determine the percent of seed germination.

In the CRP seeding, the red clover had the best germinationrate followed by the Alice graZing white clover and thenthe birdsfoot trefoil in most treatments (Table 1). Becauseof the success of the red clover in this trial, Jim mixed thelegume seeds together in 1999 instead of seeding onelegume per plot so there was an even distribution of speciesacross the entire field. Mixing seeds together spread outthe red clover that comes in the thickest but also posed thegreatest threat of sheep bloat.


Table 1. Forage Seed Germination Rates in Former CRP, 1998

104

912

Frost Seeding (1.5 A)Impaction (1.5 A)

Frost Seeding (1.135 A)Impaction (1.135 A)

3031

4036

B>=:1O774.)=0O7>3

1133

1312

)=064F0;4 /0:.H37P0=

90=?0;4.^0=F>;64>7;.7O .57=6A0.DG0?>01

+3>?0.^=6T>;AU@>40.H37P0=

—— 67



On the wooded hillside plantings in the1999 trial, the forage seedlings were upby May 14 and the box elder stumpshad sprouted small branches and leaves.The fencing around the impaction areawas removed and the sheep were put into graZe the whole area. The graZingwas intended to reduce the regrowth ofthe trees but not damage the newseeding. Though there were hundredsof tree stumps that were sprouting newgrowth, the sheep ate every leaf in just30 hours and were pulled out of the area.This was repeated in mid-June, mid-Julyand the third week in August. The sheepwere only allowed to graZe until theregrowth of the trees was eaten,generally one and one-half to two days.Due to the steepness of the slope, Jimwanted to have as much plant cover onthe ground as possible going into thewinter. Therefore, the field was notgraZed after August even though the treestumps did sprout again.

As in the CRP, red clover had the best germination ratesunder most conditions and whether frost seeded or impactedon the wooded hillsides (Table 2). Ladino white cloverwas a close second. All forage species generallygerminated best with less existing ground cover and underlight to medium shade. Ladino white clover competed betterunder grassy conditions than the other two species. Animalimpact dramatically improved germination for the birdsfoottrefoil especially with little existing ground cover. Redclover and white clover germination improved under grassyconditions with animal impact.

The main evaluation of the project in 2000 was the numberof days graZed and the recovery period needed for thewooded hillside pastures. The seed had germinated buthow much graZing could Jim expect in these areas withreduced sunlight| The duration of each graZing periodwas about the same for the wooded hillsides as for the fullsun/little slope paddocksd however, the number of timesgraZed, and therefore, the total days graZed, was about half(Table 3). This difference, Jim believes, was due to hisdesire to keep the slope well covered with vegetation inthe early spring and late fall } times when he chose not tograZe the hillside paddocks. By the end of September,there was plenty of regrowth that could have been graZedbut he thought it best to leave the vegetation on the pasturethrough the winter.

Jim observed some differences in forage grass growth undershaded conditions. He planted some brome andorchardgrass along with the legume seed each year. Theorchardgrass became well established in areas of substantialshade. However, the shade retarded the development ofseed heads that kept the grass in a vegetative state andtherefore more palatable to the sheep. The shade worked

Table 3. Grazing Periods and Total Grazing Days, WoodlandPaddocks vs. Full Sun Paddocks, 2000

Number of Grazing Periods

Avg. Duration of Grazing

Total Days Grazed

3

4.7 days

14 days

5

5.4 days

27 days

5233.D2;%.,>4430.D37G0U77:36;:.Q>331>:0

96::7?C.)<G0

Jim discusses pasturequality with Craig Sheaffer

Table 2. Forage Seed Germination Rates in Woodland Areas,1999

8261324

569

Frost SeedingGrassy/No ShadeNo Grass/Medium ShadeSome Grass/Heavy ShadeNo Grass/Heavy Shade

Impaction SeedingNo Grass/Lt.-Med. ShadeGrassy/Lt.-Med. Shade

29693848

6245

B>=:1O774.)=0O7>3

43503033

6258

)=064F0;4 ,6:>;7.H37P0=/0:.H37P0=

57=6A0.DG0?>01. KR.^0=F>;64>7;N

68 ——


to JimJs benefit, keeping the orchardgrass palatablethroughout the season.

Jim also monitored the regrowth of the box elder stumps.After a year of graZing, he estimated that about 30m of thestumps showed some regrowth. However, none of theregrowth was more than 1J tall which was well within thereach of the sheep. He observed that these young treeswere the favorite food of the sheep, usually eaten within24 hours of entering the paddock. One interesting, butprobably not surprising observation, was that only thestumps that were in full sun showed any regrowthd thestumps in the shaded areas died after one season of graZing.

Management Tips

1. Impaction seeding, on a large scale, is awkward becauseyou need a large number of sheep per acre to be effective.Adjust the impaction area to the number of sheep for thebest results.

2. GraZe both open and woodland pastures as early as 21days after planting. When the sheep graZe on the establishedgrasses and regrowth from tree stumps, they reduce thecompetition for light and nutrients enabling the newerseedlings to get the needed light and nutrients.

3. Limit the graZing period in newly seeded woodland areasto just long enough to strip the leaves but not long enoughto damage forage seedlings.

4. Land need not be exclusively pasture or exclusivelywoodland. It can be both if managed carefully.

5. All graZed land cannot handle the same amount ofgraZing in any given season. Shaded areas should not begraZed as heavily as areas in full sun. This makes therotation more complicated but adds graZing capacity overthe course of the season.

Cooperators

)57-6%83$7==$5B%University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNA*#%P75V.*?-2]B%Total Management Concepts,

Fountain City, Wisconsina-;375/%Z$99B%Land Stewardship Project, Lewiston, MN

Project Location

From Rushford, MN go east on MN Hwy 16 approximately1 mile. Turn right onto Rushford cillage {23 and go 1/8mile, then turn right onto Rushford cillage {8 and go 3/4mile. The farm is on the left with a gray house and redoutbuildings.

Other Resources

:65*=*5$9251% Z*2$9E United States Department ofAgriculture. National Agroforestry Center. East Campus,University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0822,402-437-5178.

^-7?7237%8"927-#70.$%@**/9%)**,$572-C$E Rt. 4, Box94, Winona, MN 55987-9418, 507-643-6367.

P-##$9*27%U$22$5%\*5$929%P767]-#$E Minnesota ForestryAssociation, P. O. Box 432, Grand Rapids, MN 55744,218-326-0403.

P-##$9*27%\*5$92%82$?75/93-,%<5*657+E MN Departmentof Natural Resources, Tom broll, Cooperative ForestManagement Specialist. 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN55155-4031, 651-296-5970.Website: http://www.foreststeward.org Woodlandmanagement technical and financial assistance forlandowners.

[#-C$59-21% *=%P-##$9*27% 4W2$#9-*#% 8$5C-;$% I% \*5$92P7#76$+$#2E Melvin Baughman, Professor. 1530 N.Cleveland Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108, 612-624-0734.email: mbaughmauforestry.umn.eduInformation line: 612-624-3020. Works with privatelandowners and natural resource professionals that adviseprivate landowners on private woodland management.


—— 69


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Sovell

Project Summary

Our group of seven Coteau Ridge livestockfarmers have rehabilitated 431 acres ofpermanent pasture using a pasture renovator thatwe designed and built. The machine wasdeveloped with three purposes in mind. We wantto increase the amount of water infiltrating intothe soil, reduce the erosive loss of soil andnutrients, and diversify the forage plant species,adding more legumes and warm season grasses.The new pasture renovator achieves these goalsby ripping the sod on the contour, creatingshallow furrows every 40” for water captureand seed establishment.

From 1996 through 1999, despite unusuallydifficult weather (including severe winter icestorms, hail, multiple late season killing frostsand now drought), the new method has shownstrong promise. Using the pasture renovator, wehave succeeded in establishing warm seasongrasses, legumes and chicory. We havesucceeded in capturing more water for forageproduction. We have documented a reductionof runoff and the loss ofsoil and phosphorus usingrainfall simulation. The2000 growing season wasthe third drought year in arow. We were unable toperform rain simulationsdue to the excessively dryconditions and thepersistence of cracks at thesoil surface. Furtherattempts at pasturerenovation are also beingdelayed until the droughtbreaks. Monitoring ofrunoff will resume in 2001.

Project Description

Our group of livestockproducers from within ourCoteau Ridge SustainableFarming Association wasbrainstorming ideas on how


James SovellRoute 1, Box 133

Ivanhoe, MN 56142507-694-1486

andbaren Sovell

Route 1, Box 130Ivanhoe, MN 56142

507-694-1466Lincoln County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

nutrient recycling,pasture renovation,

runoff

Increased FIncreased FIncreased FIncreased FIncreased Forage Production Through Controlorage Production Through Controlorage Production Through Controlorage Production Through Controlorage Production Through Controlof Wof Wof Wof Wof Water Rater Rater Rater Rater Runoff and Nutrient Runoff and Nutrient Runoff and Nutrient Runoff and Nutrient Runoff and Nutrient Recyclingecyclingecyclingecyclingecycling

we could improve the forage production andcarrying capacity of our tired old permanentpastures. We realiZed that, to accomplish this,we would have to better utiliZe available rainfall,reduce soil and nutrient losses, and get morelegumes established. Richard and Joe Rollingcame up with an idea for a furrow seedingmachine. Arnold Huuschild of Dutchman Repairdesigned and built our first prototype and theRolling-Dutchman pasture renovator was born.

The Rolling-Dutchman is a field cultivator thathas been modified to seed and fertiliZe a contourripped sod furrow. This machine differs from atypical no-till drill. Every 40”, a three inch deepand three inch wide furrow is opened by acultivator tine. The soil and sod is piled in aridge adjacent to and on the downhill side of thefurrow, resulting in six inches of verticalroughness to impede water movement. Seedboxes are mounted above each chisel point.Seed and fertiliZer are dropped directly into thefurrow. The machine is capable of seeding awide variety of grasses and legumes at anydesirable rate. The cultivator tines create a

David Drietz used the pasture renovator toreestablish native grasses on steep slopes

70 ——


space for seeds to establish without competition from theadjacent sod. Runoff concentrates in the furrow, providingextra water for the seedlings. Furrowing and seeding isaccomplished in one pass without opening the entire fieldto potential erosion.

Seven farms have seeded a variety of legumes and warmseason grasses. The choice of legume and grass specieswas determined by the specific needs of each farm. DavidDrietZ used native grasses (big bluestem and buffalo grass)with birdsfoot trefoil for a legume. The remaining sixfarmers used a combination of graZing alfalfa, red, whiteand alsike clover, and chicory. In 1999, baren Sovell addedseedings of kura clover and birdsfoot trefoil on her farmusing the Rolling-Dutchman. Although kura clover isnotoriously difficult to establish, it is equally notoriousfor its ability to persist, once established. We want to givekura clover a chance to prove itself in our particularlyharsh climate on the ridge.

The furrows are ripped on the contour so they create acollection site for water. This reduces runoff and provideswater where most needed - to the developing seedlings (animportant feature in our normally dry region of the state).The furrows also capture and retain nutrients from surfaceapplied manure. It is hoped that eventually the strongvertical architecture of the warm season grasses will capturesnow and provide water for the following growing season.

The effect of the furrows on water movement is being testedusing a Purdue-type rainfall simulator. Three foot wideand 24J long (running down slope) runoff plots are subjectedto a 2.4”/hr simulated rainfall. The plots are surroundedwith a tin border to contain all water running off the plot.The runoff water is collected at the low end. A timed grabsample of water is taken every five minutes, allowing usto calculate the flow rate of the runoff. The water samplesare saved and later analyZed in the laboratoryfor sediment and phosphorus concentration.bnowing the runoff flow rate and concentrationof pollutants allows us to calculate the amountlost at any point in time as the storm eventprogresses.

The ripped and seeded pasture is beingcompared to non-renovated pasture. This isaccomplished simply by hydraulically lifting therenovator to provide an unripped control plotimmediately adjacent to the renovated ground.The success of the new seedings is beingevaluated through a series of monthly pasturewalks.

Results

M:#$(00',##)0."%'#,-(/0.,75#"-'(")'>(,-+$#'>#$;4$5("2#EExcellent stands of grasses and legumes have beenestablished in the ripped furrows on most of the farms.This includes the difficult-to-establish native warm seasongrasses. They have become well established, showingincreased vigor in the second and third year after seeding.Some cool season grasses and legumes planted in the springof 1995 made their first appearance in the summer of 1997.The chicory, red clover and white clover were the easiestto establish in the existing sod.

Problems that we have encountered with standestablishment are to be expected with any system.However, we have had more than our share of seedlingdevastation by weather events in the past three yearsincluding a summer drought followed by winter ice storminjury in 1996, a killing frost in the spring of 1997, adevastating hail storm in June of 1997, and a drought andgrasshopper infestation through the summers of 1998 and1999. The harsh weather eliminated good stands ofbirdsfoot trefoil and reduced stands of all other legumes.Legume stands throughout the region were equally affectedby the ice storm. The warm season grasses were affectedminimally. In spite of the weather setbacks, severalpastures renovated during the first two years of the projectare showing greatly improved productivity. The Rolling-Dutchman accomplishes extensive tillage without exposureto erosion. The improvements we are seeing are as if thepasture were “freed up” by primary tillage. Improvementwill be even more pronounced when adequate rains returnto our region.

Q+$('204:#$',##)."%E The 1999 kura clover seeding onthe baren Sovell farm germinated and grew well until itwas desiccated in the absence of rainfall in August. Wereceived .2” of rain in August and .6” from September

Karen displays a good stand of kuraclover and birdsfoot trefoil on her farm


—— 71



through December. Subsequent kuraclover seedings have survived on heavysoils with a high water holding capacity.We have only had success establishingkura clover using conventional seedbedpreparation. This species will notdevelop a stand using the Rolling-Dutchman. It lacks the seedling vigornecessary to compete with the existingsod.

E(.";(00',.5+0(-#)'$+"4;;'(")'#$4,.4"EWe have been able to show the effectof the ripped furrows on water runoffusing the rainfall simulator in 1998 and1999. Figure 1, shows the rate of runoffover time as a 2.4”/hr storm occurs onboth ripped and unripped pasture. Welearned that the furrows are capable ofstoring runoff water but they are notincreasing water infiltration beyond thatof the adjacent soil. Notice that theunripped pasture began running off afteronly five minutes of rain. There was norunoff in the ripped pasture until 25minutes into the event. But the upward slope of both curvesis similar and they both level off at around 35m of theapplied rainfall (similar steady state runoff and infiltration).This finding shows that the ripped furrows will help earlyin a storm but become less effective in a major storm event.

During the rain simulations, we could easily observe thewater repellent (hydrophobic) tendency of the dry surfacesoil in all plots. The drier the soil, the more hydrophobicit becomes. Just when water is most needed on the farm, itis being least accepted at the soil surface. This preciousfirst moisture can rapidly move over land instead of sinkingin. We are looking at reducing graZing pressure to see ifan increase in stubble will help hold the water in placelong enough to break the water repellency of the dry soil.

Just as the furrows help capture water, they also assist inthe conservation of soil and nutrients. We measured adramatic reduction in both sediment and phosphorus lossdue to the presence of the furrows (Table 1). The pasturerenovation reduced sediment loss by 65m and phosphorusloss by 58m. We are achieving increased productivityand improving the water quality of the adjacent surfacewater system in addition to keeping resources on the farmwhere they will be used for long-term productivity.

We would recommend this new renovation system to otherfarmers, especially if they are on hilly terrain. We plan tocontinue using and improving the Rolling-Dutchman as long

as we farm here on the Coteau Ridge.

Management Tips

1. Enlist the help of a soil conservation professional tosite lines of equal elevation. It is difficult to keep theRolling-Dutchman on the contour without such guidanceunless there is an existing terrace to follow.

2. Existing forages must be managed to reduce competitionuntil the new seeding becomes well established. ControlledgraZing seems to be the best way to suppress existing foragesand weeds.

Cooperators

A7C-/%A5-$2]B Farmer, Porter, MN!7+$9%<591+"9B Farmer, Ivanhoe, MNa-;375/%7#/%!*$%a*..-#6B Farmers, Ivanhoe, MNP-V$%7#/%P751%^7#9*#B Farmers, Hendricks, MNa*6$5%@-9#-$?9V-B Farmer, Ivanhoe, MNP75V%e"+?-#V.$B Rainfall simulation, MDA, St. Paul, MN

Project Location

From Ivanhoe, go 6 miles east on MN Hwy 19. Turn northon Cty Rd 8 and go 2 miles. Turn west on Cty Rd 110 fort mile. The Jim Sovell farm is on the south side of theroad. Contact Jim for directions to the cooperating farms.

Table 1. Sediment and Phosphorus Deposition After OneHour Simulated Rainfall on August 18, 1999

Ripped PastureUnripped Pasture

224638

0.240.57

)=064F0;4 9@71G@7=21D0:>F0;43EL+

Figure 1. Effect of Ripped Furrows on Runoff from Simulated 2.4�/Hour Rainfall at Sovell Farm

72 ——


Project Summary

The main goal of this project is to offer the cornand soybean farmer an affordable alternative tothe traditional two crop rotation. Rather thanadvocating the production of a questionablyviable third cash crop, we are investigating theconcurrent inter-seeding of companion covercrops that are complimentary to the existinggrains in the rotation. We hope that the additionof a cover crop will allow us to take advantageof a fall and spring window for plant growth andbiological cycling. We are investigating the useof a pendulum seeder in combination with ourfinal spring cultivation or after soybean harvestto establish the cover crops. We are testing theviability and compatibility of several cover cropspecies including five cover crop species in cornand five cover crop species in beans.

In 1999, the pendulum seeder was successfullyfront mounted and engaged as a cover cropestablishment tool. Unfortunately, droughtconditions prevailed from early July through fall.Reasonable stands of several inter-seededspecies were unable to survive into the fall sono legitimate season long comparisons could bemade. Due to the drought conditions in the fallof 2000, no results are reported for last yearand the project will be extended until 2002.

Project Description

We hope to diversify thetwo crop corn andsoybean monocultureusing the winter fallowperiod for cover crops.Why expend the effort|Almost all of the nativelandscapes of the worldare covered by perennialliving vegetation. Ablanket of prairie oncecovered the grasslandplant communities aroundthe globe. These havebeen aggressivelyconverted to cultivated


Tony ThompsonWillow Lake Farm

Box 128,339 - 11th St.

Windom, MN 56101507-831-3483

Cottonwood County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

biodiversity, covercrops, inter-seeding,

landscape ecology,nutrient cycling, soil

erosion

A LA LA LA LA Lowowowowow-cost Mechanism for Inter-cost Mechanism for Inter-cost Mechanism for Inter-cost Mechanism for Inter-cost Mechanism for Inter-seeding-seeding-seeding-seeding-seedingCover Crops in CorCover Crops in CorCover Crops in CorCover Crops in CorCover Crops in Cornnnnn

agriculture. The millions of acres of winterfallow that ring the globe pose a threat to air andwater quality and the flora and fauna of the world.Immediately measurable environmentalproblems directly attributable to cultivatedmonoculture include:

j increased sediment and nutrient loads instreams, rivers, and lakes, resulting ineutrophicationd

j loss of biodiversitydj invasion of exotic weeds, pathogens and

other pestsdj fragmentation of the landscape, threatening

migration and persistence of natural plantand animal communitiesd and,

j rapid mineraliZation (organic matterbreakdown) of the soil and the resultingrelease of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

Cover cropping offers the possibility to begin toreverse all these trends. We hope to manageWillow Lake FarmJs soil, water, and nutrientsfor our agronomic benefit while at the same timecreating global environmental benefits. In 1991,we made a conversion from mulch-till to ridge-till and have seen improvements in weed control,water infiltration, reduced compaction, workersafety and overall quality of life. The next stepis to sequester mobile nitrogen and herbicidesattached to soil particles. Our fields arevulnerable to erosion and leaching in fall and

A close-up of the pendelum seeder in action

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Thompson

—— 73


Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Thompson

spring when evapotranspiration is low and the moisture inthe soil profile is often at or above field capacity. Ourinvestigation of cover cropping to fill this void is beingpursued by:

j determining the feasibility of modifying a pendulumseeder driven hydraulically and used in concert withour cultivatord

j comparing companion cover crops for performance inthe corn-soybean rotation (cover crop productivity andhow they affect grain yields)d and,

j the effect of the cover crops on pest, disease and weedcycles.

Results

HIII< %With design assistance from the Department ofBiosystems and AgriculturalEngineering at the University ofMinnesota, we successfully frontmounted the pendulum seeder. It wasused hydraulically to broadcast ourcover crop seed. The pendulum actiondisperses seeds of varying density moredependably than a traditional cycloneor endgate seeder. This advantagecomes into play as we investigate adiversity of cover crop species. Frontmounting allows us to seed, cultivate and incorporate inone pass. For convenience, the seeder is quickly attachedand removed from a tractor set up for cultivation. We alsoplan to use the pendulum seeder to plant native plant CRPfilter strips on the farm. The seeder will better distributethe fluffy seeds found in the mix. We hope to share thisequipment with neighboring farmers to minimiZe the cost.

We planted cover crops into 1.7 acre corn and soybeanplots. We had planned on seeding during our secondcultivation but the new pendulum seeder arrived late fromthe dealer. We borrowed a similar seeder from the Fishand Wildlife Service and got the job done in the corn onJuly 1 but were unable to incorporate the seed due to animminent rain storm. This did not seem to affect the standwhich germinated quite well. The soybeans were inter-seeded on July 27.

The cover crops in the corn plots included mammoth redclover, nitro alfalfa, annual ryegrass, hairy vetch, andbuckwheat. Cover crops inter-seeded in the soybeanswere mammoth red clover, nitro alfalfa, annual ryegrass,and curly dock. We added curly dock to the list because,unlike many recommended cover crop species, it is nativeto Southwest Minnesota. We hoped that curly dock mightbe easy to control. After soybean harvest, we planted

cover crops of rye and oats, which may have been tooaggressive had we used them as inter-seeded crops.

From our initial experience in 1999, the two cover cropswe would most recommend are mammoth red clover andnitro alfalfa. They were the easiest to establish and showedthe most vigor. They seemed to tolerate the heat betterthan the other cover crop species. The annual ryegrassgerminated and grew quite well, but was more easily killedin the dry weather. The hairy vetch may yet be a goodoption but our stand was sparse so we are consideringseeding the vetch at a higher rate next year. Unfortunately,hairy vetch seed is expensive and may prohibit this practiceon a larger scale.

The late planting in 1999 due to the late arrival of the seederresulted in elongated cover crop seedlings. This was due

to excessive competition for light, particularly from thecorn. In the future, we plan to push our second cultivationand seeding to the earliest date possible. The fall-plantedoats and rye in soybeans were extensively eaten by geese.We look forward to a repetition of these cover crop trialsunder more normal summer rainfall conditions.

Management Tips

1. Choose a seeder that can perform multiple tasks (beyondinter-seeding) in your neighborhood.

2. Push your second cultivation to the earliest possibledate when inter-seeding cover crops.

Cooperators

A5E% <7".% <*52$5B Department of Agronomy and PlantGenetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

A5E% !*#7237#%)37,.-#B Department of Biosystems andAgricultural Engineering, St. Paul, MN

Project Location

From Bingham Lake, go south 3.5 miles on Cty Rd 2 to theWillow Lake Farm (sign on the left).

Table 1. 1999 Inter-seeded Cover Crop Establishment inCorn on July 15 at the Thompson Farm (plantedJuly 1)

3835

quite sparse1.58

97G2364>7;K100:3>;A1LO4!N

Mammoth Red CloverNitro AlfalfaAnnual RyegrassHairy VetchBuckwheat

12

3.57 (elongated)

3

H7P0=.H=7G 936;4.Q0>A@4K>;?@01N

74 ——


Project Summary

We are attempting to refine the use of manurenutrients and purchased bedding on our dairyfarm by running manure solids through awindrowed compost. We have shown that acontrolled hot compost process will destroyenough pathogens, especially those that causemastitis, to render the finished compost useableas bedding for our dairy cows. In addition,compost is being land-applied on the farm orsold for horticultural purposes. We are testingthe plant nutrient availability of the compost todetermine its suitability as a fertiliZer and to seeif the composting process will help stabiliZe soiltest nutrient levels on an already nutrient richfarm.

Project Description

Our dairy farm consists of a 550 cow milkingherd with a double-12 milking parlor. The herdis milked three times daily. In 1996, we finishedconstruction of the new free stall dairy facility.We use the home farm for calves, dairy heiferreplacement, and gestating dry cows. We raise700 acres of corn silage (plus some high moisturecorn) and 500 acres of alfalfa haylage. Our soilis predominantly Webster clay-loam.

Our overall philosophy is to optimiZe our forageproduction, primarily using manure nutrients anda minimum of purchased fertiliZer. Because ofour work in the past withthe Natural ResourcesConservation Service, weare aware of theenvironmental and waterquality concerns in thishigh water tablewatershed. There is a longhistory of dairy farming inour immediateneighborhood. Thesefarms, over time, tend todevelop soils high inorganic matter (z4.5m)and rich in nitrogen,phosphorus and


Norman and Salliecolkmann

3215 - 343rd AvenueJanesville, MN

56048507-234-5846Waseca County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

composting, manuremanagement,

nutrient cycling

Managing DairManaging DairManaging DairManaging DairManaging Dairy Manure Nutrients iny Manure Nutrients iny Manure Nutrients iny Manure Nutrients iny Manure Nutrients ina Ra Ra Ra Ra Recycling Compost Programecycling Compost Programecycling Compost Programecycling Compost Programecycling Compost Program

Hugh Chester-Jones discusses nutrient cycling throughwindrowed compost on the Volkmann farm

potassium (N, P and b). We know we have tomanage the new larger dairy in a way that allowsus to maintain soil fertility without excessnutrient loading.

In order to facilitate manure nutrient cycling andefficient use of bedding, we added a conveyorscreen solid/liquid separator to handle themanure and effluent from our freestall barn flushsystem. The manure solids are collected forcompost and the liquid is stored in a lagoon tobe recycled as flush water. The lagoon is drawndown as fertiliZer semiannually. Six and one-half million gallons is contract applied to ourown and neighborsJ fields annually.

The compost is allowed to process for two weeksat the separation site and then moved towindrows. The windrows are 6-8J high in thecenter and 10-15J wide. Each windrow contains600 cubic yards of solids. The windrows areturned weekly for six to eight weeks and thenused as bedding. Five parts of finished compostis mixed with two parts of hardwood shavingsto be recycled as bedding for the lactating herdand heifer replacements. Excess compost island-applied and is currently being evaluatedfor horticultural and domestic household septicmound use.

In order to achieve our goals, we are trackingthe flow of N, P, and b from the crops, through

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Volkmann

—— 75



the cows, the flush system, solids separator, liquid effluentreturn, lagoon, compost, recycled bedding, and soil. Thiswill provide a whole farm nutrient profile, enabling us toknow where nutrients are building up or being lost.

We are also field testing our compost as a fertiliZer sourcefor corn. We are comparing nutrient availability fromcompost to commercial nitrogen and raw manure. Eachyear, field siZe strips of corn were fertiliZed with thefollowing treatments:

j compost (45 tons/A)j compost (30 tons/A)j raw, scraped manure (45 tons/A)j urea (150 lb N/A)j control (no fertility added beyond that of the

starter)

In 1998, the above treatments were applied in early spring.After observing a delayed nitrogen availability from thecompost treatments in the spring of 1998, we decided toapply the 1999 and 2000 compost and manure fertility inthe fall. We then added a single spring application composttreatment to compare to the fall applications. All plots,including the controls, received 50 lb/A of 10-34-0 starterfertiliZer. The 45 tons/A compost rate was the maximumamount of material that could be reasonably incorporatedinto the soil. Midseason nitrogenavailability was monitored using achlorophyll meter on June 12 (c4 corngrowth stage) and June 25 (c6 corngrowth stage). Silage yield and N, P,and b content were measured at harvest.

We monitored the temperature of thecompost piles, both at the dewateringpad where the solids are stockpiled fortwo weeks, and in the turned windrows.The goal is to maintain a minimum 130°F temperature forat least two weeks to eliminate pathogens.

Results

C45>4,-."%'(")'3(-74%#"'E#)+2-.4"<' One of the majorachievements so far has been the success of the turned,windrowed compost as a means of reducing pathogens.Although composting occurred on the dewatering pad, stacktemperatures were not consistent and did not attain suitablepeaks for reduction of pathogens. However, windrowedcompost temperatures during the growing season showedpeaks of 150°F and maintenance of 130°F or greater for atleast two weeks. Our clinical cases of mastitis havedeclined significantly since we implemented the compostwindrow system. The use of the compost bedding resulted

in a savings of o550/month in hardwood shavings cost (a37m reduction).

Composting reduced the total volume of solids by twothirds. This increased the overall efficiency of the wastehandling system. A summary of compost compositionthrough each phase of composting is shown in Table 1.The concentration of the nutrients increased as the heatingand microbial decomposition reduced the compost volume.Composting lowered the amount of ammonia nitrogenrelative to the amount of organic nitrogen. The ratio oforganic to ammonia nitrogen increased from 2.4:1 whenfreshly separated to 4.8:1 in the mature compost. In 1998,the moisture content of the compost remained above anideal upper limit of 65m. In 1999, additional carbon wasadded to lower the moisture content and improve the qualityof the compost.

In 1999 and 2000, more compost (and phosphorus) wasmoved off the farm for a value added return. Compostwas sold to Shady Oaks Nursery in Waseca and Hill-topFlorists in Mankato. By the third year of the project wehad established a consistent procedure for production ofhigh quality compost. Random compost samples taken in2000 were consistent with the 1999 composition profilesso we no longer focused on improvements to compostmanagement.

C45>4,-'B#$-.0.-&'."'C4$"< In 1998, the compost fertilitydemonstration plots provided unexpected results (Table2). Initial soil analysis of organic matter and P and blevels (not shown) confirmed that all plots were nutrientrich. However, the 30 ton/A compost treatment producedvery poor silage yields. We observed that corn plants inboth compost treatments had very yellow leaves at thebeginning of the growing season, indicating that N was notreadily available. This was verified by low chlorophyllmeter readings in these plots. Plants in the 45 ton/Acompost plot did turn green later in the season but leavesin the lower compost rate remained yellow. Evidently, thecompost caused an immobiliZation of soil nitrogen.Because of this, we added the compost for the 1999 and2000 corn crop in the fall to reduce the immobiliZationeffect.

Table 1. 1999 Nutrient Analysis of Separated Dairy ManureSolids by Phase of Compost Process

1: Freshly Separated2: After 2 Week Storage on Concrete Pad3: After Composting in Windrows

2.62.6

11.9

9@610 3EL47;

1.92.3

6.1

9!*&

1.41.4

2.4

+FF7;>6.J

3.33.6

11.8

\!**=A6;>?.J

76 ——


All fall applied compost plots producedgood forage yields in 1999 and 2000.The 30 ton/A compost treatment that hadyielded poorly when applied in thespring of 1998 gave adequate yieldswhen fall applied for the following twogrowing seasons. The lowest yields in2000 were found in the spring applied45 ton/A compost treatment, confirmingthe slow release nature of the compostfertility.

We observed a dramatic reduction inavailable soil phosphorus andpotassium in the compost treatmentscompared to the raw manure treatment(Table 3). In the fall of 2000, availablesoil phosphorus in the three compostplots averaged 56 ppm while the manureplot contained 145 ppm. The rawmanure increased available phosphorusin spite of the fact that the total amountof phosphorus added from the rawmanure was less than that from thecompost. This result is an indicationthat we may be beginning to achieve ourgoal of helping to reduce phosphorusavailability through the compostingprocess.

=740#'B($5'P+-$.#"-'C&20."%<' Wecompleted a nutrient profile in 1998.We accounted for 62m of the totalnutrient outflow from the lactating barn(550 cows) in the compost. Theremaining 38m of the N, P, and b wererecycled to the lagoon storage. Thescreen separator accumulates 25 cubicyards of solids daily with a typicalcomposition of 74.5m moisture, 0.42mN, 0.05m P, and 0.14m b.

We calculated the output of majornutrients in the cow manure (Table 4)by monitoring daily feed input and milkoutput per cow per day. The manurenutrients are estimated by subtractingoutputs from inputs or nutrients in milk from nutrients infeed. We also calculated the quantity of nutrients storedin animal weight gain (0.2 lb/cow/day) but this wasinsignificant.

E(.";(00' *.5+0(-#)'E+"4;;< Additions of manure orcompost can change soil structure and affect watermovement through the soil profile. We decided to apply asimulated storm event to the corn silage plots to see if thecompost is having an effect on rainfall runoff and associatedsediment and phosphorus loss. We found that both thecompost and the raw manure helped with water infiltration

9K3EL+N

Table 2. Corn Silage Yield and Nutrients Removed

'--#Control45 tons/A compost30 tons/A compost45 tons/A raw manure150 lb/A urea'---Control45 tons/A compost(spring)45 tons/A compost (fall)30 tons/A compost (fall)45 tons/A raw manure150 lb/A urea!"""Control45 tons/A compost(spring)45 tons/A compost (fall)30 tons/A compost (fall)45 tons/A raw manure150 lb/A urea

18122130271124

103126

141128128106

98

98104111201128

)=064F0;4

4445105130

4644

56584848

40

4953575546

19821638250143

128202

190166167195

130

146152164190151

JK3EL+N

8.38.31.79.45.8

7.08.4

8.87.68.29.3

6.7

6.07.57.59.27.6

\K3EL+N

S>03:K:=<. 47;1L+N

Table 3. Spring 1999 and Fall 2000 Soil Analysis

Control45 tons/A compost (spring)45 tons/A compost (fall)30 tons/A compost45 tons/A raw manure150 lb/A urea

)=064F0;49

KGGFN\

KGGFN*=A6;>?.]6440=

KRN

'---5.35.6

6.76.45.26.0

!"""8.1

10.5

10.48.86.68.9

'---8062

666414991

!"""6865

644014567

'---390356

390397689473

!"""281354

316210401223

Table 4. Daily Nutrient Flow on Volkmann Farm

Feed input (54 lb dry matter)Milk output (68 lb)Manure (feed - milk)

D72=?0 9

1.500.321.18

0.270.070.20

0.690.110.58

]6_7=.J24=>0;41. K3EL?78L:6<N\J


—— 77



and reduced runoff when rainfall wasapplied to the corn ground in mid-September shortly after silage harvest(Figure 1).

A similar trend in sediment andphosphorus reduction was measured inthe runoff water collected from therainfall plots (Table 5). The raw manuretreatment had extensive weed pressure.These weeds acted in a manner similarto residue to protect the soil and allowfor a water infiltration rate even higherthan the compost treatment.

In summary, after three years ofcomposting manure solids, the projectshows promise across several aspectsof the system. We are achieving thedesired compost temperatures andseeing a reduction in mastitis carried inthe bedding. Corn silage yields usingon-farm fertility are matching yieldsusing purchased urea. Available soilphosphorus appears to be lower whencompost is used compared to when rawmanure is used for corn silage fertility. Runoff, sedimentand phosphorus losses are reduced by the compost aswell.

Management Tips

1. The composting process must be systematic to ensurethat raw and finished compost are not mixed or mistakenlysubstituted. This ensures a maximum reduction inpathogens.

2. Test your compost on a small area to determine nutrientavailability. Spring applied compost may have a delayednitrogen release, especially in a wet year. Fall compostapplication makes nitrogen more available in the followingspring.

3. Maintain compost temperatures above 1300F for twoweeks to kill pathogens.

Cooperators

A$##-9%U"9;3B%Southern Research and Outreach Center,Waseca, MN

!"56$#%<$2$59B Waseca County Extension, Waseca, MNQ*?$..%U"9+7#B Extension Educator, Waseca, MNP75.7%@72f$B NRCS, Waseca, MN)*5$1%a$-==B%Crop Consultant, Hutchinson, MNA7C$%<=755B%Extension Educator, Le Center, MN^"63%)3$92$5I!*#$9B Southern Research and Outreach

Center,,Waseca, MN

Project Location

From Waseca, take Hwy 14 west to Janesville. Turn leftat the traffic light in Janesville and go south on Cty Rd 3 tothe homestead on the left and dairy on the right.

Table 5. Sediment and Phosphorus Deposition fromSimulated Rainfall in Mid-September, 1999

30 tons/A compost45 tons/A raw manure150 lb/A urea

)=064F0;4

67no runoff

406

D0:>F0;4

0.16no runoff

0.39

9@71G@7=213EL+

Figure 1. Volkmann Runoff in Compost Study

78 ——


Project Summary

Don Wheeler has a 240 acre farm on which hegrows corn, soybeans, wheat, oats, and alfalfain rotation. He uses a ridge-till system with 38”rows. He raises long-horn beef cattle (20 head),which he rotationally graZes, and hogs (10 sows).According to the soil survey, his fields containthe following soils: Barnes loam, Svea loam,Flom Clay loam, and Barnes Buse loam. Inaddition to equipment commonly used on farms,he has a rotary hoe, Buffalo planter, and Hinikercultivator. His farm is situated on rollingtopography on the east side of the Coteau Ridge.This is a family-operated farm, with Don, Rose,and Duane contributing their knowledge andlabor.

Don wants to reduce chemical rates and showpeople it can be done. He undertook this projectto test and document soy oil encapsulation ofherbicides for other farmers. A major problemfor farmers is that input costs are too high.Reduction of chemicals can substantially reduceinput costs, which is especially important giventhe current low prices.

Project Description

Don has been using soy oil encapsulation withreduced rates of herbicides for several years andhas had good results. He has been able to usefewer chemicals while maintaining yield, whichhas increased theprofitability of the farm.If soil oil encapsulationallows reduced rates ofherbicides to be used, thismethod should alsobenefit the environment.Don also likes the fact thathe is substituting a farmer-produced substancensoyoilnfor herbicidesproduced by chemicalcompanies.

This alternative approachto herbicide use is more


Donald WheelerRR 2, Box 32

Balaton, MN 56115507-734-5433

Lyon County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

corn, cultivation,reduced herbicide

rates, ridge-till,soybeans, soy oil

RRRRReducing Chemical Usage by Usingeducing Chemical Usage by Usingeducing Chemical Usage by Usingeducing Chemical Usage by Usingeducing Chemical Usage by UsingSoy Oil on CorSoy Oil on CorSoy Oil on CorSoy Oil on CorSoy Oil on Corn and Soybeann and Soybeann and Soybeann and Soybeann and Soybean

time-consuming, but the savings generated allowmoney to be used for other purposes. Carryingout this project, that is, setting up replicatedexperiments on farm, is also time-consuming.Don has spent more hours planning and on fieldoperationsd Duane has helped with planting andharvestingd and Rose has helped to set up plots,keep records of inputs and field activities, andwith the field day. The positive aspect of thisextra work is that the family is more aware offield conditions and have better records.

Don has set up two replicated field trials, onefor corn and the other for soybeans, incollaboration with EliZabeth Dyck, agronomist,and Jodie Getting, assistant scientist, of theUniversity of Minnesota Southwest Research andOutreach Center (SWROC). To test their theorythat soy oil encapsulation can allow reducedrates of herbicide applications, they developedfour herbicide treatments for both the corn andsoybean trials: a full rate treatment, a reducedrate treatment, a reduced rate plus soy oilencapsulation treatment, and a no herbicidetreatment. They included the full rate treatmentas a check to see how the reduced rate strategywas affecting yield loss to weeds. The reducedrate with no soy oil encapsulation was includedto see whether the soy oil actually improvesweed control or whether reduced rate by itselfis sufficient. Don was interested in the noherbicide treatment to see how well weed control

Don Wheeler & Elizabeth Dyck at the field day

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility • Wheeler

—— 79



could be maintained with cultivationalone. The actual herbicides and ratesused are listed in Table 1.

The trials were set up following themodel of the Practical Farmers of Iowa,i.e., the treatments were repeated asmany times as the field siZe allowedusing narrow, long plots to allow for thenaturally occurring variability in soiland topography that exists in any farmfield. Two fields are used in theseexperiments. One field allows for plots8 rows wide by 802J long, with eachtreatment replicated four times. Thesecond field is big enough for sixrepetitions of each treatment, with eachplot 8 rows wide by 809J long. Thecorn and soybean experiments havebeen rotated between these fields overthe three-year duration of the project.For example, the corn trial in 1998 wason the field with four replications. In1999, the corn trial moved to the fieldwith six replications. In 2000, the corntrial was again held on the field withfour replications.

In 1998, herbicide treatments wererandomly assigned to plots using arandomiZed complete block design, i.e.,each treatment was repeated within eachblock or subunit of the field (Figure 1).Each plot has continued to receive thesame treatment it was assigned at thestart of the experiment. For example, aplot that received full rate of theherbicides in 1998, received a full rateof herbicide in 1999 and in the 2000season. This allowed assessment ofhow the treatments affect weed pressureover time.

Because of the field siZe and numberof treatments, the plots were laid outright next to one another. To minimiZethe effect of drift from plot to plot, only the inner four rowsof each plot were used for measurements and yieldassessments. It was therefore important that these innerfour rows be planted as one pass. This was accomplishedby planting the last two rows of the border area togetherwith the first two rows of the first plot.

Soil samples were taken at the onset of the experiment.Results are reported in Table 2. In the soy oil treatments,each herbicide was mixed separately with soy oil beforebeing added to the tank. The rule of thumb is to mix anequal or slightly greater volume of soy oil with the amountof herbicide. See Table 1 for exact amounts of soy oilused with each herbicide. Student interns from SWROCdetermined weed weight at midseason in all plots. iield

Figure 1. Treatment Layout for Field With Four Replications

Treatment Key:1 = Full rate of herbicide2 = Reduced rate of herbicide3 = Reduced rate + soy oil encapsulation4 = No herbicide

Table 1. Herbicide Treatments for Corn and Soybean Trials

Accent Gold ...... 2.9 oz/AClarity .................. 4.0 oz/ANISa .......................... 0.25% V/Vb

28% N ............. 2.5% V/V

Accent ............. 0.125 oz/AClarity .................. 2.0 oz/A2,4-D Amine ...... 2.0 oz/AAtrazine ............... 24 oz/ANIS ................. 0.25% V/V28% N ............. 2.5% V/V

Accent +Soycapc .................... 0.125 oz/AClarity +Soycap ................. 2.0 oz/A2,4-D Amine +Soycap ................. 2.0 oz/AAtrazine +Soycap .................. 24 oz/A28% N ............. 2.5% V/V

- - -

H7=;.Q0=E>?>:01.`./6401Q0=E>?>:0.)=064F0;4D7<E06;.Q0=E>?>:01.`

/6401

aNonionic surfactantbVolume for volumecSoycap is a registered trademark of Mitech corporation, which describes this product as �93% once refined degummed soybean oil with 7% high quality emulsifiers.� Soycap was applied at 25 oz/A for atrazine and 3 oz/A for other compounds.dCrop oil concentrate

Full rate

Reduced rate

Reduced rate plus soy oil

No herbicide

Poast Plus ........... 24 oz/ACOCd ................................ 32 oz/A28% N ................ 64 oz/A

Poast Plus ........... 16 oz/ACOC .................... 32 oz/A28% N ................ 64 oz/A

Poast Plus ........... 16 oz/ASoycap ................. 16 oz/A28% N ................ 64 oz/A

- - -

80 ——


was determined through the use of aweigh wagon supplied by SWROC.

Results

Midseason weed weights, yields, andcosts per treatment for the 2000 seasonare shown in Tables 3 and 4. Thesetables show the actual numberscollected plus a statistical analysis doneof the numbers by the SWROC. Thestatistical analysis allowed fordetermination of whether a differenceof say 2 bu/A between treatments is“real” (i.e., due to the treatmentsthemselves) or whether it likely resultedfrom differences between areas of thefield (due to soil, topography, etc.).

The low corn and soybean yields in2000 are the result of two severe hailstorms, which occurred on May 18 andJuly 28. Despite the damage causedby the hail, treatment differencesoccurred in corn yield. The yield ofthe no herbicide treatment wassignificantly lower than that in theherbicide treatments, which may beattributed to the significantly greatergrass (primarily foxtail) pressure in theno herbicide treatment (Table 3). Nodifferences in yield occurred betweensoybean treatments, but, as in the corntrial, grass biomass accumulation atmidseason was significantly greater inthe no herbicide treatment whencompared to the three herbicidetreatments (Table 4). As in previousyears, broadleaf weeds were patchilydistributed throughout both experimentsand no significant differences werefound between treatments.

For the third year in a row, no differencesin yield or weed pressure have shownup between the full rate, reduced rate,and reduced rate plus soy oil treatmentsin the experiments on DonJs farm.Moreover, experiments conducted in2000 on the SWROC using the same treatments showedsimilar results: corn and soybean yields did not differbetween the three herbicide treatments (data not shown).Equivalent yields using reduced herbicide rates translateinto higher net profitability for the reduced rate treatments,

especially in terms of corn production. DonJs experimentalresults support his contention that yield can be maintainednand costs can be reducednusing reduced herbicide rates.However, given the fact that the reduced herbicide ratealone worked as well as the soy oil treatment, theseexperiments donJt show an advantage to using soy oil

Table 2. Soil Test Results

7.1

6.4

Six replications

Four replications

5>03: GQ*=A6;>?]6440=. KRNB=6<a9. KGGFN \. KGGFN

15

18

162

151

5.8

4.8

Table 3. Midseason Weed Weights, Yields, and Costs perTreatment in the Corn Trial in 2000

S>03:. KE2L+N

Grass

Full rateReduced rateReduced rate + soy oilNo herbicide

0.02a

0.32a

0.00a

2.37b

73-7661-8171-8459-64

aWeed weights were determined by collecting the aboveground portion of all weedswithin a 10� by 3.83� area centered on the inner two corn rows of each plot at fourlocations within each plot. The weeds were then dried and weighed. The weightsrecorded in the above table are calculated as grams per square meter.bWithin each column, numbers followed by the same letter do not differ significantlyaccording to analysis of variance and LSD mean separation test.cCosts are a sum of herbicide and cultivation costs for each treatment. Herbicidecosts were estimated from those given in the University of Minnesota ExtensionService Publication �2000 Cultural & Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops� (BU-3157-S). Cultivation costs were estimated using �Minnesota Farm Machinery EconomicCost Estimates for 2000� (University of Minnesota Extension Service PublicationFO-6696).

Broadleaf

0.49a

2.64a

2.94a

8.09a

75a

72a

78a

61b

Cost ($/A)c

$38.15$21.32$22.52$13.94

Range Average

U00:1. KALF!N

Herbicide treatment


Table 4. Midseason Weed Weights, Yields, and Costs perTreatment in the Soybean Trial in 2000

Grassa

(g/m2)Full rateReduced rateReduced rate + soy oilNo herbicide

2.35a

5.62a

3.72a

86.21b

21-2315-2318-2418-24

aWeed weights were determined by collecting the aboveground portion of all weedswithin a 10� by 3.83� area centered over the inner two soybean rows of each plot atfour locations within each plot. The weeds were then dried and weighed. Theweights recorded in the above table are calculated as grams per square meter.bWithin each column, numbers followed by the same letter do not differ significantlyaccording to analysis of variance and LSD mean separation test.cCosts are a sum of herbicide and cultivation costs for each treatment. Herbicidecosts were estimated from those given in the University of Minnesota ExtensionService Publication �2000 Cultural & Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops� (BU-3157-S). Cultivation costs were estimated using �Minnesota Farm MachineryEconomic Cost Estimates for 2000� (University of Minnesota Extension ServicePublication FO-6696).

Broadleaf(g/m2)1.40a

8.33a

23.90a

4.63a

22a

20a

21a

19a

Cost ($/A)c

$20.69$17.45$17.19$11.52

Range AverageHerbicide treatment

—— 81



encapsulation. Nevertheless, because he has had successwith it for many years, Don will continue to encapsulatereduced rates of herbicides with soy oil on his farm.

For those interested in trying reduced herbicide rates, withor without soy oil, a couple of important points need to bekept in mind. First, using less than the label rate meansthat any weed problems that may develop will not be theresponsibility of the herbicide manufacturer. Second,reduced herbicide rates are likely to be more effective ifapplied when weeds are small. Third, reduced rates arenot likely to work as effectively without cultivation. Donis an experienced cultivator who regularly scouts his fieldsfor weed flushes and the soil conditions that optimiZe theeffectiveness of cultivation. This integrated approach ofreduced herbicide rates plus timely cultivation is savingDon money while maintaining his farmJs productivity.

Management Tips

1. The need for timely spraying and doing your ownspraying is important.

2. All that is needed to try this approach to weedmanagement is a decent sprayer and a cultivator. However,as with any new practice, it makes sense to firsttry this on a limited basis and then expand if itworks for you.

3. This project has taught us the need to monitorweather, soil conditions, and indicator plants(e.g., the appearance and siZe of weeds andwildflowers) very closely.

4. Good record-keeping is essential.

Cooperators

4.-]70$23%A1;VB%!*/-$%̀ $22-#6B%Q7P*-#$%Z-;V$.Bb%4+-.1%87$6$5B Southwest Research andOutreach Center

)*2$7"%a-/6$%8"927-#70.$%\75+-#6%:99*;-72-*#A7.$%d++*/2B Top-Profit AgU$221%Q$C$59$/6$B%U$221%)37#/.$5B%b%4923$5%`5*$#$?$6B

Helped at field day)7231%)3"5;3-..B% )35-92-#7% c*..+$5B% _75-% 4#927/B% F$/

4#927/B%b%F-+%8$C;-V, Summer Interns, SouthwestResearch and Outreach Center.

Project Location

Go 2 miles west of Balaton on Hwy 14. Then turn northand go 1 mile. Turn west t mile. Farm is on the southside of the road.

Other Resources

Bowman, Greg (Ed.). 1997. 82$$.%-#%23$%=-$./H%:%=75+$5X96"-/$%2*%?$$/%+7#76$+$#2%2**.9E Sustainable AgricultureNetwork, Hills Building, University of cermont, Burlington,cT 05405-0082. 802-656-0471.

Cramer, Craig. )*#25*..-#6%?$$/9%?-23%=$?$5%;3$+-;7.9EAvailable to order at: Rodale Institute: 800-832-6285 orRodale web site: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org

Don�s soybean plot with reduced herbicide treatment

—— 83


Integrating Livestock Profitably IntoIntegrating Livestock Profitably IntoIntegrating Livestock Profitably IntoIntegrating Livestock Profitably IntoIntegrating Livestock Profitably Intoa Fa Fa Fa Fa Frrrrruit and Vuit and Vuit and Vuit and Vuit and Vegetable Operationegetable Operationegetable Operationegetable Operationegetable Operation

Fruits and Vegetables • Abazs

Project Summary

At Round River Farm we primarily produceorganic fruits and vegetables in the hills of LakeSuperiorJs North Shore. Our family-run “micro-farm” is the only commercial fruit and vegetablefarm within a 5,000 square mile area. The farmis powered by solar and wind energy. We usean intensive cropping system of green manures,crop rotations and companion planting on oursandy loam soils. We came up with the farmJsname, Round River Farm, from a writing ofAldo Leopold: “The current is the stream ofenergy which flows out of the soil, into plants,thence into animals, thence back into the soil,in a never-ending circuit of life.” We have setforth to create a lifestyle and agriculture systemthat is as cyclical and natural as LeopoldJs RoundRiver.

Project Description

We view Round River Farm as one bigexperiment to explore the practical possibilitiesof finding true sustainability in this harsh short-seasoned environment. This project will helpus investigate and demonstrate innovative,sustainable techniques. Our soil is sandy,lacking in nutrients, droughty, very shallow andabounds with boulders, building stones andgravel. The land, however, holds much promiseand we want to show that you can have aprofitable and sustainable farm on marginal land.

In this project, we want tofocus on three aspects ofthe farm. The first is touse pigs to turn brush landinto cropland. With somany rocks it isimpossible tomechanically till the soil.We have been using pick-axes to clear the land butthis is extremely slow. Weare going to demonstratehow the use of hogs tobrowse and root willreduce the amount of time


David and LiseAbaZs

Round River Farm5879 Nikolai Road

Finland, MN 55603218-353-7736

Lake County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

establishing trees inpastures, greywater

irrigation, NorthShore fruit and

vegetableproduction, pigs for

land clearing

needed to pickaxe. We will evaluate theeffectiveness of this clearing method insubsequent years to see if weeds and brush havebeen adequately controlled.

The second project is to irrigate the orchard andgreenhouse with greywater from the farmhouse.Using different greywater distribution designsand applications we will evaluate the systems.Also, we are testing the water quality of thegreywater by testing the groundwater under twoapple trees to see if the greywater is addingpollutants to the groundwater.

The third aspect of the project is establishingan orchard in an existing pasture. We aredesigning different tree protection enclosuresand will compare the effectiveness of theseenclosures while graZing with sheep and goats.

Results

In the summer of 1999 we wanted to see howmuch land three hogs could clear. We made apigpen with four 16J hog panels, four 12J x 2” x4” boards, one piece of s” plywood, eight U-bolts and four little bags of metal pipe strapping.We wanted to design the pen so that it waslight enough for one person to move but heavyenough that the pigs could not move it. Thetotal cost for the materials for the pen was justunder o100.

David demonstrating greywater equipment site

84 ——



We purchased three 30 lb pigs to rotate through the field.The pigs were moved to a new plot of ground each day. Inaddition to the pigs rooting for grubs, roots, and brush, wefed them three scoops of cracked corn everyday. The pigswere never medicated and were healthy all summer. Wethink this was because they moved to new ground eachday. We followed the pigs with our pickaxes and the pigsseemed to cut our workload in half. After we pickaxedand cleared rocks, the land was rototilled and planted to acover crop.

We estimate that it took us 200 hours to pickaxe 4,000 sqft without using pigs. Using the pigs it took us 300 hoursto pickaxe 12,000 sq ft. On a per square foot basis it cutour labor in half. At the end of the season the pigs werebutchered and provided meat for three families, somethinga bulldoZer cannotw

The second project in 1999 was the orchard and greenhousegreywater irrigation system. We view the use of greywateras a “waste to resource” that can really add to thesustainability of a farm. We experimented with two differentdistribution designs and applications. Several drip irrigationlines were installed in the orchard and one line in thegreenhouse. Both final designs worked well and equallydistributed the greywater with each 30-gallon pumpingcycle. We irrigated much of the orchard throughout thesummer. The filtration system to clean the greywater wasredesigned to provide cleaner greywater for trouble freeirrigation.

Also in 1999, we installed lysimeters (instruments to testthe ground water) under two apple trees. This will allowus to collect water to see if pollutants are in the soil. Wewill test groundwater samples in 2001 to see if pollutantshave been transported to the groundwater under the treesirrigated with greywater.

In 2000, we began to incorporate orchards into an existingpasture. We are field-testing several tree protection fencingideas for goats and sheep. Combining orchards andpastures should increase production in a small area. Treesin the pasture should reduce disease and pest problems inthe orchard because the animals will remove all un-harvested fruit. Livestock graZing amongst the orchardalso provides nutrient needs to the trees from the manureand help reduce mowing time.

Ten apple trees were planted with protection fenceenclosures of various styles. The fence protectors weremade of 16J rigid cattle panels cut into 12J and 4J sections.The 12J section was bent slightly so it would bend aroundthe tree and the 4J section was attached to the panel and

functioned as a hinged door. Metal posts were used tosecure the panel.

We had devastating results with the tree protectors. Wedid not believe that goats would be able to reach throughthe 6” square openings on the panels and reach the trees.They pushed and tried every angle and many of the treeswere damaged. We tried securing the panels to the groundto limit movement of the panel and wrapping trees withfeed sacks or chicken wire. The feed sacks were chewedup and we had plastic shreds all over the field. The chickenwire worked the best and we plan to use this on all of ourtrees in 2001. The sheep were not as hard on the trees asthe goats.

We continued using the greywater irrigation system toirrigate the orchard. The redesigned water filtrationprovided clean water and trouble free irrigation in the driplines all season long.

Management Tips

1. Using hogs to root and till small areas really reduceslabor, especially in rocky areas.

2. Use a good filter system to ensure that greywater flowsthrough drip irrigation systems.

3. iou can reduce or eliminate purchased inputs of fertiliZerfor trees irrigated with greywater.

Apple trees doing well withgreywater irrigation

—— 85



4. Newly planted trees in pastures need to be protectedby both an outside ridged barrier and a tight woven wire,like chicken wire, tree wrap to protect them from goats.

5. Crops can grow on the North Shore of Lake Superior.

6. There are excellent markets for fresh produce along theNorth Shore.

Cooperators

Q7V$%)*"#21%4W2$#9-*#8"927-#70.$%\75+-#6%:99*;-72-*#%*=%Z*523$792%P-##$9*27

Project Location

Take Hwy 61 north from Duluth to Hwy 1. Turn left onHwy 1 and go to Finland. In Finland, take a right on CtyRd 6 (Little Marais Rd) and go 2.8 miles to Nikolai Rd

and bear to the right. Farm is located at the end of NikolaiRd. Park in the valley by Sawmill Creek and walk up thehalf-mile rocky road to the farm.

Other Resources

d79-9%A$9-6#E% Ecological design consulting for water,wastewater, and solar systems. Available at:www.oasisdesign.net

F3$% 4;*.*6-;7.% 4#6-#$$5-#6%`5*",E Designers andengineers of alternative/advanced wastewater andresource-conservation solutions. Available at:www.ecological-engineering.com

81+U-*8192$+E% A kit that is a reliable, cost-effective andsimple way to make a resource out of wastewater.Available at: http://symbiosystem.com

86 ——


VVVVValue Aalue Aalue Aalue Aalue Adding to Small Fdding to Small Fdding to Small Fdding to Small Fdding to Small Farararararms Throughms Throughms Throughms Throughms ThroughProcessing ExProcessing ExProcessing ExProcessing ExProcessing Excess Productioncess Productioncess Productioncess Productioncess Production

Fruits and Vegetables • Adelmann

Project Summary

Jeff and Mary AdelmannJs farm has 25 acresdevoted to growing organic vegetables, garlic,and herbs. The farmJs proximity to the TwinCities allows Jeff and Mary to direct market theirproduce from both the St. Paul FarmersJ Marketand their roadside stand.

A problem for the Adelmanns is that their peakproduction times coincide with other farmersJharvests. This creates a market overabundanceand forces all market farmers to drop their prices.Jeff and MaryJs challenge is to sell excess cropsat a profitable price.

The goal of the AdelmannJs project is to addvalue and shelf life to their unsold crop whiletaking advantage of the off-season markets. Todo this, Jeff and Mary are using an existinggreenhouse to dry their excess produce oftomatoes, peppers, herbs and garlic. Not onlyare the Adelmanns taking advantage of thegreenhouseJs “wasted” solar heat but also off-season greenhouse space.

Project Description

The AdelmannJs business consists of growingorganic vegetables and garlic on 25 acres oftillable land. In ten greenhouses they propagateand grow over 2,000 varieties of plants, primarilyherbs and other useful plants. The field isplanted with tomatoes,pumpkins, squash, gourds,ornamental corn varieties,and herbs. Over 100varieties of heirloomgarlic are planted for Julyharvest.

Market season for theAdelmanns begins in mid-April with plant sales atboth their roadside marketand through the St. Paulmarket system. AfterJuly, plant sales fall off in


Jeffrey A. and MaryAdelmann

24149 ChippendaleAvenue W.

Farmington, MN55024

651-463-2504

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact

Mary Hanks 651-296-1277

Author: Mary Routh

Keywords

dried food, excessproduce,

greenhouse,processing, solar

drying, value added

time for garlic season. During July and August,midsummer vegetables make up the bulk ofsales. Late crops like pumpkin, squash,ornamental corn, corn shocks, dried falldecorations and precut Christmas trees finishtheir year.

Many vegetable crops grown in MinnesotaJsshort summers reach peak production times thatcoincide with other farmersJ harvest. This largeamount of produce simultaneously reaching themarket forces growers to compete by loweringprices, sometimes to prices which do not reflectthe costs of production. Even the highest qualityproduce returns low prices which, in turn, leavingsome of the usable crop in the field unharvested.

Jeff Adelmann realiZed that his highly perishablecrops, such as tomatoes and peppers, seldomfind a home if not sold shortly after harvest.Wind and heat stress the produce at open marketsthat are sometimes in the middle of parking lots.Transporting the produce can also take its toll.

By drying a portion of his unsold produce, Jeffcould reduce waste plus avoid the necessity ofselling his crop at prices he cannot afford. And,by drying flavorful heirloom varieties that havecustomer appeal, Jeff could also create a newproduct that would extend the length of his salesinto other seasons. He wanted to process hisnew product within his existing business by

Jeff shows visitors heirloom tomatoes in greenhouse

—— 87



utiliZing off-season greenhouse space and “wasted” solarheat during harvest season.

The project began with the production of 3,000 heirloomtomato transplants from seeds collected in 1999. Fivehundred of each of the following varieties were planted:Brandywine, Mortgage Lifter, Nebraska Wedding, GreatWhite, Black brim, and Mr. Stripey. These weretransplanted to a one acre field in late June.

A small greenhouse (45J x 12J) was converted into both adrying room and a work area. The south side was convertedinto a large solar dryer by removing the greenhouse benchesand replacing them with used convenience store shelves.Recycled 3J x 12J rubber coated bread racks spanned theshelves. The racks supported twenty 14” x 24” aluminumtrays. The trays were recycled PiZZa Hut pans with holesin the bottom, ideal for air circulation. North side bencheswere left for workspace.

Produce was placed on the paper-lined trays to avoidcontact with the aluminum surface. Black nylon landscapefabric covered the trays. Besides promoting heatabsorption, the black cloth also blocked sunlight frombleaching the product. The landscape fabric was drapedover the benches like a tent to promote optimum air flow.

Three drying trials were run in 2000. Tomatoes from awholesale distributor were dried in June. The second trialin August experimented with remaining greenhouse growntomatoes and the September trial dried heirloom tomatoesfrom the field. During and between tomato trials, any extraspace was used to dry bell peppers, habenero and otherhot varieties of peppers. Garlic and small batches of herbssuch as catnip, basil, bay leaf, and tarragon were alsotrialed.

Greenhouse temperatures would reach 110 to120°F during the day so a squirrel cage fan wasleft on continuously to circulate this hot air untilall product was dry. At the end of the dryingprocess, the product was examined. Moldyproduct was completely discarded. Productwith good color, texture, and taste wasconsidered satisfactory.

Results

Drying time for tomatoes averaged about fiveto seven days depending on humidity andcloudiness. There were problems with driedproduct rehydrating. During the night the fallingambient temperature created humid conditions

inside the greenhouse. Jeff expressed frustration that hecould not get juicy tomatoes to dry fast enough during theday: “It was like taking two steps forward during hot daysand taking one step backwards at night.” The results ofthe drying experiments are:

Trial 1: Sixty pounds of tomatoes were bought wholesalesince local produce was not yet ready. The tomatoes weresliced thin and placed on trays covered with waxed paper.The fruit dried but the heat in the greenhouse melted thewax onto the pieces which made it difficult to separate.The total batch had to be discarded.

Trial 2: About 90 lb of tomatoes were sliced at differentthicknesses or cut into quarters and placed on freeZer paperthis time. Thin slices dried quickly but attached to thepaper. Thicker slices began to get moldy before dryingwas finished. The total batch had to be discarded.

Trial 3: Fifty to 60 lb of mixed, heirloom variety tomatoeswere cut into larger pieces and placed on freeZer paperlined trays. The greenhouse dryer was used for three daysto remove juice moisture. After driving off the “cutting”moisture, the pieces were then placed in a smaller householddehydrator for finishing. The yield was 2.5 lb.

Over the summer the Adelmanns successfully driedmultiple batches of various herbs, peppers, and hardneckgarlic. None were lost to mold. The herbs dried thoroughlyin two to three days with little loss of color or essentialoils. The peppers dried in about the same time and werefinished in smaller dehydrators before storage.

luality standards for the finished product were based ontexture, color, and taste. The Adelmanns aimed for acrispy, dry texture in all of their dried vegetables. Jeffexplained that thicker pieces of dried produce tend to share

Tomato production in the field

88 ——



moisture with smaller pieces when instorage. A crispy dry product is lessapt to spoil while the moisture isdistributing throughout the jar. Allfinished material was placed in brownglass containers and sealed.

In order to be successful with dryingtomatoes and other juicy vegetables, theAdelmanns realiZe that they need toaggressively control temperaturesduring cloudy days and at night.Although the greenhouse dryer did verywell with peppers and herbs, an outsideheat source will be necessary tocontinue with tomatoes. Jeff foreseesadding an electric or propane heater nextyear to keep just above nighttimeambient temperatures.

Pastry cloth will be tried next year as a tray liner. Itsporous weave should be more conducive to air flow and,hopefully, it will not stick to the produce.

Finally, the Adelmanns pointed out that the value of driedfood to the grower is primarily in added shelf life. Driedtomatoes available commercially sell for about o1/oZ. Ittakes about 25 lb of fresh fruit to make one pound of driedtomato. Retail prices for in-season tomatoes have beenaround o.50-75/lb and more for specialty types. Usingthese figures, 25 lb of fresh tomatoes sells for o12.50.Sixteen ounces of dried tomatoes sells for o16 or a 28mincrease in value. Less handling time is necessary to makethis margin work for the grower.

Management Tips

1. Be sure to close up the greenhouse at night to keep thewarm air in and cool air out.

2. beep track of your time to make sure drying is worthwhile.Less handling time is necessary for the grower to make a profit.beep a workspace nearby so that time is not wasted duringhandling.

3. Rent or share a state approved kitchen for initial processingof produce such as washing or slicing. This saves the cost ofbuilding a commercial kitchen.

4. Work with your stateJs Department of Health licensingrequirements on selling your final dried product.

5. Examine dried foods at grocery stores to get a good ideaof quality standards, appearance, and trends. Find out whatthe customer wants.

Cooperators

a$##$%8*0$56B Herb producer, Lakeville, MN<7".%a$/%4.VB Processor, St. Paul, MN!7;V%`$52$#B St. Paul Farmers Market, St. Paul, MN!-+%`*./$#B St. Paul Growers Association, St. Paul, MN

Project Location

The farm is 2s miles south of Farmington on the southwestcorner of the intersection of 240th Street and State Hwy 3.

Other Resources

bendall, P., and L. Allen. 2001. A51-#6% C$6$270.$9E)*.*57/*%4W2$#9-*#%<"0.-;72-*#%Z*E%OEM'J. Colorado StateUniversity Cooperative Extension, Resource Center, 115General Services Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523,877-692-9358. Available at:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09308.html

berr, Barbara. 1998. :% 5$C-$?% *=% 9*.75% =**/% /51-#6EAvailable at: www.solarcooking.org/dryingreview.htm

Miller, R. A. 1985. F3$%,*2$#2-7.%*=%3$509%79%7%;793%;5*,EAcres USA, P.O. Box 9547, bansas City, MO 64133.

Philips, Marjorie. A51-#6% =**/9% 72% 3*+$E CooperativeExtension Service, University of Arkansas, 2301 S.University Ave., Little Rock, AR 72204, 501-671-2000.

Table 1: Yield of Dried Vegetables

Beans, limaBeans, snapBeetsBroccoliCarrots

CeleryCornGreensOnionsPeas

PumpkinSquashTomatoes

76151215

12183128

111014

1 1/41/2

1 1/21 3/81 1/4

3/42 1/21/4

1 1/23/4

3/43/41/2

22 1/23-53-52-4

3 1/2-44-4 1/25 1/24 1/2

1

3 1/25

2 1/2-3

9=7:2?0KG>;41N9>?C0:. K3E1N

+F72;4.92=?@610:K3E1N

Source: Philips, Drying Foods at Home, University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service

+F72;4.I=>0:.9=7:2?4

—— 89


Fruits and Vegetables • Bailey

Evaluating the Benefits of CompostEvaluating the Benefits of CompostEvaluating the Benefits of CompostEvaluating the Benefits of CompostEvaluating the Benefits of CompostTTTTTeas to the Small Markeas to the Small Markeas to the Small Markeas to the Small Markeas to the Small Market Groweret Groweret Groweret Groweret Grower

Project Summary

We are attempting to provide locally relevantinformation about the potential benefits ofcompost tea. All four farms involved in thisproject have experienced disease problems inour horticultural crops. There is an expandinginterest in the use of compost tea as a meansof preventing or minimiZing disease problems,especially fungal diseases.

We are making and applying compost tea as afoliar spray to grapes, ornamental flowers, andvegetables. The extent of foliar disease is thenmonitored visually to determine the effect of thetea. In our first year of compost teaexperimentation, we have some evidence of areduction of foliar diseases on Zinnias andgrapes. Besides the specific results of our fieldstudies, we want to make people aware of thewealth of new work being done by researchers,gardeners, landscapers, and farmers who areinvestigating compost tea around the country.

Project Description

\75+%/$9;5-,2-*#9E At Bluffland cineyards,Peggy Backup farms five acres of wine grapesrepresenting over three doZen varieties. Theseinclude cinifera grapes grown in California andEurope which need winter protection. Thevineyard is located on a heavy alluvial silty claysoil facing Garvin Brook, a well known troutstream. In the Midwest,it is very unusual tochoose a wet site withheavy soil for a vineyard.This provides someadvantages in terms ofproductivity and flavorfulwines, but brings greaterdisease and excessivegrowth.

On the 160 acre ManyHands Farm, MargeWarthesen and familyraise 80 acres of fieldcrops with a rotation of


Pat BaileyWeaver GardensRR 1, Box 588

Altura, MN 55910507-767-3225

Sandy DietZWhitewater Gardens

RR 1, Box 250Altura, MN 55910

507-932-5225

Marge WarthesenMany Hands Farm

RR 1, Box 125Theilman, MN

55945507-534-3047

Peggy BackupBluffland Cellars

101 B, Cty. Rd. 81Wabasha, MN

55981651-565-3794

Wabasha County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

compost tea, foliardiseases, organic

production

small grain, alfalfa, corn, soybeans and rye. Fortyacres are rotationally graZed with beef cattle.Forty acres of woodland are managed for maturetimber harvest, wood fuel, and recreationalenjoyment. There are four acres of certifiedorganic vegetable production with localmarketing through a CSA and a farmers market.The Warthesens also raise free range chickens.

Whitewater Gardens consists of 120 acres ofrolling fields and woods on the bluffs aboveWhitewater State Park. Sandy DeitZ raises fiveacres of organic fresh market vegetables thatare sold at farmersJ markets, restaurants, directlyfrom the farm, and through a small CSA. Inaddition, there are 50 acres of organic field cropsincluding a rotation of hay and food gradesoybeans and corn.

Weaver Gardens is a 50 acre homestead in theblufflands, with considerable relief on theproperty. On the lower, gently sloping land nearthe valley floor, Pat Bailey and family operate aone acre market garden focusing on cut flowerproduction with secondary vegetable crops. Sixacres of old pasture are undergoing restorationto native prairie with plans to include prairie andplanted woodland flowers for cut flower sales.

All of our operations have had foliar diseaseproblems including crown gall on grapes, leafblight on cut flowers, and powdery mildew on

Marge, Peggy, and Sandyin Peggy�s vineyard

90 ——



peas. We read about various growers using compost teaas a means of preventing or minimiZing disease problemsand providing fertility so we became interested in exploringthis practice. Compost tea can add beneficial microbiallife to the leaves of crops and to the soil. To focus on soiland plant surface ecology rather than just on soil nutrientsand fungicides is an innovative approach. If growers findthat compost tea can be substituted for fungicides and otherpesticides, we feel that this would have enormous benefits.Not only would chemical use be reduced, compost teamay restore a healthy microbial community once pesticideshave been used or may jump-start a site initially being putinto production. Compost and compost tea can be producedon the farm, reducing the need for off-farm inputs.

One aspect of the project is to utiliZe highly specialiZedlaboratory services that provide information to growerson the microbial condition of their soil, compost, and leaves.We want to ascertain how useful this type of analysis is inguiding the production and use of compost tea.

Some of us have used no fungicides and have relied ondisease resistant varieties, plant rotation, fall cleanup, andbuilding soil health in our attempt to minimiZe diseaseproblems. But we would like to further reduce our lossesto plant diseases. Peggy has been using expensivefungicides on her grapes and would like to reduce herreliance on them. She has found that baking soda providesrelief from late season downy mildew. She hopes thatcompost tea will provide early and midseason diseasecontrol. The vineyard is affected by crown gall, a bacterialdisease that has no known cure. It is hoped that perhapscompost tea may improve the vinesJ resistance to crowngall or boost its ability to recover from the infection.

Our original three year plan for this project was to:

1. Gather information about the use of compost teathrough a diversity of sources.

2. Design and build a compost tea brewer.3. UtiliZe our own compost in making compost tea.4. Develop, evaluate, and revise tea recipes using

laboratory analysis of microbial species composition.5. Test the effectiveness of the teas to suppress diseases

on various crops.

Our first year plans were altered somewhat due to ourstruggle to obtain equipment and not knowing exactly howto use the microbial analyses for making changes to thecompost and compost tea recipes. Just prior to thebeginning of this project, reasonably priced commercialbrewing equipment became available and we purchasedthree units, eliminating the need to fabricate our own.

Results

Making compost tea is not difficult. In fact, it is a pleasantchore. We found it interesting to watch the changes thatoccurred as the tea became stronger. The teas weretypically brewed within two to five days dependingprimarily on temperature. As the tea is being brewed, theliquid starts foaming. Once a scum (a sticky foam)develops and the smell of the molasses additive is gone,then the brew is considered ready for spraying. The teashould be sprayed within 12 hours to avoid the developmentof anaerobic bacteria.

We used four types of compost for the tea. Twocommercial composts were used to see whether wewanted to make similar composts in following years. Onewas a mixture of peat, other forest products, and manure.The other was a vermicompost or red worm compost. Thetwo on-farm composts were primarily manure with bedding.

We had planned to send both compost and compost teain for microbial analysis. However, after talking to aconsultant, we found that because of the highly changingnature of the tea over time, a more meaningful evaluationof tea quality can be made by sending in leaves (sprayedand not sprayed) from the crops being treated. For the firstyear, we sent in samples of each of the composts. We areusing this information to guide our compost making fornext year. We plan to do leaf assays next year to helpmake changes in tea recipes.

Brewing compost tea

—— 91



We used two commercial additives when brewing the tea.The additives included kelp, blackstrap molasses, guanoand lignin. One solution was for a fungal dominated teaand the other for a bacterial dominated tea. We used asticker-spreader for tea application. Spraying tea with abackpack sprayer proved to be laborious as 15 gallonstook three to four hours.

Several separate research projects were undertaken todetermine the effectiveness of the tea. We tested the teaon grapes, Zinnias, sunflowers, peas, and cucumbers. Wedid not start spraying routinely until mid-July and werenot able to do control trials on tomatoes, summer squash,and potatoes since disease problems were established.

`57,$9E% One-half acre of two-year old Frontenac vineswas used to compare the following treatments:

j Compost tea (fungal tea on the soil and bacterial teaon the leaves) applied three times

j Commercial fertiliZerj Standard treatment (commercial fertiliZer plus

pesticide/fungicide spray)j Standard treatment plus compost teaj Control (no inputs)

The grapes were assessed by evaluating hardening off, aform of maturity and preparation for winter. Hardeningoff is an observed color change in the bark, turning it intoa rich cinnamon brown. Poorly hardened wood appearsblotchy or black and dies back during the winter. Alltreatments had increased hardening off compared to thecontrol but only the standard treatment plus compost teashowed a significant increase in hardening off. Next yearwe will be able to better assess treatment effects bymeasuring vine growth and yield on these same plots.

e-##-79E$ Benary Giant Zinnias were planted on July 2,2000. The foliage was sprayed with a bacterial tea threetimes through the growing season. Sprayed Zinnias werecompared to an unsprayed control by visually assessingthe extent of disease infection. Random Zinnia plantsfrom each plot were evaluated on four occasions duringthe summer. A leaf blight (presumably Alternaria) becameestablished in midsummer. For three of the four evaluationdates, the treated plants had a statistically lower level ofdisease infection than those that were not sprayed. Thiseffect was more pronounced later in the year, suggestingthat the compost tea spray was able to arrest progress ofthe disease even after symptoms appeared.

8"#=.*?$59E%%Sunrich orange hybrid pollenless sunflowerswere planted on July 3, 2000. The foliage was sprayedwith compost tea three times through the growing season

and assessed for disease in the same fashion as the Zinnias.The sprayed sunflowers generally had lower disease levelsbut the difference was not significant.

The pea and cucumber plots did not produce meaningfuldata. The peas froZe out in the fall, and the cucumberplants intertwined between treatments and effects couldnot be separated out by plot.

We have learned that compost tea is easy to make andearly results show a positive effect on foliar diseases. Wehave much to learn about what constitutes a good compostfor making tea. We look forward to incorporating laboratoryanalysis of compost, treated foliage, and soil with ourobserved field results.

Management Tips

1. Compost tea is only as good as the compost that isused to make it. Make the tea with the end crop in mind.Grapes, berries, and trees should be treated with fungaltea. Most row crops should be treated with bacterial tea.

2. Spray the tea soon after it is ready to avoid thedevelopment of anaerobic organisms.

3. Preventative spraying is preferable to troubleshootingwhen a disease problem has already become obvious.

Cooperators

a"99$..%F"5#$5B%Wabasha, MNF*+%P*99-$5B Wabasha County Solid Waste & Recycling,

Wabasha, MN)75.%a*9$#B University of Minnesota Extension,

St. Paul, MN<$2$5%^$+927/B University of Minnesota Horticulture

Research Center, Excelsior, MNA"7#$%U7W2$5B%Rochester, MNQ7551%837=$5, Agro-b Corporation, Minneapolis, MN

Project Location

Weaver Gardens is located on the north side of State Hwy74, ~ mile W. of U.S. Hwy 61, the last residence in Weavergoing west. Contact Pat Bailey for directions to other sites.

Other Resources

Ingham, Elaine, and Michael Alms. 1999. )*+,*92%2$7+7#"7.E% Available at www.soilfoodweb.com

An extensive bibliography is available by contacting PatBailey at 507-767-3225 or Mark ^umwinkle at651-282-6204.

92 ——


Fruits and Vegetables • Friend and Peteler

Sustainable WSustainable WSustainable WSustainable WSustainable Weed Control ineed Control ineed Control ineed Control ineed Control ina a a a a Commercial VCommercial VCommercial VCommercial VCommercial Vineyardineyardineyardineyardineyard

Project Summary

On our small farm, we rotationally graZe ourcommercial ewe flock and direct-market ourlamb to consumers. Four years ago, we plantedone acre of wine grapes to diversify our farm.Our goal was, and is, to grow the grapes with asfew pesticides as possible. We currently sellour grapes on contract to a Minnesota winery.

Project Description

Effective weed control in a commercial-scalevineyard is difficult without chemicals ormassive amounts of labor. While we maintain agrass cover between rows by mowing, weedcontrol ?-23-# the row poses a greater challenge.cines are planted four feet apart along a two-wire trellis. The lowest wire is at three feet, abarrier to mowing. The space between andaround the vines becomes overrun with weeds.WeJve tried both hand mowing and weedwhacking, and found both too labor-intensive.

The vineyard is an important part of our long-term plans for the farm. The peak laborrequirements of pruning and harvest are duringthe “down” times for our sheep operation, sothe two systems fit well together. The weedinglabor, however, creates great pressure becauseit comes during our busy spring and summeractivities: lambing 60 ewes on pasture androtationally graZing 180 animals. We are seekinga weed control methodthat fits our sustainablefarm, i.e., one that doesnJtharm the environment, thatis economically feasible,and that maintains ourquality of life.

We divided our vineyard,which has eleven 400Jrows, into four equalsections to test thefollowing four methods:1) black poly fabric mulchwhich cost o.19/ftincluding shippingd 2)


Catherine Friend andMelissa Peteler

Rising Moon Farm42400 - 145th

Avenue Way^umbrota, MN

55992507-732-7574

risingmoonujuno.comGoodhue County

ProjectDuration

2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

black poly fabricmulch, grapes,

vineyard

Grapes growing in the vineyard

commercial wool mulch which cost o1.14/ftincluding shippingd 3) flame weedingd and, 4)weeder geese.

Results

1) Black Poly Fabric Mulch: We used a flameweeder to remove last yearJs weed residue, thenapplied the black poly fabric mulch in the springwith the help of neighbors, friends, and family.This job was much more labor intensive thanwe expected, taking two people one hour toprogress 100J. We attached the mulch to thesoil with six-inch ground staples every 12-18”.The black fabric mulch could be stretched for atight fit over the soil, providing a low, clean edgefor the mower so we could mow right up to theedge of the black mulch.

The black fabric mulch suppressed weedssuccessfully. Only a few weeds worked theirway through the small openings in the mulcharound the vines. A few clever thistles learnedif they leaned way over the mulch the mowercouldnJt reach them. But otherwise, this sectionwas free of weeds.

2) Weeder Geese: We purchased 12 day-oldgeese, six Emden and six Toulouse, and raisedthem in a heated pen. We fenced off one-fourthof the vineyard using a combination of an existingfive-wire electric fence on two sides, woven

—— 93


Fruits and Vegetables • Friend and Peteler

electric poultry fencing, and garden fence. We built a 4Jx8J,three-sided shelter out of 2x4s and plywood, and movedthe geese in after they feathered out, at about 12 weeks.

The geese were spotty weeders, eating some areas downto the soil but leaving others. They consistently made amudhole next to their water source no matter where wemoved it. We mowed this section once during the summer.As the geese grew, they became tall enough to play withand eat the vinesJ lower leaves and eventually beganstripping bark from a few vines. This killed five vines.We removed the geese from the vineyard, banishing themto the pasture. In the late fall eight geese were butcheredand sold.

3) Flame Weeding: We purchased a 40-pound propanetank, a two-wheeled cart, and a hand propane torch. Whenthe weeds were small in the early spring, the flame weedingcould be done fairly easily. But if the weeds in a row grewlonger than five or six inches, the labor and fuel costs toflame grew too high. Flaming only kills the above groundportion of the weeds so the roots remain viable and theweeds re-grow. Because the labor required for this methodcompeted with the labor requirements of our sheepoperation, we discontinued flame weeding by midsummer.

4) Wool Mulch: We used a flame weeder to prepare theground then applied the commercial wool mulch in the earlyspring. It stretched out of shape too easily so we could notpull it tight. Instead we laid it as flat as possible andstapled it into place with six-inch ground staples every 12-18”. The edges curled and stretched, catching easily inthe mower blade, forcing us to leave a fringe of weeds oneither side of the wool mulch rows. The wool mulchbecame the favorite nesting grounds of mice and pocketgophers and it soon grew lumpy with nests or piles of soildug by these pests.

We learned by midsummer that wool mulch might be moreappropriate to use in new vineyards where the soil can beentirely tilled and prepared before planting the vines. Oursis an established vineyard with two to four year old plantsand we didnJt own the expensive equipment necessary tolightly till the soil around established plants. As a result,the wool mulch failed to provide an adequate weed barrier.We have been told that it will work when applied to soilthat has been totally worked up, and that for best results,two layers should be used. This makes it a very expensiveoption.

The original plan was to study these four non-chemicalmethods. In only three months, we learned which methodis likely to work the bestd the black poly fabric mulch.

Management Tips

1. Wool Mulch: Install in new vineyards only after tillingthe soil completely. Or, use a Weed Badger to lightly tillthe soil around established vines prior to application. Forbest results use two layers of mulch.

2. Geese: Consider moving them into the vineyard foronly part of the day to avoid nuisance damage. Movingthe geese daily increases a vineyardJs labor requirements.

3. Flame Weeding: Flame the entire area every week tokeep weeds down. A mechanical means of flaming,including a vehicle to carry the propane tank, would bebest.

4. Black Poly Fabric Mulch: While the initial laborrequirement is high, once applied this mulch requires nomaintenance and suppresses all weeds. Rodents do notnest under this mulch.

Project Location

Call or email for directions.

Other Resources

P-##$9*27%`57,$%`5*?$59%:99*;-72-*#E John Marshall,Secretary. 35680 Highway 61 Blvd., Lake City, MN55041. Email: grapesurconnect.com.This is a membership organiZation and publishes thequarterly newsletter Z*2$9%=5*+%23$%Z*523 with informationabout grape production. Information available at: http://www.mngrapes.com

Pirog, R. 2000. `57,$%4W,$;272-*#9H% %:%\**/%8192$+<$59,$;2-C$% *#%a$/$C$.*,-#6% 23$% >*?7%`57,$% >#/"9251ELeopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 209 CurtissHall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1050,515-294-1854. www.leopold.iastate.edu/grapes2000.html

94 ——


Fruits and Vegetables • Hoover

BioBioBioBioBio-based W-based W-based W-based W-based Weed Control in Strawbereed Control in Strawbereed Control in Strawbereed Control in Strawbereed Control in Strawberries Using Sheepries Using Sheepries Using Sheepries Using Sheepries Using SheepWWWWWool Mulch, Canola Mulch & Canola Green Manureool Mulch, Canola Mulch & Canola Green Manureool Mulch, Canola Mulch & Canola Green Manureool Mulch, Canola Mulch & Canola Green Manureool Mulch, Canola Mulch & Canola Green Manure

Project Summary

Strawberry producers in Minnesota, andelsewhere, have lost or are soon to lose manyof the chemical weed control options which theypreviously depended upon, i.e. Dacthal, methylbromide, etc. Over reliance upon a smallnumber of herbicides may be expected in thenear future. This could result in additionalproblems, both agricultural and legal, forproducers. As a consequence of these actionsand possibilities, producers of manyhorticultural crops are now desperate formanagement systems that include viablealternatives for weed control. Our experimentwith strawberries may serve as a model thathas relevance to a number of other high valuefruit and vegetable crops such as broccoli,cabbage, leeks, melons, tomatoes, and Zucchini,to name a few.

Our objective is to find new ways for strawberrygrowers to control weeds and reduce herbicideuse in strawberry production using twoapproaches. The first involves research anddemonstration of combined biological, cultural,and mechanical weed control, which is itselfan example of integrated weed management.The second involves the substitution of arenewable resource-based fumigant/herbicide/mulch for weed management in strawberries,a crop directly consumed by the public.

Project Description

Lack of effective weedcontrol is the majorlimiting factor instrawberry production.With few herbicideslabeled for use in thisperennial crop, weeds arecontrolled using manuallabor, cultivation, and oneor two herbicideapplications. However,these practices do notprovide long term,effective weed control,


Dr. Emily HooverUniversity of

MinnesotaDepartment ofHorticultural

Science1970 Folwell

AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55108

612-624-6220Ramsey County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

canola greenmanure, canola

mulch, mulch, sheepwool mulch,

strawberry

and weeds continue to be the number one reasonwhy yields decline and strawberry fields areremoved from production.

Strawberry growers in Minnesota currently applyherbicides up to three times in the establishmentyear - at planting, in mid to late June, and in lateautumn, before winter mulch is applied.Strawberry producers have lost or are soon tolose many of the chemical weed control optionsupon which they have depended. (Dacthal andmethyl bromide are two examples of productsno longer labeled for use on strawberries.) Over-reliance upon a small number of herbicides maybe expected in the near future. This can resultin additional problems, both agricultural andlegal, for producers.

Midwestern strawberry producers also typicallyrototill and/or hand hoe two or more timesduring the growing season. A lack of herbicideoptions is likely to lead to increased tillage.

Our project examines biologically basedmethods of weed management using strawberryas a model system. We evaluated weed controlduring strawberry establishment as affected bybiologically and locally produced mulches - non-woven woolen mats (from locally reared sheep)and spring sown canola. The effects of thesetwo types of mulches on weed control andstrawberry production were studied

Bio-based weed control in strawberries

—— 95



independently, and in tandem, integrating weed managementfor producers.

Research was conducted at two locations, the West CentralResearch and Outreach Center (WCROC) in Morris, MNand Pine Tree Apple Orchard in White Bear Lake, MN.

The following treatments, each replicated three times andarranged in a randomiZed complete block design, wereestablished at both study locations:

!)#&';#*'$%/S !)#&';#*'$>#3-).9'./*1. Wool mulch, single-ply, centered on crop row2. Wool mulch, double-ply, centered on crop row3. Canola mulch created by glyphosate application in

mid-May4. Canola green manure created by disking to 100 mm

(4”) in mid-May5. Canola green manure created by glyphosate application

and disking6. Wool mulch centered on rows and canola mulch

between rows7. Wool mulch centered on rows and canola mulch within

and between rows8. Standard herbicide treatments for Midwest strawberry

production9. Weed-free check (hand weeded)10. Weedy check

The wool mulch material was a single-ply landscape fabric,0.9 cm (3/8”) thick and 61 cm (24”) wide, and wasfabricated from low-quality wool. Wool fabric was placedon the soil surface and held down with 6” long landscapestakes. Canola (Brassica napus cv) was the �Dwarf EssexJvariety. Strawberry plants were �GlooscapJ variety.Supplemental irrigation was supplied with a surface placeddrip irrigation system. Each strawberry row had a dripline manufactured by Netafim placed beneath the woolmulch where appropriate.

Site preparation was done with a field cultivator on April19, 1999 at Morris and April 26, 1999 at White BearLake. Canola was seeded for appropriate treatments onApril 20, 1999 at Morris and April 27, 1999 at WhiteBear Lake. Canola seed was seeded with a Gandy dropseeder at a rate of 10 lb/A (25 plants ft2) and manuallyraked into the soil. Glyphosate was used to kill canola forappropriate treatments on June 8, 1999 at Morris and June15, 1999 at White Bear Lake. All treatments, excepttreatment 3, were disked on June 9, 1999 at Morris andJune 16, 1999 at White Bear Lake and strawberry plugswere immediately transplanted on those days. Transplantswere hand planted with 18” between plants in a row and 4Jbetween the rows. There were three rows per plot. For

wool mulch treatments, the transplants were inserted through3” long slits cut through the fabric. In the standard herbicidetreatment, Dacthal WP was applied immediately followingtransplanting at a rate of 12 lb/A and incorporated with anoverhead sprinkler. Strawberry transplants were visuallyinspected and dead plants were replaced one week afterthe transplanting date. For the standard herbicide treatment,a second application of Dacthal was made at a rate of 12lb/A on August 4, 1999 and Devrinol was applied at a rateof 8 lb/A on November 5, 1999. Strawberry plants weremulched with a 5” layer of wheat straw on November 10,1999.

Weed counts were determined in 6-25 x 40 cm (10” x 15”)quadrants within each plot on July 13, 1999 and August16, 1999 in Morris and on July 26, 1999 and August 25,1999 at White Bear Lake. Three quadrants were centeredon the strawberry row and the remainder were centeredbetween the rows. Within the quadrants, weeds wereseparated into two groups - grass and broadleaf weeds.

Strawberry plant growth was monitored by counting thenumber of rooted daughter plants in each of theaforementioned quadrants in each plot. Daughter plantcounts were made on the same days as weed counts aswell as on September 15 and October 13 for Morris andSeptember 22 and October 20 at White Bear Lake.

At the Morris site, temperature at the soil surface and at a6” depth was monitored for each treatment (one replication)using thermocouple temperature probes. Soil waterpotential was measured using Watermark sensors installedat a 6” depth below the row and between the row.

iield data was collected in June of 2000 from the middle8J of the center row of each plot, eight times throughout themonth of June at Morris, and on June 13 and June 21 atWhite Bear Lake. Berries were weighed for total yield pertreatment and average berry weights were calculated basedon twenty-berry samples.

Results

>&'&$5*&743.3$L$K##+$A/*')/7V$>&(6"'#)$=7&*'$@//'.*6V&*+$:/.7$8/.3'()#$&*+$!#;9#)&'()# Wool mulch, bothsingle-ply and two-ply, was an effective barrier to weedswithin the strawberry rows at both locations. Adding thecanola to the wool mulch, both between rows and broadcast,decreased the number of weeds in the entire plot.

Disking canola, both as a green manure or sprayed withglyphosate, did not provide as good weed control as whenit was left on the soil surface. Canola that was sprayedwith glyphosate and disked gave better weed control than

96 ——



the canola that was disked green. The canola that wassprayed with glyphosate and left as a mulch gave goodweed control and seemed to have residual activity as lateas August. Canola mulch controlled weeds better at Morristhan at White Bear Lake.

The four treatments that included wool had the highestnumber of daughter plants when compared to all the othertreatments except the weed-free plot. Wool mulch withcanola broadcasted had the most daughter plants out of allthe treatments that included wool, and wool mulch withcanola between the rows had statistically fewer daughtersthan the other wool treatments. The canola treatmentswithout wool mulch did not produce many daughter plantsand were not statistically different fromthe weedy check.

Soil surface temperatures were affectedby the wool mulch treatments, but notby any of the canola treatments whencompared to the weed free check plots.For the wool mulch treatments, soilsurface maximum temperatures wereconsistently lower and minimumtemperatures consistently higher thanthose without wool. Total temperaturevariation on a daily basis was least forthe wool mulch treatments. At the 6”soil depth, soil temperatures were notdifferent for any of the experimentaltreatments.

Differences in soil moisture (measured as water potential)were observed among the treatments, but the importanceof these differences was minimal since all plots wereirrigated to adequate moisture levels. The soil beneaththe strawberry row generally dried faster (higher potential)for treatments with the most strawberry growth. Althoughit is expected that the mulched treatments would slowevaporation at the soil surface, the evapotranspiration washigh for these treatments because of greater strawberryplant growth.

>&'&$5*&743.3$L$:'&*+V$Z.#7+V$&*+$1#))4$:.J# At WhiteBear Lake, the plots became quite weedy in the spring of2000 because the canola had not been completely killed insome of the treatments. The surviving plants went to seed,and canola became the primary weed in the plots. Canolawill grow 3J tall and form a large bush, so in this planting,the strawberry plants were not able to fill in the rows aswell as they did in Morris. The plant stands in the varioustreatments at White Bear Lake were not significantlydifferent from each other. At Morris, where better weed

control was achieved, the best plant stands were in the1-ply wool, weed-free, and wool with canola within therow treatments.

At both Morris and White Bear Lake, the two highestyielding treatments were weed-free (plots hand-weededthroughout establishment season) and 1-ply wool mulch.At Morris, all the treatments that included wool were higheryielding than any of the other treatments, while at WhiteBear Lake, the standard herbicide and the 2-ply wool werethe next highest yielders.

Berry siZe was not significantly different among treatmentsat either location (Table 1).

Two of these treatments, because they are the simplest,appear to be worth pursuing. Canola mulch kept weedseeds from germinating for as long as the standard herbicidetreatment, up to eight weeks. Canola fits nicely intostandard strawberry production systems since mostgrowers plant a cover crop of some kind before plantingstrawberries. Canola substitutes one-for-one for pre-emergent herbicide and pre-plant cover crop and isinexpensive, costing a few dollars per acre.

Although yields in the canola-mulched plots weresomewhat lower than in the herbicide-treated plots, thedifferences were not statistically significant. Furtherresearch into using canola mulch as a weed control strategywill include trying to refine the management of thistechnique. In the fall of 2000, we began a larger-scalestudy on three strawberry farms using fall-planted, ratherthan spring-planted, canola to see if we could improve onthese preliminary results.

Single-ply wool mulch kept weeds in check throughoutthe establishment season. It allowed many daughter plants

Table 1. Yield Data: Bio-based Weed Control in Strawberries,2000

12345

6789

10

Treatment

]7==>1%.]>;;01746U@>40.B06=.,6C0%.]>;;01746

7.938.878.525.9115.24

7.456.387.827.628.15

6038371323

2337536322

4,1043,2782,3451,1731,706

1,066959

3,7845,1701,039

7.566.937.487.136.20

6.627.056.857.788.22

9790676047

8397809353

9,7226,4073,6763,5142,444

7,9717,3466,1298,6794,479

Berry Weight(g) % Stand Lb/A% Stand

Berry Weight(g) Lb/A

—— 97



to root. It kept the soil cooler in summer and warmer infall, perhaps enhancing plant health. iields were higherthan for standard herbicide, although they were notstatistically different from standard herbicide. Much lesshand weeding was required in these plots since the onlyplace weeds could emerge was through the same hole inwhich the strawberry plant was growing.

The wool mulch presents some challenges, however. Itcost about o2,000 per acre at the time of planting. Plantingalso requires extra time and effort to cut holes in the mulch,to apply it, and to anchor it in the soil. The persistence ofthe wool, while it means that weed control is continuedinto the next season, also presents a problem to typicalstrawberry-growing systems: many growers use rototillersto narrow the rows of plants, and the wool fabric can becometangled in the tines of the tiller.

So, unlike canola, the wool doesnJt fit as easily into standardMinnesota strawberry production systems and it wouldrequire a substantial cash outlay. However, the increasedyields and great reduction in hand labor could make it worthgrowersJ efforts to develop a management system utiliZingwool mulch.

Management Tips

1. The use of canola, planted several weeks prior tostrawberry transplanting, was shown to have varyingdegrees of weed suppression depending on how the canolawas managed.

2. When canola was killed with glyphosate andstrawberries transplanted through the canola mulch,effective weed control was observed for more than eightweeks. Incorporating canola decreased the effectiveness.There was measurable weed control for these incorporatedtreatments, but not at a level acceptable for commercialproduction. Thus, the use of canola, when properlymanaged as a biological control of weeds, is very promisingfor the strawberry establishment year.

3. Wool mulch was also very effective in controllingweeds.

4. Strawberry daughter plants rooted prolifically throughthe wool mulch and plants appeared vigorous and healthywhen compared to the standard herbicide treatment.

5. The persistence of the wool and the economics of woolutiliZation will be critical in determining whether thisapproach will have any commercial application.

Cooperators

82$C$%<*,,$B%Z$-.%^7#9$#%b%U-..%^$7/, West CentralResearch and Outreach Center, Morris, MN

\57#V%\*5;$..7, USDA-ARS, Morris, MNU-..%!7;*09*#B Pine Tree Apple Orchard,

White Bear Lake, MN!-..%P7;_$#]-$%b%\71$%<5*,9*+, University of Minnesota,

St. Paul, MN

Project Location

The West Central Research and Outreach Center is locatedon Hwy 329 just east of Morris, MN. Pine Tree AppleOrchard is located on Apple Orchard Road, off of Hwy 96north of White Bear Lake, MN.

Other Resources

Pritts, M., and D. Handley. 1998. 8257?0$551%<5*/";2-*#`"-/$E Northeast Regional Agricultural EngineeringService, col. 88.

Propsom, F., E. Hoover, and S. Galatowitsch. 2000. @$$/9$$/07#V9%-#%$9270.-93$/%9257?0$551%=-$./9E In review forsubmission to Weed Science.

98 ——


Midwest FMidwest FMidwest FMidwest FMidwest Food Connection:ood Connection:ood Connection:ood Connection:ood Connection:Children Monitor on FChildren Monitor on FChildren Monitor on FChildren Monitor on FChildren Monitor on Farararararmsmsmsmsms

Project Summary

Midwest Food Connection (MFC) is a non-profit organiZation started in 1993 by two TwinCities natural food co-ops. Its mission is toeducate children in grades b-6 about food andsustainable agriculture. While most ofagricultural education takes place in theclassroom, Midwest Food Connection wantedto pilot an approach for involving children inthe on-going work on sustainable farms. Fourththrough sixth grade children from urban schoolsgo to visit and participate in activities at farmson the metropolitan edge. At these farms,children helped the farmers with simple,practical research. During these visits, childrenmonitored insects and soil quality while theylearned firsthand about the complexity ofecological interactions in food production andthe simple joys of picking and eating fooddirectly from the land.

Project Description

Midwest Food Connection wanted to undertakethis project to explore the role children couldplay in furthering the development ofsustainable agricultural practices. For severalyears MFC had been leading trips with schoolchildren in grades kindergarten to six to organicfarms near the Twin Cities. During these fieldtrips, children participated in planting andharvesting, depending on the season, andexplored the farm througha variety of structuredactivities.

With this project, theyasked the questions:Would it be possible togive children an evenmore precise role ofexploration on the farm|When growers domonitoring on the farm,they often need a largenumber of readings to givethem an extensive orcomplete picture of what


Uli boesterMidwest Food

Connection2105 Lyndale Ave. S.

Minneapolis, MN55405

612-871-0317, ext.345

mfcuwedgecoop.comHennepin County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

hands-onagriculturaleducation,

integrated pestmanagement, kids

on farms

Fruits and Vegetables • Midwest Food Connection

is occurring in the field. Perhaps the children,coming to a farm in groups of 40 or 50, couldprovide the necessary eyes and hands to examinemany plants on one day, or take enough soilreadings to give the farmers a range of data.

The farms on which this project took place arenot typical of Minnesota farms. They areprimarily vegetable operations. They are wellsuited and profitable in the “urban fringe”environment in which they are located becausethey have matched their type of production,product mix, and marketing methods withconsumer desire to “know the farmer” and theirdemand for fresh, locally grown organicvegetables. These farmers are used to havingfrequent visitors and their operations are “visitorfriendly.”

During the course of the project, the followingpartnerships and activities occurred:

a$/%)75/-#7.%\75+Mahtomedi, Minnesota n A CommunitySupported Agriculture (CSA) farm thatproduces organic vegetables, fruit and flowersfor several hundred subscribers/members.8;3**.%<752#$59Hj 1998: Two fifth grade classes from Galtier

Science Magnet School, St. Paul, MN.j 1999: Mixed age children from Linwood

Ar School, St. Paul, MN.

Children testing water percolation at Red Cardinal Farm

—— 99



:;2-C-2-$9Hj Studied how cover crops affect weed production.j Gathered baseline data on total number and diversity

of insectsd total number and diversity of plantsd numberof earthwormsd and water infiltration rates to examinetheir effects on soil quality.

a-C$50$#/%\75+Delano, Minnesota n A CSA farm that grows vegetablesand a small quantity of grains.8;3**.%<752#$59Hj 1998: Third and fourth grade classes from Armatage

School, Minneapolis, MN.j 1999: Third and fifth grade classes from Wenonah

School, Minneapolis, MN.:;2-C-21Hj Tested the effect that planting buckwheat next to

cabbage beds had on keeping parasitic wasps (Cotesiaglomerata) nearby. (Cotesia glomerata wasps lay theireggs on cabbage worms where they hatch, kill the worm,and thereby control the pest population.)

Z72"57.%^75C$92%\75+Lake Elmo, Minnesota n A CSA farm operation uniquelyplaced in a new housing development.8;3**.%<752#$5Hj 2000: Two fourth grade classes from Phalen Lake

School, St. Paul, MN.:;2-C-2-$9Hj AnalyZed soil from five different plots: one with bare

soil, the other four growing oats, rye, raspberries, andflowers, respectively.

j Counted earthworms in soil samples from each plot,and made observations of other life.

Activities were chosen based on the needs of the farmersand the perceived interests of the children whoparticipated.

Before trips to the farms took place, a teacherfrom the Midwest Food Connection taught in-class lessons focused on developing a broadunderstanding of sustainable agriculture but alsoproviding details on soil fertility and insectbehavior to match the monitoring studies thatthe students would be working. After each trip,the children also learned how to compile andinterpret the data that they collected on thefarms.

Results

What was clearly learned by the children on the three farmswas that food is grown on a real farm and it is the result ofa complex set of interactions in a particular ecosystemthat includes at least soil, plants, insects, and humans. Theybegan to have an appreciation for the value of biologicaldiversity and how complex the process of bringing food totheir tables is. Especially instructive were all activitiesthat brought the children directly in contact with the plantsand soil that grow food.

As to the usefulness of having children participate in on-farm experiments, opinions differ. Certainly childrenlearned from the monitoring and data collecting they didon the farm. But planting, harvesting, working withmechanical farm machinery safely, and simply digging forworms may be as instructive for them. Uli believes that asa science lesson in experimentation, doing a project on afarm is an excellent option for students. But for learningabout food and farming, participating in day-to-day taskson the farm is more helpful than long periods of monitoring.

On a discouraging note, it has been hard to connect with abroad range of farmers and teachers. In the end, it seemsthat a small niche of farmers as well as teachers areinterested in pursuing work with children on farms. Thisis understandable, as the primary occupation of farmers isto grow food, not to educate children, while agriculturaleducation is not a priority for the majority of elementaryschool teachers. Further efforts could concentrate onlocating gatherings of farmers and/or teachers who fit thisniche or on creating a network of farmers, educators, andother organiZations that want to involve children insustainable agriculture. These efforts could includeexchange of addresses, email chat rooms, and localconferences featuring student and adult presenters.

Children working with rye cover crops

100 ——



Minnesota Food Connection published a 24-page manual,4#C-5*#+$#27.%4/";72-*#%*#%23$%\75+H%`-C-#6%)3-./5$#7%a*.$%-#%8"927-#70.$%:65-;".2"5$. This no-cost manualincludes summaries of their work, ideas for on-farmmonitoring projects for children, and guidelines fororganiZing the farm/school partnership.

Management Tips

1. A successful farmer/teacher collaboration should havethese qualities:j Farms should be no more than 30 to 45 minutes away

from the school.j The farmer(s) and teacher(s) involved should have

similar interests, i.e. environmental awareness, naturalfoods, sustainable agriculture, etc.

j At least one partner should act as the point person,ensuring that the outing is organiZed and well plannedto make the most of the time available.

j May and/or September are the best months to do thisproject.

2. Each field trip should have at least two components:j A harvesting or planting activity through which the

students have direct contact with food production(plants or animals).

j Participation in an on-farm research project in whichstudents have prepared for in advance.

Cooperators

`5$6%a$1#*./9B Riverbend Farm, Delano, MNA7C-/%@7930"5#%b%P$6%:#/$59*#B Red Cardinal Farm,

Mahtomedi, MN

Z72"57.%^75C$92%\75+B%Lake Elmo, MN:#/1%̀ 7$52#$5B Land School of Lake Country Montessori,

Dunn County, WisconsinF-+%a$$9$B Hennepin County Conservation DistrictP$.-#/7%^**V$5B Minnesota Institute for Sustainable

Agriculture, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNP-V$%F3*.$B Galtier Science & Technology Magnet,

St. Paul, MN8"$%U57]$.B Linwood Ar School, St. Paul, MN8"$%c*62B Phalen Lake School, St. Paul, MN45-;%8-9.$5B Armatage School, Minneapolis, MN^$723$5%P;>#2*93B Wenonah School, Minneapolis, MN

Project Location

Contact Midwest Food Connection for farm locations.

Other Resources

)*++"#-21% 8",,*52$/%:65-;".2"5$%Z72-*#7.%:99*;-72-*#S)8:Z:TE University of MA Extension, Amherst, MA,01003. Main information number: 413-545-0111Web site: http://www.umass.edu/umext/csa.

)*5#$..%[#-C$59-21%@*5./%@-/$%@$0% 9-2$E Available at:http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/This guide provides photographs and descriptions ofbiological control agents of insect, disease and weed pestsin North America.

>#9$;29%*#%@*5./%@-/$%@$0E Available at:http://www.isis.vt.edu/ffanjun/text/.

—— 101


Fruits and Vegetables • Reding

Project Summary

Our family farm encompasses about 500 acresthat have been farmed by our family for thebetter part of 100 years. This same family farm,at one time, had livestock on it as well.Currently, only the outbuildings from havinglivestock remain. The entire acreage, whilehaving some rolling terrain, is basically flat. Thelabor that is needed for the current farmingoperation is supplied by one of my sons andmyself.

The current market price of grain is severelydepressed. Looking at an alternative crop likegrapes, especially one that has potential to sellat a markedly higher price per unit thantraditional crops, was an avenue that we wantedto explore. By legitimiZing alternative crops,the family farm has more reason to stay intactand, more importantly, is able to survivefinancially. Long-term, alternative crops wouldallow family farms to be less dependent onmarkets that they canJt control and participatemore in different markets where there is a profitmargin that they can control.

The intent of this project is to establish thatgrapes can be grown as an alternative crop insouthwestern Minnesota and take advantage ofmore heat degree-days than other parts ofMinnesota. We started a vineyard in 2000 asan alternative crop. Weare tracking the amount oflabor needed for grapeproduction compared totraditional crops, growthrates, survivability, andweather. We plan tomarket grapes either astable grapes or wine directto consumers.

Project Description

In May, 2000, 256 nurserystock vines of fivedifferent winter hardygrape varieties were


Donald Reding38577 State Hwy 68Morgan, MN 65266

507-249-3462Fieldstonecineyards

uyahoo.comwww.Fieldstone

cineyards.comRedwood County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

alternative crop,grape varieties, growtubes, growth rates,

trellis

VVVVViability of Wiability of Wiability of Wiability of Wiability of Wine Quality Grapes as anine Quality Grapes as anine Quality Grapes as anine Quality Grapes as anine Quality Grapes as anAlterAlterAlterAlterAlternative Crop for the Fnative Crop for the Fnative Crop for the Fnative Crop for the Fnative Crop for the Family Family Family Family Family Farararararmmmmm

planted on approximately two-thirds of an acre.Bluebell, a popular table and juice grape is winterhardy to -35°F. Foch, a red wine quality grape iswinter hardy to below -20°F. Frontenac, a redwine quality grape is winter hardy to -35° F andtwo white wine varieties, St. Pepin and La Crosse,are less winter hardy and may need some winterprotection.

Prior to planting, 4” x 8J posts were placed 24Japart to form 15 rows. These posts were pushed2J in the ground with a payloader, leaving 6Jexposed. We installed two trellises of 12.5 gaugehigh tensile wire at the 36” height and to the topof the posts at the 6J height. The wires wereattached to 36” earth anchors at the end of eachrow. On top of the posts and under the trelliswire we added a 4” x 4” piece of steel-beltedrubber conveyor belt to prevent the wire fromsplitting the post when tightened by the weight ofthe grapes.

After digging a hole that was 8” to 10” deep andapproximately 12” in diameter, the nursery stockwas placed in it with the root system fanned out.After covering the root system up, the plant waswatered and then a grow tube was placed overit. The grow tubes were tied to the lower trellisline with twine. Twine was then tied from thelower trellis line to the upper trellis line to allowthe vine to follow this line up as it grows. As thevines continued their upward push, the vines

Grapes planted and trellis completed

102 ——



were “wrapped” either around the twine or the trellis lineto help direct their growth upward on the trellis.

Between the time that the vines were planted and they wentdormant in early October, the vineyard was tilledapproximately four times. In between the rows a disk wasused and in between vines a hand hoe was used. At theend of August, all of the grow tubes were taken off of thevines to allow for proper hardening of the canes prior towinter. The last activity prior to winter was to make surethat all of the double trunks were tied together and that allof the vines were tied to the trellis system to help thembetter survive winter. Next year we plan to plant a covercrop between the rows. This will help keep beneficialinsects in the vineyard.

The ultimate goal of the project, yield and return per acre,is going to be better evaluated when a harvest can be takenfrom the test plot in the third year. In the meantime, plantgrowth and health, mean temperatures throughout the year,and precipitation can be evaluated. Second year analysiswill include a petiole analysis to determine if the vines arereceiving the right nutrient balance and inputs.

Results

The amount of time that has been spent the first year inmanaging the alternative crop, in many ways, wasnJt anymore time than what was spent in the management oftraditional crop production. Admittedly, grapes requirelabor input at different times during the year than whattraditional crops do. However, in the final tally, the totalhours, in my opinion, arenJt any more or less.

Comparatively speaking, the amount of pesticide that wasintroduced to the vineyard was less than what was appliedto a similar siZe plot of traditional crops. Other than 1.5oZ of Sevin, no other chemical was applied. Wedid not apply fertiliZer because the soil testswere high in nitrogen.

Plant growth and overall health was in one word- GREATw - throughout the year. We had atotal of 2,845 growing degrees days in 2000with enough moisture. Many of the vines grewwith such vigor that substantial double trunksformed. The nursery stock that was planted inthe spring was approximately 1/8” in diameterand 6” long. When the vines went dormant inearly October, some of the trunks measurednearly 1” in diameter and had grown 6J up tothe top of the trellis and, in some cases, 4JhoriZontally in both directions.

We think the soil was compacted around some of the vineswhich somewhat stunted their growth. While pushing inthe trellis posts with a payloader, the posts were pushed inacross the rows instead of straddling the row and completingone row before moving on to the next. Ultimately, thevines grew although at a slower rate than those vines thatwere not planted in compacted soil. In the future, we willstraddle the row we are planting.

In subsequent years, we will install the bottom trellis lineequal to the height of the grow tubes so that the growtubes can be fastened with duct tape to the trellis line. Inour test site, the grow tubes are 30” high while the bottomtrellis line was set at 36” off of the ground. We attachedthe grow tubes to the trellis line with twine and semi-submerged the bottom of the grow tube in the soil. Twodays into planting, we experienced sustained 25-mph windsfor the better part of a day. Since there were three growtubes in between posts, all three of the grow tubes haddislodged from the soil and had slid down the trellis line tothe post. Having the trellis line equal to the height of thegrow tube and having the grow tube attached with ducttape probably would have prevented this from happening.Because of this situation, we also learned to morethoroughly bury the bottom of the grow tube in the soilwhen placing it over the nursery stock.

We did not water the vines in 2000 even though weexperienced a drier than normal year. Through interactionwith our collaborators, monitoring precipitation amountsand visually inspecting the vines, we did not feel thatwatering was necessary. This did not seem to adverselyaffect the growth of the vines.

Don, left, discussing grapes in vineyard

—— 103



Management Tips

1. Nurseries that carry grape varieties are a great sourceof information.

2. Make sure that the soil is not compacted prior to plantingthe nursery stock.

3. Straddle the row with the tractor while installing trellisposts. This prevents compacting the soil on adjacent rows.

4. Install the bottom trellis line at the same height as thetop of the grow tube. This allows the grow tube to befastened to the trellis and gives it added support.

5. Bury the bottom of the grow tube in the soil when placingit over the nursery stock.

6. Install the anchors after the wooden posts are in placeso they line up with the rows.

7. Set up your markets for your harvest well in advanceof harvesting your first grapes.

8. Installation of trellis posts in the fall of the prior yearwill aid in spring planting.

Cooperators

)37/%a$/-#6B son)375.-$%7#/%P-;3$..$%g"792, son-in-law & daughter@71#$%^7#9$#B%Redwood County Extension Educator!*3#%7#/%U750%P75937..B%Great River cineyards,

Lake City, MN

4.-]70$23%A1;VB Agronomist, University of Minnesota &Southwest State University

U$23%:#/$59*#B%Redwood Falls Chamber of Commerce.:#23*#1%:$..$#B Linganore Winecellars, Mt. Airy, Marylanda*0-#%<752;3B Northern cineyards, Inc., Stillwater, MN`751%7#/%_75-%P*567#B Windwater cineyard & Nursery

Lonsdale, MN

Project Location

Take Hwy 68 west from Morgan for 4.8 miles. Farm ison the north side of the highway.

Other Resources

^-92*5-;7.% A727% a$25-$C7.% 7#/% ).-+72$% 8"++75-$9EClimate information specific to any location in Minnesotato help with planning a vineyard. Available at:www.climate.umn.edu/doc/historical.htm

P-##$9*27%`57,$%`5*?$59%:99*;-72-*#E John Marshall,Secretary. 35680 Highway 61 Blvd., Lake City, MN55041. Email: grapesurconnect.com This is amembership organiZation and publishes the quarterlynewsletter Notes from the North with information aboutgrape production.

Pirog, R. 2000. `57,$%4W,$;272-*#9H%:%\**/% 8192$+<$59,$;2-C$% *#%a$/$C$.*,-#6% 23$% >*?7%`57,$% >#/"9251ELeopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 209 CurtissHall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1050,515-294-1854. www.leopold.iastate.edu/grapes2000.html

104 ——


Fruits and Vegetables • Riehle

Project Summary

One of our biggest challenges as strawberrygrowers is weed control in the establishmentyear. It is likely that soon there will be noherbicides labeled for use in strawberries. Inthe future, Minnesota strawberry growers willneed to rely extensively on cultural practicesfor weed control rather than herbicides. We areattempting to replace the herbicides currentlyused in strawberry establishment with thefollowing techniques:

j cover cropping in the year prior to strawberryestablishment

j delaying strawberry seedling planting untilafter the spring weed flush

In 1998, the first year of the project, weestablished two cover crop stands (annual ryeand a perennial grass-legume mix) for strawberryplanting in 1999. We also documented the effectof delayed spring strawberry planting on plantpopulations in the fall to help determine anoptimum spring planting date. Thus far, we havefound that delayed planting results in anunacceptable yield reduction. We are nowfocusing on cover cropping during the year priorto strawberry establishment because it is showingpromise for weed control. Due to unforeseencircumstances, we were unable to proceed withcover crop testing in the 2000 growing seasonso there are no new resultsreported for 2000. Theproject will be completedin 2001.

Project Description

Our 80 acre farm, “GreatRiver Gardens”, producesand retails bedding plants,nursery stock, fruits andvegetables. We have fiveacres each of blueberriesand asparagus, two acresof strawberries and tenacres of a diversity of


Joe RiehleHCR 7, Box 38

Aitkin, MN 56431218-927-2521Aitkin County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

cover crops, livingmulch, weedsuppression

Cover Crops and Living Mulch forCover Crops and Living Mulch forCover Crops and Living Mulch forCover Crops and Living Mulch forCover Crops and Living Mulch forStrawberStrawberStrawberStrawberStrawberrrrrry Establishmenty Establishmenty Establishmenty Establishmenty Establishment

vegetables. The rest of the farm is in hay forrotation. Strawberries are an important crop forus because they bring customers when nurserysales are slacking off and before most fruits andvegetables are available.

Annual weeds are a problem in strawberryestablishment because the new strawberry plantsgrow slowly. Strawberries are commonlyplanted one and one-half feet apart in the row.The object is to eventually establish a solidmatted row of plants. However, the closing inof the row will not occur until August if plantingoccurs in early May. Until the runners fill in therow, the soil must be kept weed free to acceptnew runners. Mechanical cultivation works onlybetween the rows, not in the row where runnersare allowed to root. Hand hoeing between plantsis tedious and very expensive so growers haverelied on herbicides.

Our project design combines the results of thefollowing three studies:

1. Research at Cornell University has shownthat cover crops grown in the year prior tostrawberry establishment can reduce weedpopulations.

2. Research at Morris, MN has demonstratedthe tendency of annual weeds to emerge in a

Recently established strawberry plantings

—— 105



spring flush and then be suppressed by higher soiltemperatures in summer.

3. Research in Nova Scotia found that strawberry plantingcould be delayed until mid-June with only a slight reductionin runnering and yield.

We are trying to reduce weed populations by growing apreplant cover crop. We are testing a delayed killing ofthe cover crop and delayed planting of the strawberriesuntil past the peak of spring weed seed germination. Wehope this will achieve an adequate stand of strawberrieswithout the need for herbicides or the increased labor ofhoeing. To test our ideas, we have engaged in two replicatedexperiments and an inclusion of cover crops in our largercommercial plantings.

*-$(9/#$$&')(-#'4;'>0("-."%'#G>#$.5#"-<% A preliminaryexperiment was designed to measure the effect of plantspacing and planting date on the fall strawberry plantpopulation. In 1998 we planted two strawberry cultivars(Winona and bent) using three in-row spacings (four, sixor eight inches) and planted on four dates (May 5, May 20,June 5, and June 19). The well rootedplants were counted in November. Theresults were used to choose the cultivarand plant spacing for planting the maincover crop experiment in 1999.

C4:#$' 2$4>' /&' ,-$(9/#$$&' )(-#' 4;>0("-."%' #G>#$.5#"-< The mainexperiment is testing three covercropping systems for weed suppressionin strawberries:

j �RyminJ rye seeded on September 9,1998 at 1.5 bu/A, killed withRoundup one week before plantingstrawberries in 1999.

j A perennial mix consisting of �SR3000J hard fescue (20 lb/A),�ManhattanJ perennial ryegrass (20lb/A) and �ArlingtonJ red clover (10lb/A) seeded on June 19, 1998,killed with Roundup one week before plantingstrawberries in 1999.

j The same above perennial mix but killing only a onefoot strip for planting strawberries and leaving a livingmulch between the rows.

Each cover crop system was planted to strawberries onfour test dates in 1999 (May 1, May 15, June 1, and June15). We monitored weed populations and the number ofdaughter plants in 1999. Strawberry yield was measured

in the preliminary row spacing experiment in 1999. iieldswere to be measured in the main experiment in 2000 butplans were altered due to the crop failure. The main covercrop experiment was duplicated at the University ofMinnesota Horticultural Research Center in Chanhassen.

=##)' 24"-$40' ."' -7#' 2455#$2.(0' ,-$(9/#$$&' >0("-."%,<For our farmJs larger strawberry production plantings, wemade a change from herbicide-based weed control in 1998to cover crops in 1999. In 1998, we planted the strawberriesinto ground previously planted to melons in 1997. Dacthaland Devrinol were used for weed control. The 1999strawberries were planted adjacent to the 1998 plantingbut this ground was cover cropped in 1998 using buckwheatin summer and rye in fall and winter. After spraying therye with glyphosate on May 20, 1999, weed control wasachieved with hand hoeing and rotary tillage. Each year,the strawberry planting was three quarter acres.

Results

*-$(9/#$$&' )(-#' 4;' >0("-."%' #G>#$.5#"-< In 1998, thepreliminary experiment provided interesting results. Table

1 shows that, as expected, fewer plants were producedwith both delayed planting and greater plant spacing. Fourplants per square foot is considered to be an optimumpopulation.

There appeared to be quite a difference in how the twocultivars performed with respect to the planting date (Table2). Both cultivars showed a drop-off in plants producedfollowing the earliest planting date. But Winona did not

Table 1. �98 Row Spacing and Planting Date Effect on PlantPopulation at End of Season

May 5May 20June 5June 19

5.83.53.82.9

4.74.22.82.8

4.33.32.82.2

936;4>;AI640

936;41.DG6?0:.#b936;41.DG6?0:.(b936;41.DG6?0:.cb

ddd..97G2364>7;.KG36;41LO4!N. .ddd

Table 2. �98 Planting Date and Cultivar Effect on PlantPopulation at End of Season


4.83.23.53.3

5.14.12.72.1

936;4>;AI640 ddd..Population (plants/ft2). .ddd

\0;4U>;7;6H234>P6=

106 ——


seem to be affected after that while bentdropped off steadily. From theseresults, we decided that Winona maybe the cultivar most suitable to lateplanting in our cover crop systems.

bent was affected by wider plantspacing more than Winona (Table 3).From this data, it seems that Winonaplanted at an 8” spacing should besufficient to achieve a good population,even with delayed planting.

The above conclusions drawn fromplant counts were not confirmed whenwe tested these same plots forstrawberry yield in the summer of 1999.We thought that by increasing plantingdensity, we might overcome the loweryields expected from the late planting.Unfortunately, there were only smalldifferences due to differences in rowspacings. The biggest yield differencesby far were due to planting dates (Table4). Even a two week delay from anormal early May planting resulted in a15 to 30m yield reduction. Furtherdelays reduced yields even more.

With strawberries valued at o1/lb for ayou-pick operation, these yieldreductions from a delayed planting oftwo weeks translate to a o2,000/A lossin the first production year. Weconclude that delaying strawberryplanting to achieve better weed control does not seem tobe a viable option.

C4:#$'2$4>'/&',-$(9/#$$&')(-#'4;'>0("-."%'#G>#$.5#"-<We had mixed success establishing the cover crop mix. Itwas seeded on June 19 in Aitkin and on July 3 inChanhassen. The weather following the Aitkin seedingwas cool and wet, resulting in an excellent stand of bothgrass and clover. In contrast, the weather at Chanhassenturned hot and dry resulting in slow emergence of the covercrops despite frequent irrigation. The stand at Chanhasseneventually became adequate by early fall after beingafflicted by rust. At both sites, the cover crop mix wasmowed to control annual weeds.

The rye plots were seeded on September 9 in Aitkin andon September 14 in Chanhassen. A good stand wasestablished at both locations but the rye in Aitkin was graZed


heavily by deer. This did not affect the survivability of therye.

All cover crops survived the winter and grew vigorouslyin the spring of 1999. A few winter annual weeds (mostlyshepherds purse and mustards) sprouted in the fall, but thecover crop treatments successfully prevented annual weedsfrom sprouting. This was in contrast to a moderate weedseedling population in the unplanted control plots.

The plots were sprayed with glyphosate and planted onMay 6, May 22 and June 2 at the farm site. We noticed alack of plant vigor by the time of the second planting anddetermined that many of the roots had been hurt by a botrytisfungal infection. Replacement plants were ordered andreplanted only to incur the same fate. Unfortunately, thisended any opportunity for comparison of yields in theseplots.

Table 4. Effect of 1998 Planting Date on 1999 StrawberryYields


100867567

'--#936;4>;A.I640

U>;7;6.e6=>04<.S>03:KR.7O.]6<.&.G36;4>;AN

Table 5. Weeds per Square Foot in Cover Crop Plots in Springof 1999

May 1

May 15

June 1

I640

ControlRyeRed Clover, Rye, Fescue



H7P0=H=7G

d..936;41.90=.DW26=0.5774..d

10048137

10059124

10085254

R. 7OH7;4=73

13614

15714

141023

B=76:306P01

381855

171225

4523

^=61101

Table 3. �98 Row Spacing and Cultivar Effect on PlantPopulation at End of Season

4�6�8�

4.23.33.6

3.84.02.7

936;4>;ADG6?>;A ddd..Population (plants/ft2) .ddd

\0;4U>;7;6

H234>P6=

—— 107


We were able to obtain weed counts as affected by thecover crops and found several interesting results (Table5). First, the allelopathic properties of the rye wereexpressed. Second, the ryeJs effect on weed seedgermination was more pronounced when the rye was killedearlier. This result is counterintuitive to the assumptionthat more rye biomass would be more effective at weedsuppression. Third, the cover crop mixture treatmentappears to have stimulated weed seed germination. In otherwords, the number of weeds in the cover crop mixture washigher than in the control plots.

=##)' 24"-$40' ."' -7#' 2455#$2.(0' ,-$(9/#$$&' >0("-."%,<The three quarter acre stand planted in 1998 and treatedwith herbicides required over 100 hours of hand hoeingand weeding. We still ended up with a weedy field due toa persistence of a winter annual mustard. The three quarteracre stand planted in 1999 into ground cover cropped withbuckwheat and rye had a dramatic reduction in weedpressure. There were no weeds for the first three weeksfollowing planting and we only made one major handweeding requiring 60 hours. This labor input could havebeen further reduced if it had been more timely. We havesince gone through twice with hoes requiring six more hoursof labor.

Before planting the strawberries, the one foot tall rye wassprayed with glyphosate on May 20, rototilled on May 27,and planted immediately. The presence of the freshly tilledrye made the setting of the strawberry plants more difficult.

Although the above two plantings were made in twodifferent years, the weed control effect of the buckwheatand rye cover crop was dramatic. The adjacent 1998 and1999 strawberry plantings have the same soil type and hadbeen farmed as one field until the use of the cover crops.The weed suppression from the cover crops appeared tobe as good as we have ever achieved in 12 years of usinga pre-emergent herbicide.


30(",';4$'KLLH<% In the spring of 2001, half of the rye plotswill be rototilled and half will not. The rye will be comparedto plots that had no overwintering cover crop. Once thestrawberries are planted, we will seed a second cover cropover the top (annual ryegrass or oats). When the over-seeded cover crops become competitive, we will kill themwith a grass herbicide.

Management Tips

1. Delayed spring planting of strawberries causessignificant yield reduction in Minnesota.

2. Mowing controls annual weeds in the cover crop.

Cooperators

4+-.1%^**C$5B Fruit Extension Specialist, University ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN

A7C$%@-./"#6B Research Horticulturalist, North CentralExperiment Station, Grand Rapids, MN

a*6$5%U$;V$5B Weed Control Specialist, University ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN

Project Location

Great River Gardens is located 10s miles northeast ofAitkin on Hwy 169. Look for the sign on the west side ofthe road.

Other Resources

:,,5*,5-72$%F$;3#*.*61%F57#9=$5%=*5%a"57.%:5$79%S:FFa:T.Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702, 800-346-9140.Web site: http://www.attra.org.attra-pub.

<"5/"$%[#-C$59-21E% Cover crop web site:http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/crops

[#-C$59-21% *=%)7.-=*5#-7% 72%A7C-9E Web site and covercrop database: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sarep

108 ——


Fruits and Vegetables • Seim/Bacon

Project Summary

We are exploring the relationship betweenmanagement of the soil surface and soil biology.As important as soil life may be, the actualmakeup of that soil life is seldom understood.We, at Garden Farme, are asking the question,“what is the biological makeup of our soil|” Weforesee that benchmark soil biological test resultswill provide insight into the performance of croprotations and surface plant residue cycling. Ourlong-term goal is to optimiZe soil ecologicalsupport services such as nutrient cycling anddisease suppression to create a more beneficialplant-soil interaction and healthier plants.

Project Description

Since the mid 1970Js, Bruce Bacon has managedGarden Farme by the permaculture goals ofdesigning and maintaining agriculturallyproductive ecosystems that have the diversity,stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems.This has meant integrating woodlands, hayfields, prairie, and wetlands with fruit treeorchard patches, a tree nursery, and three acresof gardens, all adhering to organic productionstandards. The farm is located on the AnokaSand Plain. The soils are very sandy overoutwash material.

The gardens operate using raised beds, sheetmulch, aisle composting, and shallow handcultivation for weedcontrol. The sheetmulching entailsspreading spoiled hay orstraw to a minimum offour to six inches thick,covering the raised bedsand walkways in late fall.The aisle composting useswalkways to compostweeds and other organicdebris throughout thegrowing season. At theend of the growing season,composted material in thewalkways is placed on the


Peter Seim andBruce Bacon7363 - 175th

Ave. NWRamsey, MN 55303

612-753-5099Anoka County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

living mulch, raisedbeds, sheet mulch,

soil ecology

Soil Ecology and Managed Soil Ecology and Managed Soil Ecology and Managed Soil Ecology and Managed Soil Ecology and Managed Soil SurSoil SurSoil SurSoil SurSoil Surfacesfacesfacesfacesfaces

raised beds for fertility. The overall high levelof surface organic matter suppresses quackgrass, increases water retention, and promotesfertility.

Our crops at Garden Farme rely on thedecomposition of spoiled hay as their primarysource of fertility. Because the role of organicmatter cycling is paramount to production in ouroperation, we want to explore the relationshipbetween surface organic matter and soil biology.We have marveled at the gradual disappearanceof surface-applied spoiled hay but we hadlimited knowledge of specifically whichorganisms were behind the decompositionprocess. In order to find out, we are utiliZingthe services of Elaine Ingham at Soil Food WebInc. to test shallow (three inch deep) soil samplesfor populations of:j bacteriaj fungij protoZoaj nematodes

We want to know how differences in managementmight affect these populations so three adjacentraised beds (30J x 30”) are being treated withone of the following cover types:j continuous hay mulchj bare soilj living mulch

Bruce explores the organic matter build-up in thesoil profile of a sheet composted raised bed

—— 109


The continuous hay mulch received four inches of spoiledhay spread evenly. The bare soil received a shallow handtillage to minimiZe weed pressure. The living mulchconsisted of red clover and hairy vetch. All three plotswere planted to summer squash in 2000 and will be plantedto tomatoes in 2001. The three test beds have similarmanagement histories prior to the establishment of thisexperiment.

In addition to the three test beds listed, we are analyZingsoil biology in a nearby oak grove (unmowed grassunderstory) and a bigblue stem prairie. Both of these siteshave had a long history of minimal disturbance. Soilsamples were taken in the three raised beds on June 18,August 13, and October 9 in order to gauge seasonalfluctuations. Soil biology was also analyZed in the oakgrove and big bluestem prairie on August 13. Conventionalsoil chemical analysis was performed in spring and fall toassess the status of nutrient availability and to provide abenchmark for assessing changes in fertility. We also dugpits to expose soil profiles at several locations on the farm,including:

j market garden soil mulched for 25years

j unmulched soil adjacent to themarket garden

j the oak grove

We were able to use the profiles toinvestigate organic matter levels andsoil structure as affected by the aboveland use histories.

Results

After the first year, our inquiry hasyielded much food for thought. Thegarden plots all had high populations ofciliates (Table 1), above the desiredrange suggested by Soil Food Web Inc.These organisms are an indicator ofanaerobic conditions. We have assumed that our welldrained, sandy soil is well aerated. We have also assumedthat the addition of spoiled hay would further aerate thesoil. Now we are learning that this may not be the case.

In the process of exploring the soil profiles, it was observedthat the garden soil had no discernible aggregatedevelopment. Aggregation promotes aeration by creatingpores for water and air movement. The oak grove soil, incontrast, had substantial aggregation. This was true eventhough the garden soil had a higher level of organic matterthan the oak grove soil due to many years of importing

spoiled hay and manure. Notice that the oak grove andbig bluestem prairie both had ciliate numbers within thedesired range on August 13.

What is it about the oak grove that promotes desirable soilstructure and aeration| The oak grove soil displayed adramatically higher ratio of active fungal to active bacterialbiomass when compared to the three garden soil plots(Table 1). Fungal hyphae greatly assist in soil aggregationby wrapping around soil particles and binding themtogether. Fungi are encouraged by the presence of celluloseand lignin because fungi are more capable of decomposingthese food sources than bacteria. The perennial grassesin the oak grove understory provide a steady microbialfood supply of root exudates and decaying roots. In thegarden, fungi are deterred by surface tillage. Hyphae aredestroyed and bacteria take over to feed on newly exposedorganic matter.

We are encouraged that there may be a benefit to increasingthe fungal activity in our garden soil. To do so, we mightdo well to mimic aspects of the oak and prairie sites byimporting more fungal food and using a minimum of soildisturbance in our gardening practices.

As we “break new ground” in the exciting world of soilbiology, we expect the test results to generate morequestions than answers. Next year our questions willbecome more refined. Ultimately, we hope to incorporaterotations that adjust the timing, quality and quantity oforganic matter to fit subsequent cash crop needs. Forexample, for crops like tomatoes and squash, we want toadjust the ratio of active fungi to active bacteria closer toone, a parameter that Elaine Ingham has observed to beconducive to soil aggregation and crop health.

Table 1. The Effect of Managed Soil Surfaces and LocalEcology on Selected Soil Organism Populations(August 13, 2000)

)=064F0;4

13.111.115.75.8

5.910-25

+?4>P0B6?40=>63B>7F611KfALAN

0.77**0.690.741.46

5.131.00

/64>7. 7O+?4>P0.52;A63. 47+?4>P0.B6?40=>63

B>7F611H>3>6401g

K;2FE0=1LAN

10.17.711.5

4

30.110-25

+?4>P052;A63B>7F611KfALAN

* A category of protozoa.** 1 results in good aggregate structure in cropped soils, 2-5 is good for deciduous trees.

Living MulchBare EarthSpoiled Hay MulchBig Bluestem PrairieOak Grove,Grass Understory

Desired Range

680487

5,48944

8150-100


110 ——



We, at Garden Farme, would like to conclude with asuggestion. LetJs begin a statewide catalog of our soilJsrespective biological communities. If we could makeconnections between specific soil biology and localecological resources like crop selection, soil type, and soilfertility we might all benefit by driving the learning curveupward.

Management Tips

1. When testing your soil biology, consider includingsamples from locally relevant ecological niches. This mayhelp reveal your soilJs long-term potential.

2. DonJt expect cut and dried soil biologyrecommendations. Instead, engage in a learning processof questioning and monitoring.

Cooperators

F3*+79% ^7#9+$1$5B Soil Ecologist, University ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN

4.7-#$%>#637+B Soil Food Web Inc.

)75.%a*9$#B University of Minnesota Extension,St. Paul, MN

A?71#$%82$#.7#/B Senior Ecologist, Minnesota Departmentof Transportation

Project Location

Go 3 miles west of Anoka on US Hwy 10/169 and turnnorth on Cty Rd 56 (Ramsey Blvd). Go 3 miles and turnleft on Cty Rd 5. Go 1s miles to Cty Rd 63. Turn leftbefore the red barn. The Garden Farme driveway is smile on the right.

Other Resources

Lewandowski, Anne (ed.). 1999. 8*-.% 0-*.*61% ,5-+$5EUSDA NRCS. For ordering information contact Land Careat 888-landcare or email at Landcareuswcs.org

Mollison, B. C. 1997. <$5+7;".2"5$H%%:%/$9-6#$59%+7#"7.EIsland Press. Washington DC. Available atwww.islandpress.org

—— 111


Fruits and Vegetables • Wildung

Flame BurFlame BurFlame BurFlame BurFlame Burning for Wning for Wning for Wning for Wning for Weed Control andeed Control andeed Control andeed Control andeed Control andRRRRRenovation with Strawberenovation with Strawberenovation with Strawberenovation with Strawberenovation with Strawberriesriesriesriesries

Project Summary

Weed control is a major limiting factor in theproduction and longevity of strawberry plantings.It is expensive and, if weeds are not controlled,they can greatly reduce yield and the aestheticsof harvest. Currently, weed control is most oftenaccomplished through the use of herbicides.Since strawberries are considered a minor usecrop by chemical companies, strawberryherbicide choices have been greatly reduced,leading to the need to find alternative weedcontrol systems. In addition, many consumerswant pesticide free food and strawberryproduction has one of the highest rates ofpesticide residues of conventionally grown fruitsand vegetables. Making strawberry productionsystems more sustainable will benefit both theproducer and the consumer. Dave WildungJsproject looks at flame burning for weed controlin newly established strawberry plantings andflame burning at strawberry renovation for weedcontrol and reducing cultural practices in existingplantings.

Project Description

Strawberry flame burning has two potential areasfor success: first for weed control in newlyestablished plantings and second for weedcontrol and reducing cultural practices inrenovation of existing plantings. Flamecultivation in the growing strawberry row is madedifficult due to theextremely succulent leafhabit of the strawberryplant and the often unevengrowth of the plant in therow as it produces runnersand new daughter plants.However, with protectiveshields, flame cultivationmay be possibleespecially early in theestablishment seasonwhen new weed growth isat its greatest and thestrawberry plants are attheir smallest.


Dr. David WildungUniversity of

MinnesotaNorth CentralResearch and

Outreach Center1861 East Hwy 169

Grand Rapids, MN55744

218-327-4711Itasca County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

flame burning,strawberry, weed

control

For renovation, strawberry plantings are typicallymowed, (often with foliage removed for diseasecontrol), rototilled, fertiliZed and herbicide isapplied. Directed flame burning over the top ofthe row could reduce or eliminate any one orseveral of the normal cultural practices currentlybeing used. For renovation, the succulence ofthe strawberry leaf may be beneficial becausefast flame burning could be accomplished, fastenough to kill the strawberry foliage and weedswithout damaging the strawberry crown,destroying needed organic matter or startingmulch fires in the planting.

Because of the way strawberries grow, crop burntreatments applied during one season will notaffect crop production until the next season.Therefore, much of what is reported here wasstarted with funds from one grant and completedor will be completed with ESAP grant money.

The project is being done at each of the threelocations described below:

j North Central Research and Outreach Center(NCROC), Grand Rapids, MN.

j Lavalier Berry Farm, near Grand Rapids, MN.A commercial strawberry and blueberry pick-your-own and ready picked fruit farm. Thereare approximately four acres in strawberryproduction.

Flame weeder at work in berries

112 ——


j Luneyberries Berry Farm, near Grand Rapids, MN. Acommercial strawberry pick-your-own and ready pickedfruit farm. The Lunemanns currently have over fiveacres in production.

Two propane burners were built by NCROC staff for thisproject. The first, built in 1997, was used in small plotsituations. It was built on wheels so that it could be pulledfrom plot to plot and cost o140 to build. The second canbe used in larger production situations. It is tractormounted, has two burner heads that can be adjusted upand down or in or out, more controls to regulate the flame,a bar in front of the unit that pushes thick strawberry foliagedown for better flame penetration during burn renovation,a 30 lb propane tank, and cost o500 to construct. In 2000,the second unit was further modified with larger burnerheads, three portable 30 lb propane tanks, a better hoseand control system, and a better system for containing heatover the strawberry row.

Weed burning in newly established strawberry plantingswas done on NCROC plots in 1997, 1998, and again in1999. Burning was done at two to four week intervals asnecessary or at a stage when cultivation would normallyoccur. Burn treatments were compared to standardcultivation and hand weeding. In addition, burn treatmentswere discontinued after June, July, August, September orOctober to evaluate weed regrowthpotential and its effect on yields. Thecultivar �bentJ was used for thesestudies.

Field plot burn studies at renovationwere begun at NCROC in 1997, twogrower sites were added in 1998 andexpanded in siZe in 1999. The treatmentmix varied slightly at each locationdepending upon each growersJ standardrenovation practices. Treatments atNCROC compare traditional renovationto burning and using burning to replaceone of the normal renovation practices- mowing, herbicide use, and/or tilling. The cultivar �bentJwas used for studies at NCROC and at one grower site.�GlooscapJ was used at the second growerJs farm. Eachtreatment plot was a single row ten feet long. Standardplanting, spacing, fertiliZation, and pest managementpractices were followed at all locations.

Results

Strawberry vigor, percent plant stand, and leaf spot diseaseratings were taken in fields before and following burning

and during the fruiting season. cigor and leaf spot ratingswere on a 1 to 9 rating scale with 9 being most vigorous orno leaf spot. Grass and broadleaf weed control wasevaluated on a 1 to 9 rating scale with 9 being best and 1being no weed control. Crop yield and fruit siZe weretaken each year following the burn treatments.

F+$"'=##)'C4"-$40'."'P#9'30("-."%,'(-'PCEMC<$ Burningto control weeds in new plantings was not as effective asnormal cultivation and hand weeding. The 1999 weedcultivation burns were done on a larger scale, even so,results in 2000 (Table 1) were similar to 1998 and 1999results. The hand weeded control produced 11,278 lb/Aof berries while burn cultivated plots produced 6,201 and6,894 lb/A (about 60m of the hand weeded control). In the1999-2000 study, leaf scorch from flame burning wassignificantly less in the burn cultivated plots. Plant standwas also less in burn treatments compared to hand weeding.Strawberry fruit siZe, percent early harvest and plant vigorwere not affected by burning. During both seasons, thelonger into the season burning was done the betterproduction was. The worst of the burn treatments waswhen burn cultivation was discontinued in August. Season-long burn cultivation resulted in the best yields beingproduced when burn cultivation was used. Burning, whilenot as effective, was less labor intensive and costly thanhand weeding.

Burning weeds in new plantings can be challenging. Whenthe burner is working correctly it is difficult to see theflame in daylight. Since strawberry plants are so succulent,it is easy to burn and injure the plants. In addition, it takesseveral minutes to see burn damage to the strawberry plantsso considerable plant injury can occur before flame andshields are properly adjusted. As the plants grow, bothflame and shields need to be adjusted away from the plantcanopy. Strawberry plant and runner growth can be unevenin the row and burning will quickly kill any strawberry


Table 1. Burn Weed Control in New Plantings - 2000Growth and Production

Hand weedBurn �

All SeasonBurn �

Until 8/15LSD 5%

10.46.3

5.7

2.4

)=064F0;4

S>03:

Kent planted in 1999 and burn cultivated or hand weeded during the 1999 season.Early Season: 6/30 - 7/6/00 (3 Harvests), Total Season 6/30 - 7/20/00 (7 Harvests)

11,2786,894

6,201

2,591

,EL'"h

,EL+

13.512.7

12.2

NS

5=2>4D>T0^FL5=2>4

1815

11

NS

RV6=3<Q6=P014

8071

76

NS

RD46;:

6.87.5

7.3

0.2

,06OD?7=?@

7.67.1

7.3

NS

8.07.5

7.5

NS

B=76:,06P01 ^=61101

U00:1

8.98.7

8.6

NS

e>A7=#L''!"""

—— 113


runner outside the shield. This problemwas reduced by using a small metalfinger in front of the shield that movedthe runners into the strawberry rowbefore the flame could damage them.It is also impossible to burn weeds thatdevelop within the strawberry plantcanopy itself. These weeds have to behand weeded out. This factor isprobably most responsible for thereduction in total yield and plant standwe observed in the burn treatments.

F+$"' E#"4:(-.4"' ."' !,-(/0.,7#)30("-."%,< Burning studies in 1997resulted in a slight increase instrawberry plant vigor, no change inplant stand, less leaf spot, larger fruitsiZe and greater fruit production thanthe control, which was renovated in thetraditional way. Given these promisingresults, the 1998 burn renovationtreatments emphasiZed replacingvarious steps in the traditionalrenovation system with burning. Sincegrassy weeds were most prominent,Poast herbicide was used incombination with the renovationtreatments. Strawberry plant growth andproduction in 1999 for all burntreatments was equal to, and in mosttreatments was greater than, thetraditional renovation treatment (Mow-Till-Poast). No negative effects fromburn renovation were evident.Broadleaf weed control was equal to orbetter than the traditional renovationtreatment while grass weed control wassignificantly better in the treatments where Poast herbicidewas used.

The 1999 burn renovation treatments were similar to the1998 treatments except that Devrinol was used in place ofPoast herbicide. In the fall of 1999, it was observed thatin the treatments that had not been tilled the strawberryrows seemed to exhibit increased stand over their tilledcomparison treatments. The higher stand in the non-tilledplots did not result in greater production in 2000 (Table2). In fact, the lowest yield was produced in the burn onlytreatment that had no-tilling or Devrinol applied (11,248lb/A). When tilling was done and Devrinol applied, burntreatments were better than the traditional mow/till/Devrinoltreatment (15,249 lb/A compared to 14,035 lb/A } Table

2). In a second study conducted in 1999 in which burningwas done with and without tilling and with and without theapplication of Devrinol herbicide the tilled plots were bothbetter than the no-till plots (Table 3). Both burn and tillplots produced over 10,000 lb/A while the no-till plotsproduced 8,829 and 7,901 lb/A. In this study use ofDevrinol herbicide had no effect on final yield. In both ofthese studies burning had no negative effect on the growingplants or yield. No-till plots while exhibiting a slightlygreater plant stand did not result in an increase in finalyield. Use of Devrinol herbicide showed a positive effectin one study but not in the other.

Because of promising results at NCROC, on-farm studieswere initiated at two grower cooperator locations in the


Table 2. Strawberry Burn Renovation, 2000 Yield andGrowth Effects

Burn/Mow/Till/DevrinoldBurn/Till/DevrinoleMow/Till/DevrinolfBurn/Mowb

Burn/TillcBurn/Mow/TillgBurna

LSD 5%

/0;7P64>7;)=064F0;41

Early Season 6/30-7/6/2000 (3 Harvests), Total Season 6/30-7/20/2000 (7 Harvests)Treatments:aBurned 7/30/99bBurned 7/30/99; mowed after burning 8/3/99cBurned 7/30/99; tilled 8/5/99dBurned 7/30/99; mowed after burning 8/3/99; tilled 8/5/99; Devrinol 8/26/99eBurned 7/30/99; tilled 8/5/99; Devrinol 8/26/99fMowed 8/3/99; tilled 8/5/99; Devrinol 8/26/99gBurned 7/30/99; mowed after burning 8/3/99; tilled 8/5/99

14.114.012.912.7

12.412.010.3NS

,EL'"h

12.311.513.913.2

10.812.710.01.8

^=6F1LB0==<

31302617

3130309

R.V6=3<

71797281

656874NS

R.D46;:

8.88.78.68.8

8.88.68.6NS

e>A7=

S>03: #L'&L""

15,36515,24914,03513,854

13,50913,07211,248

NS

,EL+

Table 3. Strawberry Burn/Till Renovation, 1999 - 2000

Burn/Till/No DevrinolaBurn/Till/DevrinolbBurn/No-till/No DevrinolcBurn/No-till/DevrinoldLSD 5% No-till

/0;7P64>7;)=064F0;41

Early Season 6/30 - 7/6/00 (3 Harvests), Total Season 6/30 - 7/20/00 (7 Harvests)Treatments:aBurned 7/30/99; tilled 8/5/99;bBurned 7/30/99; tilled 8/5/99; Devrinol 8/26/99;cBurned 7/30/99;dBurned 7/30/99; Devrinol 8/26/99

9.89.68.17.3NS

,EL'"h

12.712.311.511.2NS

^=6F1LB0==<

202711246

R.V6=3<

71697557NS

R.D46;:

8.88.78.68.7NS

e>A7=

S>03: #L'&L""

10,64510,4098,8297,901NS

,EL+

114 ——



Table 4. Strawberry Burn Renovation, Lavalier Farm 2000

BurnBurn/DevrinolMow/DevrinolLSD 5%

/0;7P64>7;)=064F0;41. K'---N

Cultivar - Glooscap - 3 ReplicationsTreatments: 2, 4-D - 7/13/99, Mowed - 7/21/99, Burned - 7/21/99Picking Season 7/5 - 7/14/00, 3 Harvests; Early Season 7/5/00

7.37.26.6NS

,EL'"h

7.78.26.90.8

D>T0.^FLB0==<

374137NS

R.V6=3<Q6=P014

757070NS

R.D46;:

7.87.77.8NS

,06ODG74

!""".S>03: (L![

7,9537,8907,165NS

,EL+

7.16.96.7NS

e>A7=

summer of 1998. At each locationburning replaced one of the traditionalcultural practices the grower used atrenovation. By fall, significantreduction in leaf spot was observed inthe burn treatments at both locations.At one farm, �GlooscapJ did not showany vigor or stand differences, while atthe other farm �bentJ was significantlymore vigorous in the burn treatmentscompared to traditional renovation.

Weed control was good at both farms on all treatments.During harvest, vigor and stand ratings were equal for alltreatments at both farms. Leaf spot ratings, while notstatistically significant, were better on all burn treatmentscompared to traditional renovation at both locations.Production and berry siZe varied at both locations. At theLavalier farm, traditional renovation resulted in the bestproduction while at the Lunemann farm, production wasthe least for the traditional renovation treatment. At bothfarms the differences were not significantly different andburn renovation did not harm the plantings in any way.Plant growth and production at the Lunemann farm wasmuch greater due to a vigorous spring fertility program.

In 1999, burn renovation treatments were repeated at bothgrower locations on a larger scale using the tractor mountedunit on .16 acre and .33 acre, respectively. By fall, nogrowth differences were noted except for reduced leaf spotinfection where burning was used. iield, berry siZe, plantvigor, stand and leaf spot are presented for the 2000 fruitingseason at the Lavalier Farm (Table 4) and the LunemannFarm (Table 5). At the Lavalier Farm, burning with orwithout an application of Devrinol herbicide produced a

larger crop than the traditional mow/Devrinol treatment.Berry siZe and plant vigor were also slightly better on theburn treatments (Table 4). At LunemannJs, treatmentcombinations included mowed and burned plots with andwithout 2, 4-D herbicide applied before mowing or burning,and mowed and burned plots with and without Sinbarherbicide applied after renovation (Table 5). Fruitproduction and fruit siZe at the Lunemann farm were veryheavy for the season, but no single component of renovationseemed to result in better production than another. Againburning resulted in yields equal to traditional mowingrenovation. Plants in the burn treatments also showedslightly greater vigor and significantly less leaf spot thanmowed treatments in the fall after renovation (10/29/99 }Table 5). However, by the beginning of the fruiting season(6/27/00) vigor and leaf spot ratings were the same. Weedcontrol in all renovation treatments was similar.

The same situation that makes burning difficult in newstrawberry plantings appears to aid burning for strawberryrenovation. Strawberry foliage and weed growth isespecially vulnerable to flaming. Burn renovation is fastto not destroy organic matter or injure strawberry plant

Table 5. Strawberry Burn Renovation, Lunemann Farm 1999-2000

Cultivar � Glooscap � 3 ReplicationsPicking Season 7/03 � 7/21/00, 9 Harvests; Early Season 7/03 � 7/07/00, 3 HarvestsTreatments: 2, 4-D - 7/19/00, Mowed - 7/28/99, Burned - 7/28/99 Tilled - 7/28/99, Fertilized - 7/29/99, Sinbar - 7/29/99

R.V6=3<Q6=P014

D>T0^FLB0==<

!""".S>03:

2, 4-D/Mow/SinbarMow2, 4-D/BurnBurn2, 4-D/Mow

Burn/Sinbar2, 4-D/Burn/SinbarMow/SinbarLSD 5%

/0;7P64>7;)=064F0;41

1315221714

162215NS

14.915.415.215.216.1

13.914.214.9NS

23.122.221.720.820.4

20.420.219.7NS

25,17424,17723,58722,61422,246

22,19821,99921,421

NS

,EL'"h

,EL+

!""".U00:H7;4=73

^=61101 B=76:306O

e>A7='"L!-'---

(L![!"""

,06O. DG74'"L!-'---

(L![!"""

R.D46;:'"L!-'---

(L![!"""

7.87.98.18.27.9

7.98.17.9NS

9.09.09.29.19.1

9.19.29.0NS

7673777573

747372NS

8286848084

828475NS

6.36.07.07.36.3

7.07.36.00.7

8.07.78.08.08.0

8.08.08.0NS

8.08.38.78.38.3

8.08.38.3NS

8.38.78.78.38.3

8.08.78.3NS

—— 115



crowns. Initially there was concern about starting strawmulch fires. However, these fires were relatively minorespecially with the burner as modified in 2000. Flamesare confined to the plant canopy and few mulch fires occur.Such fires can be further minimiZed by burning after rainor irrigation, burning when the humidity is high, or in thetotal management system, tilling to incorporate the strawmulch and narrow the row before burning.

In all instances, burning at renovation has not been harmfulwith fruit production being equal to or greater thanconventional methods of renovation. In some cases therehas been an increase in plant vigor and less leaf spot afterburn renovation. Burn renovation appears to reduce leafspot and leaf scorch development. The results of 1999-2000 renovation studies at NCROC would indicate thattilling at renovation is still critical to obtaining optimumproduction (Tables 2 and 3). Tilling may provide somesoil aeration or throw some soil around the remainingcrowns at renovation. In these studies there did not seemto be any significant advantage to using herbicides such asDevrinol, 2, 4-D or Sinbar at renovation particularly if thefields had been maintained in good weed free conditions.While use of herbicides is an individual growersmanagement choice, in some situations, burning atrenovation could certainly replace the traditional renovationpractices of mowing and herbicide application.

!24"45.2,'4;'F+$"."%< The first tractor mounted liquidpropane unit used in these studies was built in 1999 at acost of o500. Modifications to the unit in 2000 added aheat shield to protect the tractor operator and propane tanks,larger burner heads, a heat blanket to confine flame aroundthe strawberry plant canopy, and two optional fuel tanksfor more operating range and portability. The cost of thesemodifications was about o600. This unit, as set up, willdo an excellent job of burn renovation and could be builtfor less than the o1,100 we spent. In 2000 studies, whenburn renovating larger areas we were able to travel between.63 to .75 mph including turning time. On three renovationburns of over .2 acre fuel consumption averaged about150 lb of propane per acre. Propane is sold on a slidingscale based on the number of pounds purchased. Thecurrent cost is rapidly increasing and varies depending uponwhere you live. In our area, the cost for up to 30 lb waso.73/lbd while at 90 lb the cost was o.44/lb. Because ofthe sliding propane costs and the tendency of smaller tanks(30 lb or less) to heat up excessively, the machine shouldutiliZe the largest tank practical. With the modificationsmade in the 2000 unit, we were able to eliminate tankheating and wind blowing the torches out, to confine theheat to the plant canopy allowing for the entire row to beburned in one trip, and practically eliminate undesirable

straw mulch fires } all problems encountered with the firstunit. While we had our best success when burning onclear, hot, windless days with this unit, we were able tosuccessfully burn renovate when conditions were cloudywith a heavy dew on the plant canopy.

Management Tips

1. Flame cultivation is a very different approach for mostproducers so each producer needs to evaluate it on theirown farm.

2. Small hand burners can be purchased at most hardwarestores and offer farmers an opportunity to try burning on asmall scale.

3. Burning weeds in a new planting can be challenging.When the burner is working correctly, it is difficult to seethe flame in daylight. Since strawberry plants are sosucculent, it is easy to burn and injure the foliage. Inaddition, it takes several minutes to see burn damage tothe strawberry plants so considerable strawberry foliageinjury can occur before flame and shields are properlyadjusted. With careful direction of the flame and propershielding, it can be done effectively.

4. Periodic burning for weed control in new plantings doesnot give as good weed control as hand weeding andcultivation.

Dave at a field day

116 ——


5. Strawberry burn renovation had resulted in no reductionin fruit production compared to traditional methods ofrenovation (mowing). In most instances, burn renovationhas resulted in greater strawberry plant vigor and less leafdiseases than mowing.

6. Burn renovation provides good weed control and couldreplace or reduce herbicide use in a traditional renovationsystem.

7. Burning at renovation will not replace rototilling. Roto-tilling at renovation appears necessary to obtain optimumproduction.

8. Propane use of about 150 lb/A with tractor field speedof between .6 to .8 mph was obtained. The economics ofburn renovation improve with each use.

9. The burning unit as modified in 2000 will do an excellentjob of strawberry burn renovation.


Cooperators

82"752%Q7C7.-$5B Grower, New Hope, MNP-V$%7#/%)75*.%Q"#$+7##%b%=7+-.1B%Growers,

Cohasset, MN_$-23%P7##B Research Plot Coordinator, University of

Minnesota } NCROC, Grand Rapids, MN:#6$.7%A-#$3752B Junior Laboratory Technician, University

of Minnesota } NCROC, Grand Rapids, MN

Project Location

Contact David Wildung for directions to field plots.

Other Resources

\.7+$%4#6-#$$5-#6B%>#;E West Hwy 4, P.O. Box 577,La Crosse, bS 67548, 800-255-2469.

<$2$59*#B% !$7#B%7#/%:.%82$5#$5E 8910 Hwy 12, Delano,MN 55328, 612-972-2052. Jean and Al have been usingflame weeding for several years and are always very helpfulin providing their ideas and encouragement.

P-##$9*27%\5"-2%7#/%c$6$270.$%̀ 5*?$59%:99*;-72-*#E HamLake, MN.

—— 117


WWWWWorking Prairie - Rorking Prairie - Rorking Prairie - Rorking Prairie - Rorking Prairie - Roots of theoots of theoots of theoots of theoots of thePPPPPast Sustaining the Fast Sustaining the Fast Sustaining the Fast Sustaining the Fast Sustaining the Futureutureutureutureuture

Livestock • Arndt

Project Summary

The “why” of this project is embodied in thetitle. The purpose of the project was to re-combine two nearly extinct icons of our region,bison and native prairie, into a profitable andsustainable rotational pasture livestock operationand to establish a fun agri-tourism business.

Project Description

Bison producers are approached regularly bypeople who wish to come view their herd. Wedecided to benefit from this desire and “gopublic” by establishing an agri-tourism businessalong with the bison rotational graZing operation.John, a retired schoolteacher, sought the agri-tourism business as an opportunity to educatethe public about AmericaJs oldest food, bison.

Combining a farming operation and agri-tourismfits nicely into our farm. The farm consists of200 acres, which are all pasture except for 30acres. The farm has very heavy clay soils androlling hills. Up until three years ago, the farmwas in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).Most of the crops raised on the 30 acres go tothe 60 bison cow herd. We raise the calves andhave about 150 head of bison at all times. Wealso rent 40 acres of hay ground from a neighbor.

We want to raise bison to help bring the greatAmerican Bison back from near extinction. Theobjective is to producehealthy red meat that ishigh in protein, low insaturated fat, and lower incholesterol than beef,pork, or skinless chicken.Bison is a natural productraised without hormones.

Results

R$(@."%< We are still in agreat learning phase abouthow to manage bison in arotational graZing system.We are pleased that the


John E. and LeilaArndt

J & L Bison Ranch5650 41st Ave. NW

Willmar, MN56201

320-235-8465bandiyohi County

email:jarndtuwecnet.com

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

agri-tourism, bison,pasture

establishment,prairie, warm and

cool season grasses

land coming out of CRP is working so wellwithout much improvement. The forage mixtureof the pastures is mainly bromegrass, timothy,and orchardgrass. The pastures are good forbison because they do not do well if the pasturehas a lot of alfalfa.

In 1998, we put the 60 cows on the pastures onMay 1 and they were able to graZe intoNovember. Nearly all of the cows calved onpasture during May and June. We had an 85mcalving rate and the calves were strong so theweaning rate was also very high. We culledfive cows and added ten heifers to the herd.

We sold 22 of the heifer calves to other bisongrowers. The demand is high and they bringabout o2,000 for a nice looking weaning heifer.All of the bull calves are still on the farm. Weare feeding and growing them out to be used asbreeding animals and sold to farmers directly orthrough the American Bison Association.

We made great progress in 1998. Water lineswere installed to the pastures and the perimeterfencing was completed. The corrals, tubs andsqueeZe chutes make handling and treating theanimals easier.

After we weaned the calves in September, thecows stayed on pasture until November. Theamount of grass was limited at that time of the

John and Leila with their bison herd

118 ——


Livestock • Arndt

year. We need to learn how to manage the pastures betterin the fall to help extend the graZing further into the winter.Bison are hardy animals and we need to take advantage oftheir hardiness by keeping them on pasture longer.

In 1999, we had an 83m calving rate getting 50 calvesfrom 60 cows. This produced an average income of abouto1,000 for each heifer and bull calf. Costs are about o500/animal leaving a profit of o400 to o500/animal. The pricewas a little lower this year for the first time in 12 years.

We kept the graZing cows, calves, and six herd bulls inone group while graZing in 1999. The graZing rotationwas every 30 days and we found that early in the summerthey were not able to keep up with the rapid growth of thegrasses. By June 15, the grass was very mature and lesspalatable than younger grass. There was a lot of wastedue to trampling. We did cut part of the pasture for hay inmid-May, but we could have cut even more.

We tried inter-seeding various grass and legume seeds intothe existing pastures and use the bison to incorporate theseeds. This seems like a good way to increase forageswithout tilling and taking the pasture out of production.

We also added 15 acres of cropland to the pasture systemin 1999. On May 21 we used a no-till drill to seed nativewarm season grasses, a mixture with 90m big bluestemand Indiangrass. We received fairly good moisture to startwith though it was very dry by fall. Weed control was aproblem on this fertile rolling clay ground and we controlledit by clipping with a stalk chopper at 8 to 10”.

In 2000 we had a calving rate of 89m getting 54 calvesfrom the 60 cows. The prices for the calves continued tobe down. Heifer calves brought o400 and bull calvesbrought o500. iearling heifers brought o700.

We had a very early spring in 2000 and wereable to start graZing on April 10. The pasturesproduced well even with the dry summer. Wekept ahead of the forage by splitting the herdallowing us to have animals on more than onearea at a time. We needed to beginsupplementing hay in the middle of September.

The big bluestem and Indiangrass planted in1999 are continuing to establish. The grassesput on a lot of root growth and not much leafgrowth. I harvested one cutting of hay of about~ ton per acre, mainly as a way to controlweeds. I expect the stand to be adequate nextyear so that we can start graZing by the end ofthe season.

F.,4"'F#7(:.4$< Bison like to roam as they eat and it maybe possible that our paddocks are too big. This allows thebison too much room to roam and stomp down the grassbefore they eat it. We are breaking the paddocks intosmaller siZes to see if we can have the bison graZe moreefficiently, and help make the pasture available longer inthe fall.

Remember always that bison are wild animals. Whileappearing relatively quiet and tractable, bison can be veryunpredictable. In addition, bison are very strong and veryquick. Planning and preparation prior to any work withbison becomes essential. Any degree of crowding andconfinement tends to increase aggression. Two simplerules for bison are:

Rule {1: The faster you run, the faster bison will run.Rule {2: The louder you are, the higher the bison

will jump.

When winter is over, bison begin to frolic. They kick uptheir heels and roll in the soil, shedding their thick, shaggywinter coats. While it may look like theyJre just having acarefree celebration, they are helping fertiliZe and regeneratetheir own pastures.

The physical features of bison contribute to the uniquesymbiotic relationship they have with the ground they eatfrom. Seeds of grasses caught in the winter coats aredeposited in the soil as they roll on the ground to shed theircoats. The bison pick up clods of dirt with their sharphooves that breaks up the soil and manure. Water canpercolate into the soil and be held in the ground more easily,ensuring well-watered grasses. Bison break down the dead,uneaten grass by rolling on the ground and kicking it withtheir hooves. When graZing, they leave small tufts of deadgrass that ensure a long intact root system. Once the dead

John discusses raising bison with a field day participant

—— 119


Livestock • Arndt

grass is broken, it decomposes quickly into the soil.

1%$.S-4+$.,5< In 1998, we offered farm tours to the publicon Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. We chargedo2.50/person and asked that the minimum siZe of a groupbe six people. When people came we showed them theanimals and told them about how they are raised. Westressed the benefits of having bison on the land and thefact that bison meat is an excellent source of protein. Wehad 163 visitors and took in o5,729 from the tours and themeat sales during these tours. Also, many elementaryschool classes visited the farm free of charge.

To help us get the visitors out into the pastures, wepurchased a used 17-person capacity school bus. Thismade for excellent viewing and safety for the visitors andwas the only way insurance was available.

In 1999, we really expanded the agri-tourism efforts. Halfof the 900 overall visitors came during the weekend field-day open house in June. We also gave numerous tours forday cares, senior citiZens groups, nursing homes, tourists,as an activity for people staying at a resort, iMCA,convention outings, a mystery tour, schools, teachers fromGermany, and an Extravagance Tour from Minneapolis.

Agri-tourism continued to grow in 2000 and we had morethan 1,350 visitors to the farm. In expectation of moreopen house attendees, we rented a full-siZe school bus touse along with our own bus to provide safe access forvisitors to view the bison on pasture.

Another exciting aspect of our agri-tourism project is anarrangement we have with the Big Stone Refuge nearOdessa, MN. They developed a closed-loop automobilepath through a 150 acre grassland for viewing bison andwe supplied them with 30 of our bison for the summer.

With the help of Robert Williamson, from the Mid-Minnesota Development Commission, we wrote a bookleton agri-tourism called, “Starting to Get Started in Agri-Tourism.” This document contains ideas, questions andavailable resources we think are important to consider asyou contemplate agri-tourism along with a short story aboutour agri-tourism project. Copies are available on request.

Management Tips

1. iou need to be sincerely interested in bison to learn thetraits of the animal. These animals need a differentapproach to management because they are much stronger.

2. Remember that bison are wild animals that are verystrong and very quick.

3. When crowded or confined, bison become aggressive.

4. Rotating the pastures on a 30-day schedule breaks upthe parasite cycle and helps the cows breed back and thecalves to grow faster.

5. Parasite control in bison is very important. Feedinggrain screenings as a supplement with Safe Guard wormermixed in gives broad control of parasites.

Cooperators

a*#%)*.$B Big Stone Refuge, Odessa, MN_1.$%F3*+,9*#B Prairieland Management, Glenwood, MNa*0$52% @-..-7+9*#B Mid-Minnesota Development

Commission, Willmar, MN

Project Location

Take US Hwy 12 to the western edge of Willmar. Gonorth on Cty Rd 5 for 2s miles. Turn west on Cty Rd 92and continue for 1s miles. The farm is on the right. Lookfor the J and L Bison Ranch sign.

Other Resources

:+$5-;7#%U-9*#%:99*;-72-*#E 4701 Marion, Suite 301,Denver, CO 80216, 303-292-2833. Member associationpromoting production, marketing, and preservation of bison.

P-##$9*27%U"==7.*%:99*;-72-*#E 6819 Industrial Road,Saginaw, MN 55776, 218-729-9669. Web site:www.mnbison.org. Statewide association that promotesthe production and marketing of bison.

P-##$9*27%`5*?#%d,,*52"#-2-$9 (MGO). 352 AldermanHall, 1970 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108,612-625-4707. Web site: www.mgo.umn.edu. MGO is acollaborative effort between MDA, AURI, and the U of Mto assist Minnesota producers in identifying and evaluatingcrop, livestock, farming system, and value-added optionsfor their operation and to provide easy access to thecombined resources of the three organiZations.

Z*523%:+$5-;7#%U-9*#%)**,$572-C$E New Rockford, ND58356, 701-947-2505. A production and marketingcooperative of bison growers.

[8%\-93%7#/%@-./.-=$%8$5C-;$E% 1998. Northern tallgrassprairie: Habitat preservation area. US Department of theInterior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, BishopHenry Whipple Federal Building, Fort Snelling, MN 55111.

120 ——


PPPPPasture Aasture Aasture Aasture Aasture Aeration and its Effects oneration and its Effects oneration and its Effects oneration and its Effects oneration and its Effects onProductivity Using a VProductivity Using a VProductivity Using a VProductivity Using a VProductivity Using a Variety of Inputsariety of Inputsariety of Inputsariety of Inputsariety of Inputs

Livestock • Carlton County Extension

Project Summary

This is a collaborative project of producers,local, state, and federal agencies, extensioneducators, and graZing organiZations in a sixcounty area in northeast and east centralMinnesota to provide educational programs inpasture management. The focus is on increasingpasture productivity without destroying existingpasture with the use of a pasture aerator. Theaerator will be used to: 1) improve pastureproductiond 2) improve animal healthd 3) increasefarm profitabilityd 4) control weeds and brushd5) increase beneficial legume speciesd 6) betterutiliZe seeding and fertiliZing pasturesd and, 7)provide better wildlife habitat.

Four producers who utiliZe pasture as the staplefor summer feeding of their livestock areinvolved. Willis Finifrock from Barnum, raisesbeef and sheep, Ron Alm of Brook Park, CalvinHarth of Cloverdale, and Richard Erickson ofIsle all raise beef cattle. The project locationscover a wide variety of soil types and productionsystems.

Project Description

This project will evaluate the use of an aeratoras a low cost way of renovating pastures withoutremoving them from production. This machinewill reduce the cost of operating equipment,decrease the risk of erosion, while improvingpastures. Producers mightnot be able to renovate bytraditional means due tothe costs and takingpasture out of production.

The aerator can beutiliZed on sod and tilledfields for incorporation ofmanure. This applicationmethod decreases theevaporative losses andallows better absorptionof the nutrients into thesoil, especially onhillsides.


Troy SalZerCarlton County

ExtensionPO Box 307

Carlton, MN 55707218-384-3511

salZe003uumn.eduCarlton, Chisago,

banabec, MilleLacs, Pine Counties

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Keywords

aerator, pasturerenovation

In 2000, ten different treatments were establishedin plots in the pastures on the four participatingfarms. The treatments were designed to showthe effects of the aerator on the pastures. Thetreatments were:j Controlj Aeration with no other treatmentj Aeration with manure applicationj Aeration with lime and fertiliZerj Aeration with over seeding of red cloverj Aeration with red clover seed, lime, and

fertiliZerj No aeration with manure applicationj No aeration with lime and fertiliZerj No aeration with over seeding of red cloverj No aeration with red clover seed, lime, and

fertiliZer

The siZe of the plots are 20J x 60J for each of thetreatments. The soil amendments in thetreatments on average were:j Lime at 2 tons/Aj Red Clover at 10 lb/Aj Potash at 166 lb/Aj Nitrogen at 50 lb/Aj Manure at 20 tons/A

Each site was different for the amount of lime,potash, and potassium applied. Amendmentswere determined according to soil testrecommendations analyZed at the University ofMinnesota.

Troy, Carlton County ExtensionCoordinator shows aerator at a field

—— 121


Livestock • Carlton County Extension

Just prior to graZing, forage samples are collected andanalyZed for yield, forage quality, forage species, and standdensity. Comparisons of the tests will be conducted overthe three years to observe the trends in the conditions ofthe pasture. Different pasture analysis techniques will betried to determine which methods the farmers prefer.

Results

The project went as planned in 2000 with the treatmentsapplied late in the spring at all four locations. We wereable to get all of the lime, fertiliZer, seed and equipment toproperly apply the treatments. We were also fortunatethat we have access to rock or counter weights to allowthe aerator to properly penetrate into the soils. The existingpastures were quite compacted and dry so there was atendency for the aerator to not penetrate into the soil as itwould in normal conditions. Ideally, the aerator wouldpenetrate eight inches.

The project has not demonstrated the impact of the aeratorat this point. Forage samples were taken from the plots in2000 but were not analyZed because changes in the pastureswill not be measurable in the short term. The results willbe compared with the following two years to see if thereare trends in the conditions of the pastures over time.

At this time we have not compared the cost benefit ratiosdue to our hope that with next yearJs data, there will bemore response to the treatments. The project has showna dramatic response to fertiliZation with manure andcommercial fertiliZer. This was determined by both visualappraisal and dry matter samples.

The one aspect of the project that was, and is, a challengefor the participants is the collection of species data. Weused a document designed in Missouri by the NaturalResources Conservation Service to track forage species.This process did not work well for the farmers because itwas not specific enough for them to use to track the forageson their farms. We determined that this documentationprocess is most effective when one person is tracking theforages on numerous farms and compares the results.

The project has gone extremely well as far asimplementation and cooperation among all of theindividuals involved in the project. Although we have notseen the response to aeration as dramatically as we wouldhave liked, there have been several people that havesuggested that aeration takes time and the effects are notseen immediately. This was determined by the visualappraisal and the weights that were taken from the plotduring the season as raw data and will be compiled andanalyZed statistically later.

In addition, some of the producers also tried other uses forthe aerator for pasture renovation. They are comparing itsuse with clearing with a caterpillar, tillage compared to adisk, and spreading manure packs from feeding areas toget the forages growing sooner in spring. All of these willalso lend themselves to further demonstrations to producersduring future field days.

Management Tips

1. It takes time for the benefits of aeration to show up inthe pastures.

2. Pastures respond quickly to applications of fertiliZersand manure.

3. It may be necessary to add weights to the aerator so itcan penetrate hard sod pastures.

Cooperators

:$5?71%)*+,7#1)7.C-#%^7523, Farmer, Cloverdale, MN\75+%8$5C-;$%:6$#;1Q*;7.%)722.$+$#X9%d567#-]72-*#9P-##$9*27%\*576$%7#/%`5799.7#/9%)*"#;-.Z72"57.%a$9*"5;$9%)*#9$5C72-*#%8$5C-;$Z$+7/f-%a-C$5%U79-#%<5*f$;2a-;375/%45-;V9*#B Farmer, Isle, MNa*#%:.+B Farmer, Brook Park, MN8*-.%7#/%@72$5%)*#9$5C72-*#%A-925-;29[#-C$59-21%*=%P-##$9*27%4W2$#9-*#%8$5C-;[email protected]%\-#-=5*;VB Farmer, Barnum, MN

Project Location

Contact Troy SalZer at the Carlton County Extension Officefor directions to the farms involved in this project.

Other Resources

Blanchet, b., H. Moechnig, and J. Dejong-Hughes. 2000.`57]-#6%9192$+9%,.7##-#6%6"-/$E Publication No. BU-07606-S. University of Minnesota Extension Service,St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

`"-/$%\*5%a"57.%Q-C-#6E 2000. University of MinnesotaExtension Service Carlton County. 218-384-3511 or800-862-3769 ext. 223.

P-99*"5-% \*576$%P7#76$+$#2%`"-/$E 1998. NaturalResource Conservation Service. 573-876-0901.

122 ——


Livestock • Dingels

VVVVViability of Strip Grazing Coriability of Strip Grazing Coriability of Strip Grazing Coriability of Strip Grazing Coriability of Strip Grazing Corn Intern Intern Intern Intern Inter-seeded-seeded-seeded-seeded-seededwith a Grass/Legume Mixturewith a Grass/Legume Mixturewith a Grass/Legume Mixturewith a Grass/Legume Mixturewith a Grass/Legume Mixture

Project Summary

The objectives of this project are to determinewhether feeding beef cattle in the field by stripgraZing corn is economically feasible and if ithas an advantage over harvesting corn for grainand to determine whether inter-seeding a grass/legume mixture is feasible to eliminate theestablishment year for pasture. Stephen andPatricia DingelsJ three year project demonstrates:

j The practice of strip graZing corn will givesmall and medium siZe farm operations thechance to grow and/or finish cattle withoutthe high start-up costs of a conventionalfeedlot. It eliminates both the time and costof harvesting and hauling grain to cattle infeedlots.

j Cattle that strip graZe corn will spread theirmanure throughout the field. This cuts outthe time and energy needed to transport andredistribute the manure. Money is also savedbecause less fertiliZer is needed to replacefield nutrients. Strip graZing can prevent odorand water contamination associated with thebuildup of large manure piles.

j The practice of rotational graZing requiresestablishing a grass/legume pasture. GraZingcorn and inter-seeding a grass/legume mixtureduring the first year can eliminate theestablishment year for the pasture. This isespecially beneficial to farmers who rent landon a one year contract. GraZing corn willallow them to graZe rented land without thefear of establishing a longer term pasture onlyto lose the land to another renter the followingyear.

Project Description

The first year of this project involved stripgraZing corn with 98 feeder heifers. Thedescription and results from this research in 1999can be found in Greenbook 2000 atwww.mda.state.mn.us or by contacting MDA.

KLLL'1%$4"45.2'12-.:.-.#,< Preparations forthe second year of our project actually began infall 1999. In the summer of 1999 we tried inter-


Stephen and PatriciaDingels

25212 LibertyAvenue

Redwood Falls, MN56283

507-644-5938Redwood County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Author: Mary Routh

Keywords

beef cow-calf pairs,beef stocker cattle,

cool season grasses,feeder cattle, graZing

corn, inter-seeding,legumes

seeding perennial ryegrass and clover with thestanding corn at the time of second cultivation.However, extremely hot temperatures and verylittle rain in 1999 caused the inter-seeding to dieexcept in a few small patches located in thelowest and poorest drained section of the field.

As a backup plan to replace the inter-seedingthat did not survive, we decided to fall seed asmall grain on 2.5 acres of the field and thenspring seed annual ryegrass on the remaining7.5 acres of the field. Winter triticale, a crossbetween wheat and rye, was selected as the fallseeded small grain because of its greater forageproduction and palatability as compared to eitherwinter wheat or winter rye. However, there aresome concerns regarding winter survivability oftriticale.

By September 11, 1999 the cattle had graZedoff the south 2.5 acres of corn. The remainingcorn stubble was disked twice and the triticalewas seeded with a grain drill. The recommendedseeding rate was 100 lb/A. However, inattempting to adjust the drill, one third of the

Steve examines corn fieldafter strip grazing

—— 123



field was seeded at approximately 150 lb/A with theremaining part of the field seeded at 75 lb/A. The seedingconditions were poor due to the prevailing dry weatherand the soil was very lumpy and dry at the time of seeding.A total of .6”of precipitation fell from the seeding datethrough December 15, 1999 in four separate rain or snowfallevents. Germination and resulting plant vigor were lessthan expected due to the dry conditions. The area that wasseeded at 150 lb/A had a marginal stand while the areawith lower seeding rate had an unacceptable stand. Theremaining portion of the cornfield was tilled in the fall of1999 with a v-ripper, which is a common practice in ourarea.

During March 2000, we conducted a soil test on the fourdifferent soil types within the ten acre field. FertiliZer wasapplied to University of Minnesota recommendations of150-0-0 of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Another50 lb/A of nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulfate wasapplied August 4, 2000.

Due to the thin stand of winter triticale, the entire fieldwas tilled with a field cultivator. FertiliZer was spread andthe field was tilled again with a field cultivator just prior toplanting. Two varieties of annual ryegrass were seededusing an endgate seeder on March 29, 2000. The fieldwas then dragged with a fixed tooth harrow and packedwith a Brillion seeder/packer.

The two varieties of annual ryegrass selected were bothItalian ryegrasses. Italian ryegrass was selected for theirhigh dry matter yields, biennial behavior that usuallyprevents the formation of seed heads the first year andtheir excellent feed quality. The two varieties selectedwere Barmultra (a tetraploid) and Bartissimo (a diploid).The Barmultra was seeded at 40 lb/A and Bartissimo wasseeded at 25 lb/A. Even though Italian ryegrass is a biennial,it is not expected to survive the severe winters in Minnesota.

Although no herbicides were used in the second year ofour project, weed control was considered to be excellentwith very little weed pressure. beep in mind, however,that a weed is only a problem if the livestock will not eatthe weed.

KLLL'A.:#,-428'12-.:.-.#,<' 'On May 20, 2000 four bredbeef cows were turned out to graZe. Another 26 beef cow/calf pairs were turned out to graZe with them on May 22.The average calving date for all 30 calves was May 11.When the graZing period began, the average weight of the26 calves was 171 lb.

The cows purchased for this project are known as short-term cows. Short-term refers to the age and condition of

the cows. All of these cows were older cows with veryfew if any productive years remaining. They werepurchased because of the relative low price and becausewe planned to early-wean the calves at approximately 90days of age. The cows would then be sold as cull cows.This strategy allowed for the management of the typicalgrass growth curve whereby the fastest grass growingperiod during late May, June and early July is then followedby a typically much slower period of grass growth fromAugust through October.

The cattle were unloaded into a portable corral. Duringthe first few hours, the cattle were contained in the corraland trained to the electric fence. Afterwards they wereturned out to graZe with only a one strand portable electricfence between paddocks to control them. The field usedfor our project had a four strand high tensile fenceconstructed around the perimeter in 1999.

The 30 cow/calf pairs were rotationally graZed on ten acresfrom May 20 through August 9, 2000. Each paddockwas graZed ranging from one to five days. The total lengthof time to rotate through all paddocks ranged from sevento 20 days depending upon grass regrowth. While graZing,the cattle had free choice access to water and trace mineralsalt provided in each paddock.

Due to the high nutritional qualities of annual ryegrass andthe relatively high priced land (o2,000r /A) being used forgraZing, we had intentionally stocked the pasture at themaximum rate deemed possible, if not somewhatoverstocked. This decision was based onrecommendations by experienced graZiers and as reportedin the Stockman Grass/Farmer. This decision was alsosupported by the economic principle that when, in a yearlike 2000, where the price of purchased inputs (feed) isrelatively low and the price of output (calves) is relativelyhigh, it is advantageous to maximiZe output. In years wheninput would be relatively higher priced than the output, itwould be advantageous to optimiZe rather than maximiZeoutput.

Since the stocking rate was greater than the carryingcapacity of the pasture, additional hay was fed for shortperiods to allow the grass to regrow to acceptable heightbefore regraZing. This hay was fed in feed bunks in a“sacrifice” paddock. A sacrifice paddock is one used toconfine animals and which may harm the grass to the extentof lowering the stand density and resulting yield.Approximately 440 lb of hay per cow were fed during thoseperiods when the grass was being allowed to regrow.

The calves were vaccinated, castrated, and implanted withRalgro� on July 6, 2000. Creep feed was provided to the

124 ——



calves beginning July 14. Consumption was minimal atfirst but intake had risen to 3 lb/calf/day by the time thecalves were weaned on August 9. The creep feed consistedof cracked corn, oats, protein supplement, and mineral.

Several days prior to August 9, we once again erected theportable corral leaving two sides of the corral open. Webegan feeding the daily ration of hay within the corraleveryday thereafter until the final day. On August 9 wefed them hay and, as all the cattle came into the corral toeat, we closed up the two sides of the corral which hadbeen left open. We utiliZed a portable crowding tub, alley,and chute with a scale to load the cows onto the livestocktrailer that transported them to the auction market. Thesame equipment was then used to weigh each calfindividually to obtain a weaning weight.

At the time of weaning the calves were contained in theportable corral for three days. This was to prevent themfrom walking the fence and possibly trying to break throughthe electric fence looking for their mother. They were fed5 lb of creep feed per head per day along with free choicehay. After three days they were turned out to graZe theannual ryegrass and were supplemented with a free choicegrain ration fed from the same creep feeder used prior toweaning. A total of 27,700 lb of feed was fed to the early-weaned calves from August 9 through October 29. Theaverage daily feed intake per head was 11.94 lb/day.

Since the early-weaned calves were being supplementedwith feed, they did not need the entire ten acres of pasture.An additional nine yearling beef steers were turned out tograZe these acres on September 11. The beginning weighton these steers was 680 lb. They graZed through October29, 2000. They had access to water and trace mineralsalt. They required no additional feed other than the grass.

We experienced no health problems related tostarting the cattle on grass. Overall health ofthe calves and yearlings during the entire graZingperiod was very good. Since the cows wereolder cows near the end of their productive life,some health problems were expected. All cowshad very little trouble with calving. We losttwo cows during the season to causes unrelatedto graZing.

Each year cattle are purchased specifically forthis project. They are either sold at the end ofthe year or ownership of the cattle may beretained as the cattle are finished in a customfeedlot. To reduce the risk of financial loss,we often employ several marketing tools

including hedging, using either futures or options, andforward contracting.

We compared the potential returns of selling the early-weaned calves versus the potential returns of retainingownership and finishing them in a custom feedlot. Sincewe were not able to obtain a feeder cattle price that wouldresult in greater profits than retaining ownership, we decidedto retain ownership. The heavyweight steer calves weighingover 500 lb will be fed to finish in a custom feedlot. Thelightweight steer calves less than 500 lb and the heiferswill be fed in our own feedlot. They will be fed a highroughage ration during the winter and turned back out tograss in 2001. The steers will be finished for harvest latein 2001, while the heifers will be bred in the summer of2001 and sold as replacement bred heifers in the fall of2001.

Results

KLLL'1%$4"45.2,E If the fall seeded winter triticale hadreceived sufficient moisture for proper stand establishmentin the fall of 1999, it would have provided early seasongraZing. The thin stand of winter triticale which did establishin 1999 was able to survive the winter. We do grant thatthe winter of 1999-2000 was relatively mild. The paddockthat contained the winter triticale was graZed first in therotation. The triticale had produced considerably moredry matter at the beginning of graZing than the spring seededannual ryegrass. However, after the first rotation, the wintertriticale produced only minor regrowth. After the secondrotation it started to senesce. By the third rotation in mid-June, it had almost disappeared while the annual ryegrassbegan to produce considerable dry matter.

A few weeks after emergence of the annual ryegrass, itwas observed that the best grass growth was in areas that

Steve reels up fence to open the next corn strip

—— 125



had been packed by the tractor wheels in addition to packingwith the Brillion packer used at the time of seeding. Agood seed to soil contact is necessary for optimal seedlingemergence, especially in dry conditions.

Based upon recommendations from the seed dealer, webegan graZing when the grass reached 6”. However, wewould recommend not graZing at this time but to insteadmow the grass to a height of 3”. Whenthe grass reaches 6” the second time,you may then begin graZing. Mowingallows the seedlings to develop betterroot systems and encourages the plantsto tiller (growth of new shoots).Although the plants were not pulled outby the roots when graZed the first time,the seedlings did experience aconsiderable amount of trauma fromtrampling and graZing by the cows.

As mentioned earlier, the seeding ratewas higher than most farmers typically seed. Due to wetconditions during late May and June, the cattle causedsevere pugging in four of five paddocks. This puggingreduced the stand an estimated 20 to 25m. If we had seededat a lower rate, the dry matter produced during the remainderof the growing season would have been reduced.

Based on assumed animal dry matter intake, the estimatedamount of dry matter consumed for the entire season was7,505 lb/A. This compares with our projected dry matterproduced of 9,350 lb/A. This year the months of Augustthrough November were extremely dry. Due to the extremelack of moisture, the growth of grass in that time periodwas greatly diminished.

The growth pattern of the annual ryegrass was slightlydifferent than the pattern expected for perennial forages.The annual ryegrass reaches its peak production about onemonth later than the perennial pasture. Comparing thegrowth pattern of our annual ryegrass with that of anorchardgrass/clover pasture, annual ryegrass dry matterproduction peaks in July and declines steadily into thefall. The growth pattern for the orchardgrass/clover pastureis very typical of the pattern found in perennial pastures.It peaks in June, declines in July but levels off into thefall. The pattern follows very closely with the growth weobserved on a perennial ryegrass pasture we have. Thismay be of significance for a graZier attempting to providea more uniform growth pattern by utiliZing several differentgrass species.

Forage analysis of the annual ryegrass began on June 15,2000 with sampling once a month until October 9. Samplesconsisted of the parts of the plant that the cattle wereobserved consuming. Each sample consisted of a compositeof both the diploid and tetraploid ryegrass from severalrandomly selected sites for each sampling period. Acomplete summary of the forage wet chemistry analysis isfound in Table 1.

We attempted to make a comparison of diploid versustetraploid annual ryegrass by planting both varieties sideby side in the pasture. We observed two differencesbetween the varieties: the diploid variety appeared towithstand trampling better than the tetraploid and thetetraploid was much more rust tolerant than the diploid.The diploid variety became heavily infected with rust inmid-August. The tetraploid only exhibited a mild infection.The cattle readily consumed the rust infected ryegrass whichwould indicate no problem with acceptance and intake.However, the rust did appear to slightly reduce the drymatter produced by the diploid variety as compared to thetetraploid.

KLLL'A.:#,-428'3#$;4$5("2#< The performance of thecalves while graZing was acceptable. The average startingweight of the 26 calves born at the time graZing began onMay 22, 2000 was 171 lb. The average weaning weight onAugust 9 for all 29 calves, was 276 lb. The average dailygain for all calves during that 79-day period was 1.33 lb/day. The average weight at the end of graZing on October28, for all calves was 538 lb. The average daily gain forthis 80-day period was 3.28 lb/day. The average dailygain and ending weights of our early-weaned calves arealmost identical to calves weaned at the traditional time ofmid to late October.

The performance of the yearlings graZed from September11 through October 29, 2000 was also acceptable. Thebeginning weight was 680 lb with an ending weight of 767lb. This resulted in an average daily gain for that 48-daygraZing period of 1.8 lb/day.

Table 1. Summary of 2000 Forage Analysis

% Dry Matter% Crude Protein% Acid Detergent Fiber% Neutral Detergent Fiber% NSC% TDN

NEL (Mcal/Cwt)NEM (Mcal/Cwt)NEG (Mcal/Cwt)Relative Feed Value

12.730.928.448.510.865.0

65.065.038.0123

96=6F040= .........i2;0.'&

15.128.226.650.311.865.0

65.064.037.0126

i23<. '&

13.431.828.747.710.866.0

65.065.039.0130

+2A214.!&

58.622.929.649.318.165.0

65.064.038.0124

*?47E0=. -

126 ——



!24"45.2'E#,+0-,< Table 2 is a profitand loss statement for the project. Asindicated, the project was profitablewith a net profit of o234.05/A and a netreturn to labor and management ofo314.05/A. We also compared theprofitability of harvesting soybeans vs.graZing annual ryegrass. GraZing annualryegrass was more profitable thangrowing soybeans, with a net return tolabor and management of o314.05/Awhile soybeans returned on o52.27/A.

Management Tips

1. Each year a graZier must evaluatewhich class of livestock will best fit his/her operation and goals. We chose tograZe short-term cow/calf pairs in 2000,a decision based upon the prevailingprice structure for cattle and feed at thattime.

2. We believe that the graZing of ahigher value class of livestock may bemost profitable given the high nutritionalquality of annual ryegrass and the highcost of land. Simply put, beef cows eata lot of grass compared to the value ofwhat they produce. In most years cowsmay be better suited to graZing lessor quality forage onland unsuitable for crop farming.

3. Environmental benefits of graZing are numerous. Sincethere is no need for harvesting of the crop and subsequenthauling, there are significant savings in fuel and less airpollution.

4. GraZing cattle evenly deposit their manure over theentire field. Manure was tilled under at the conclusion ofthe graZing season to help avoid any possibility of runoffinto waterways.

5. Nutrients are recycled to the soil as graZing cattletypically excrete 60 to 70m of the nutrients consumed.We estimate that the recycled nutrients from the manureleft on the field during graZing have a commercial fertiliZervalue of approximately o20.00 to o25.00/A.

6. A farmer needs to put as much time and managementinto graZing as he/she does to produce the maximumeconomic yield of any other crop.

7. GraZing does work. If you plan to graZe, be sure tostudy the field trial information, talk with someone whohas tried it before, develop a plan, and start small. Thenhave confidence in yourself and your ability to make graZinga success.

Additional Information

The Dingels have collected additional information for thosewho wish to pursue cattle graZing. This valuable dataincludes performance, health, and profitability of corngraZed cattle in the projectJs first year of 1999 and duringyear two on other land.

Cooperators

F-+%c7#%A$5%@7.B Beef Enterprise Consultant,Sanborn, MN

U*0%_*$3.$5B%Extension Specialist, Lamberton, MN@71#$%^7#9$#B Redwood County Extension,

Redwood Falls, MN4"6$#$%7#/%)75*.%`75#375/2, retired farmers,

Clements, MN

1Total cost of fence and water equipment was $274.04/A amortized over 20 years withan opportunity cost of 9%.

Table 2. 2000 Profit and Loss Statement

^=711. Y;?7F0Cull cow sales (995 lb @ $35.88/cwt)Calf sales (538 lb @ $111/cwt)Yearling sales (766 lb @ $96/cwt)AMTA payment (Freedom to Farm)

)7463.^=711. Y;?7F0

e6=>6E30.VZG0;101Cow/calf pairs (30 @ $625/pair)Yearlings (680 lb @ $97.70/cwt)Creep feed/salt/mineral/supplementHay and Crystalyx supplementLand rent

Seed costFertilizerVet and medicineInterest on cattleCustom hire

InsuranceDay labor (move cattle)Miscellaneous

5>Z0:.VZG0;101Fence and water repay1

)7463.VZG0;101

)7463.J04.Y;?7F0

)7463

$9,995.08$17,318.22$6,618.20

$261.50

$Xc%'-XM""

$18,750.00$5,979.24$1,900.39

$707.15$1,000.00

$415.51$501.30$317.55$553.50$120.00

$25.00$800.00$482.66

$300.20$X'%#&!M&"

$!%Xc"M&"

90=.+?=0

$999.51$1,731.82

$661.82$26.15

$X%c'-MX"

$1,875.00$597.92$190.04$70.72

$100.00

$41.55$50.13$31.76$55.35$12.00

$2.50$80.00$48.27

$30.02$X%'#&M!&

$!XcM"&

90=.96>=LQ06:

$333.17$577.27$735.36

$8.72

$'%(&cM&!

$625.00$664.36$63.35$23.57$33.33

$13.85$16.71$10.59$18.45$4.00

$0.83$26.67$16.09

$10.01$'%&!(M#"

$'![M['

—— 127



Project Location

From Redwood Falls travel 9 miles south on Hwy 71, turneast on Hwy 68 and travel 2 ~ miles. The project is locatedon the north side of the highway.

Other Resources

:.0$52%Q$7%8$$/%^*"9$E 1414 West Main, P.O. Box 127,Albert Lea, MN 56007, 800-352-5247. Web site:www.alseed.com

U757#0"56%\*576$E Web site: http://www.barusa.comExcellent source for information and seed specially bredfor graZing.

4.$;25-;%\$#;$%A$9-6#E Web site:http://www.foothill.net/-ringram/design.html Excellentsource on designing an electric fence system.

\*576$%>#=*5+72-*#%8192$+9E Web site:http://www.forages.css.orst.edu

\*576$%8192$+9%a$9$75;3%)$#2$5E% Linn County, Missouri.Web site: http://aes.missouri.edu/fsrcl

`*+,$52B%F$551E bnox County Extension Educator. P.O.Box 45, Center, NE 68724, 402-288-4224. Mr. Gomperthas assisted several farmers with graZing corn and graZedhis own cattle on corn.

F3$%82*;V+7#%`5799%\75+$5E$$P.O. Box 2300, Ridgeland,MS 39158-2300, 800-748-9808. Monthly publicationdevoted to graZing.

University of Wisconsin Extension. 1997. <792"5$9%=*5,5*=-2H%:%6"-/$%2*%5*272-*#7.%657]-#6E WI No. A3529 orMN No. AG-FO-6145. University of Wisconsin ExtensionService, Madison, WI, 608-262-3346 or University ofMinnesota Extension Distribution Center, 612-625-8173.

128 ——


Livestock • Harmon

Increasing Quality and Quantity of PIncreasing Quality and Quantity of PIncreasing Quality and Quantity of PIncreasing Quality and Quantity of PIncreasing Quality and Quantity of PastureastureastureastureastureFFFFForage with Management Intensive Grazing asorage with Management Intensive Grazing asorage with Management Intensive Grazing asorage with Management Intensive Grazing asorage with Management Intensive Grazing asan Alteran Alteran Alteran Alteran Alternative to the Grazing of Wnative to the Grazing of Wnative to the Grazing of Wnative to the Grazing of Wnative to the Grazing of Wooded Looded Looded Looded Looded Landandandandand

Project Summary

Many north central Minnesota farms have woodsin or adjacent to their pastureland. Economicconditions have increased the cutting of privatewoodland and the regeneration is vulnerable tograZing. Michael Harmon fenced 80 acres ofhis wooded land out of his pasture and is usingmanagement intensive graZing of his beef herdto improve the quality and quantity of the foragein the remaining pastures to avoid the need toovergraZe his wooded land.

Project Description

Over half of Michael HarmonJs 280 acre farm iswooded with 100 acres of pasture, 20 tillableacres and the remaining land managed for timberproduction. The farm is located in theMississippi Headwaters State Forest. While heraises crossbred Piedmontese steers and heiferson grass and direct markets lean, low fat beef,the main source of family income is logging.

The pastureland had been divided into two largepaddocks that were overgraZed and sufferingfrom the invasion of undesirable plants thatincreased every year. Mike also found that hewas feeding hay to the beef herd earlier everyyear as grass quantities declined. He had beengraZing cattle on what grass was available in hiswooded areas along withthe open grass pastures.He noticed that, aftercutting timber, theregeneration wasespecially vulnerable tocattle graZing, resulting inlosses to both theeconomic value of futuretimber and forestbiodiversity. Heresponded to theseobservations by fencing80 acres of woodland tolimit cattle access and


Michael HarmonRR 2, Box 348

Shevlin, MN 56676218-657-2592

Clearwater County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

beef cattle,management

intensive graZing,organic livestock

production,rotational graZing,

woodlot protection

planning a management intensive graZing systemto improve the quality and quantity of forage onthe remaining acres.

Mike is also concerned about the availability ofwater and predation by timber wolves. The herdcan return to the farmstead for water fromseveral of the paddocks but Mike is anticipatingadding tanks and water lines to other nearbypaddocks as well as to two remote paddockswhere the cattle are currently watered from farmponds. The farm is surrounded by state forestand has timber wolf habitat to the east. Sincelosing a calf in a documented timber wolf killten years ago, Mike has concerns aboutexposing the herd in the remote paddocks. Thisyear the cattle were harassed by a timber wolf/German shepherd cross. There was no loss oflife but many animals suffered wire cuts.

Results

With the help of his two sons, Mike divided histwo large pastures and occasionally pasturedhay fields into six paddocks in 1999 using acombination of single wire electric fence andbarbed wire. To address his wolf concerns,Mike decided to use the two remote paddockslast, allowing calves to grow larger and thusless vulnerable to wolves.

Cattle grazing in a 30 year old aspen stand

—— 129



During the second year of the project,Mike fenced 40 acres of wooded landthat included pockets of 15 year oldregenerated aspen. The cattle wereallowed to browse this area three timesduring the summer for a week each time.He thought that the graZing wouldincrease forage quantity during hot, drymonths and reduce the competitionamong the young trees. However, thegraZing caused greater thinning of theaspen stems than anticipated and thecattle did not utiliZe the understoryenough to reduce competition. Mikealso limited cattle access to the springfed stock ponds to protect water quality.

The average number of days eachpaddock was graZed in 2000 was lowestin May and October (6.5 and 7 days)when cool season grasses were growingfastest, increasing to the maximum inAugust and September (12.3 and 18days) when grass growth had slowedbecause of higher temperatures.

Mike is seeing many positive effects ofrotational graZing. Short-term resultsencourage long-term practices such aslimited graZing in wooded and riparianareas. After just one year, Mikeobserved a slowing of the weed invasionas well as an increase in forage quantityand quality. After the second year, Mikeobserved improved animal health (fewerparasites) and behavior - the cattle aremore playful. He finds it is easier tolocate the herd with the smaller paddocksystem.

The results of the second year ofmanagement intensive graZing aresummariZed in Table 1. Mike more than doubled his grossmargin per graZing acre (gross profit per acre minus variablecosts per acre) from 1999 to 2000 by increasing hislivestock sales in 2000 and keeping his costs low. Hisgross margin in 1999 was o27.03/Ad it was o58.53/A in2000. Mike attributes the increased income to better marketprices and direct market sales. The herd was certifiedorganic in 2000 and Mike anticipates that 2001 sales willincrease by 30m.

Management Tips

1. Management intensive graZing is a low cost way toexpand a farmJs productivity. The benefits are limitedonly by your degree of involvement.

2. Identifying short-term results from your long-termstrategies will encourage you to make the added investmentof time and money.

Table 1. Harmon Grazing Enterprise and 2000 GrossMargin Analysis

Number of acres in MIG pastureNumber of paddocks

Type of livestockTotal number of animalsAnimal units [(total no. of animals x avg. wt.)/1000]Number of animal units/A

Date animals began grazingDate animals stopped grazingTotal number of days on pastureEstimated labor/day

Tons of hay baled from pastures

^=711./0P0;20% Calf crop

Market steers soldBeef soldCull cows sold as hamburger

)7463.^=711./0P0;20.K633.=0?0>G41N

^=711./0P0;20.G0=.^=6T>;A.+?=0

e6=>6E30. K*24a7Oa97?C04N.VZG0;101?*$2&'(05,@005,;#()(AChopped oats and cornMineral/salts

)7463.92=?@610:.500:

96142=0. 6;:.*G0=64>;A.VZG0;101Weed control - hand weeding timeElectricitySupplies

Fuel costsRepair costsLivestock hauling

)7463.96142=0.6;:.*G0=64>;A.VZG0;101

)7463.e6=>6E30.H7141

e6=>6E30.H7141.G0=.^=6T>;A.+?=0

^=711.]6=A>;.G0=.^=6T>;A.+?=0

1106

beef41200.5

May 10October 26

1661 hour

37

96

$3,000$3,500$1,200

$[%[""

$["

$225$310

$&X&

$100$5$62

$10$60$600

$#X[

$'%X[!

$'!Mc[

$&#M&X

130 ——


Cooperators

F$551%Z$##-;3B Clearwater County Extension, Bagley, MNU5";$%)*WB Clearwater County Land Commissioner,

Bagley, MN

Project Location

South of Shevlin 15 miles on Cty 2, or 3 miles north ofLake Itasca. At the Itasca Fire Department, go 1 mile easton Twp Rd 108 then north 2 miles on Twp Rd 138. Theroad narrows and ends at the farm.

Other Resources

:;5$9%[8:E P. O. Box 91299, Austin, T� 78709,800-355-5313. email: infouacresusa.com

:,,5*,5-72$% F$;3#*.*61% F57#9=$5% =*5% a"57.% :5$79S:FFa:TE P. O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702,800-346-9140. Available at: http://www.attra.org

F3$%82*;V+7#%`5799%\75+$5E P. O. Box 2300, Ridgeland,MS 39158-2300, 800-748-9808. Monthly publicationdevoted to graZing.

University of Wisconsin Extension Service. 1993. <792"5$9=*5%,5*=-2H%%:%6"-/$%2*%5*272-*#7.%657]-#6E WI No. A3529

Mike is happy with managementintensive grazing

or MN Publication No. AG-FO-6145. University ofWisconsin Extension Service, Madison, WI, 608-262-3346or University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul,MN, 612-625-8173.


—— 131


Livestock • Miller

Project Summary

A growing farm, growing family and growingsatisfaction with their way of life havecharacteriZed Dan and Cara MillerJs graZing andhaying system. Dan and Cara evaluated newgrass and legume combinations in a graZing andhaying system as well as evaluated the costsand benefits of conventional seeding, frostseeding, and drilling. They closely monitoredlivestock performance and profitability under amanagement intensive graZing system.

Project Description

Since the beginning of their project in 1998, Danand Cara Miller have expanded their farm from120 acres to a 236 acre farm with 206 tillableacres. Their Spring calley farm is establishedon gently rolling, silt-loam soils, with Springcalley Creek flowing through the northern halfof the farm. Crops consist of several differentcombinations of grasses and legumes. Thesecrops are graZed by 20 to 56 custom-graZedHolstein heifers and their own purebred Angusherd of about 40 animals, with the surplus madeinto hay.

The graZing system is a good match with theirlabor supply and, from their perspective, is themost environmentally friendly system they couldadopt. Managing andmoving the livestock onpasture is a family eventthat has brought themcloser together. Theyenjoy the green pastures,healthy cattle, trees, birdsand the serenity of Springcalley Creek. TheMillers received the 1998Conservation Farmer ofthe iear award from theFillmore County Soil andWater ConservationDistrict.

LLLLLow Input Conversion of CRP Low Input Conversion of CRP Low Input Conversion of CRP Low Input Conversion of CRP Low Input Conversion of CRP Land to aand to aand to aand to aand to aHigh Profitability Management IntensiveHigh Profitability Management IntensiveHigh Profitability Management IntensiveHigh Profitability Management IntensiveHigh Profitability Management IntensiveGrazing and Haying SystemGrazing and Haying SystemGrazing and Haying SystemGrazing and Haying SystemGrazing and Haying System


Dan and Cara MillerRR 1, Box 241

Spring calley, MN55975

507-346-2261Fillmore County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Author: Greg Booth

Keywords

beef cattle, dairyheifers, forageestablishment,

forage mixtures,graZing, livestock

handling

Hay storage facilities include a new 62J x 100Jhoop building, an 1880-vintage 2-story barnmeasuring 30J x 60J that can hold up to 3,500square bales in the mow, and a pole shed lean-tothat can accommodate approximately 100 1,200lb round bales. In the former parlor area of theold barn, the Millers built a livestock handlingarea with scale and chute. Their lean line ofequipment includes a 65-horse gasoline tractorand loader, a discbine, a four bottom 16”moldboard plow, an 11J disk, a drag, a digger,an eight bale round bale transport, a hayrack,several round bale feeders, and a 6J rough cutrotary mower. The most frequently usedequipment is a John Deere 4-wheel �GatorJ thatis used to transport people, water tanks andlightweight step-in posts and reels of polywire.

In 1997 the Millers plowed the 40 southern mostacres of the farm and soil tested, fertiliZed, andlimed according to University of Minnesotarecommendations. Dan seeded 12 lb of alfalfa,5 lb of Palaton reed canarygrass, and 3 bu ofoats per acre. They hayed this ground twiceand graZed it once during the summer of 1997.They also used a no-till drill on some permanentbentucky bluegrass pasture and inter-seededLincoln smooth brome and Orion orchardgrass.In March 1998, Dan frost seeded about 20 acresusing a combination of 2 lb of Marathon red

Dan speaking at a field day

132 ——


clover, 2 lb of common alsyke clover,and 2 lb of common ladino clover peracre. On April 20, 1998, Dan seededthree separate plot trials usingconventional seeding tools of a plow,disk, digger, drag and drill. On March17, 1999, Dan frost seeded ten acreswith 2 lb Ladino clover, 2 lb Marathonred clover, and 2 lb of Alice whitegraZing clover. This was not hayed in1999 and went right into a light graZingrotation. In July 2000, the Millerspurchased an additional 116 acres oftillable land adjacent to their farm. Danworked this in the fall of 2000 with afield cultivator, tested the soil, andapplied 3 tons of lime per acre. He didsome additional cultivation after thelime was added and plans to seed it to10 lb of alfalfa, 8 lb Palaton reed canaryand 2s bu oats per acre. Other fall2000 work included fencingapproximately half of the new acreageand planning for more cross-fencing forintensive rotational graZing. On thefarmJs original acreage, Dan also keptrecords on the response of alfalfa topotassium fertiliZation in the graZing/haying system.

Results

On May 15, 1998, 56 Holstein heiferswere delivered to the farm and weighed.The Holsteins consisted of 28 head of�lightweightJ heifers and 28 �heavyJ heifers. Thegroups were graZed until mid-October when theywere run through the chute in the barn andweighed again. The lightweight group had beenfed 2.8 lb of ground corn and Rumensen perhead per day in addition to the pasture. The�heavyJ group had been fed only pasture andtrace mineral salt. On May 5, 1999, the Millersreceived a group of 41 heavy Holstein heifersthat graZed for 161 days until October 24, 1999.As in 1998, these heavy heifers were fed onlypasture and trace mineral salt. On May 15,2000, 20 Holstein heifers were received andweighed. This group graZed 162 days with anaverage daily gain of 1.82 lb. The Millersprovided supplements of trace mineral withselenium, and 2 lb of corn to the ten lightestcows. Table 1 shows the data on animal weights

Table 2. Angus Cow/Calf Performance 1998, 1999, and2000

Calf Weaning PercentageAverage Calf Weight Coming Off PastureAverage Cow Weight Gain

88%591 lb144 lb

!"""

94%567 lb142 lb

'---

92.3%450 lb146 lb

'--#

Table 3. Relative Performance of Grasses for Yield andQuality

Palaton Reed CanarygrassLincoln Smooth BromeOrion OrchardgrassBarcel Tall FescueClimax Timothy

DG0?>01

12345

*P0=633./6;C>;Ag

42153

j263>4<L963646E>3>4<g

14235

S>03:g

*Ranking where 1=best.

Heifers enjoying lush pastures


Table 1. Custom Grazing Results for 1998, 1999, and 2000

Average Wt UponArrival

Average Wt UponDeparture

Grazing DaysSupplements

Average GainAverage Daily Gain

451 lb

707 lb

160 lb2.8 lb corn/day +

Rumensen

255 lb1.84 lb/day

861 lb

1157 lb

161 lbT.M. salt

block

296 lb1.84 lb/day

675 lb

970 lb

162 lbT.M. salt block(½ had 2 lbscorn/day)

295 lb1.82 lb/day

Q73140>;Q0>O0=1

!"""'---'--#

+P0=6A0.7O .!"6;>F631

+P0=6A0.7O .c'6;>F631

+P0=6A0..7O .!#3>[email protected];>F631

+P0=6A0..7O .!#@06P<. 6;>F631

987 lb

1242 lb

144 lbT.M. salt block

254 lb1.8 lb/day

—— 133



and average daily weight gains for allthree years.

In addition to custom graZing, thesepastures supported the MillersJ ownpurebred Angus herd of 30 to 40animals. They had an average weanedcalf percentage 3.8m higher than thestate average, while their mother cowsgraZing the pasture gained weight andbody score while continuing to producemilk for their calves. By 2000, the lastyear of the project, the Millers hadincreased their permanent cattle herd byseven and had good success marketingpurebred breeding bulls. The 2000 calfcrop was 88m, with an average weaningweight of 591 lb (614 lb when adjustedfor standard 205 day weaning). Cowsgained an average of 144 lb during thegraZing season and had a significantimprovement in body condition (Table2).

Dan and Cara evaluated different foragespecies and varieties for a graZing andhaying system. Their early observationsranking the grasses for yield, quality/palatability, and overall performancerelated to the perennial cool seasongrasses are shown in Table 3. Forageanalysis of the oat-hay plot planted in1998 had a relative feed value of 80.The alfalfa/Palaton reed canarygrasshay field planted in 1997 tested with arelative feed value of 110. Pastureclippings from the various pastureseedings ranged from a relative feedvalue of 170 to 200. Although theMillers had planned on doing moredetailed, plot by plot forage analysis,they decided instead to rely on stockingrates and hay yields to measure thequantity of forage production.

Even though it has very good forage quality, Dan and Caradid not plant perennial ryegrass because of its persistenceproblems and tendency to winterkill. They do think it mayhave promise if it can overcome these problems. Theyhave been disappointed in the annual ryegrass as a nursecrop for the alfalfa and the fescue seedlings. Its hay yieldwas low and it competed too aggressively with the alfalfaseedlings. However, they were very impressed by the reed

canary/alfalfa mix for both haying and graZing. Also, thefrost seeded clover paddocks maintained high stocking ratesthroughout the season. Of course the clovers are lesssuitable for haying as they dry slower and generally yieldless.

Through the summer of 1998 they harvested 266 roundbales averaging 1,200 lb from 43.4 acres. Assuming a

Table 4. Miller Gross Margin Analysis 2000

Number of acres in MIG pastureNumber of paddocks

Type of livestockTotal number of animalsAnimal units [(total no. of animals x avg. wt.)/1000]Number of animal units/A

Date animals began grazingDate animals stopped grazingTotal number of days on pastureEstimated labor/day

Tons of hay baled from pastures

9=7:2?4>P>4<. 7O .96142=0Average daily gain (lb/head on pasture heifers% Calf crop

^=711.9=7O>4. O=7F.96142=>;A.+?=01Calves sold - Custom Dairy, Inc.Increased value of beef calvesIncreased value of Angus cows, etc.

)7463.^=711./0P0;20.K633.=0?0>G41N

^=711./0P0;20.G0=.^=6T>;A.+?=0

e6=>6E30. K*24a7Oa97?C04N.VZG0;101Purchased Feed Costs:CornMineral/salts

)7463.92=?@610:.500:

,>P0147?C%.96142=0. 6;:.*G0=64>;A.VZG0;101Fly spray and wormerWeed controlSeed

FertilizerCustom harvesting/baling forageElectricity

SuppliesFuel costsRepair costs

)7463.,>P0147?C%.96142=0.6;:.*G0=64>;A.VZG0;101

)7463.e6=>6E30.H7141

e6=>6E30.H7141.G0=.^=6T>;A.+?=0

^=711.]6=A>;. G0=.^=6T>;A.+?=0

78 pasture, 27 hay49

beef & Holstein heifers8483

1.06

May 15October 24

1621 hour

111 @ $50/ton

1.8288

$4,050$13,900$2,789

$!(%!#-

$!&"

$470$50

$&!"

$261$406$271

$1,681$1,258$301

$100$200$100

$c%&[#

$&%"-#

$c#M&&

$!"'Mc&

134 ——


3-cut schedule/year, this equals a 3.7 tons/A yield. In 1999,in addition to graZing, the Millers used excess forage tomake an average of 4.1 tons/A of hay. In late March 2000,Dan broadcast spread 120 lbs urea on 50 acres of reedcanarygrass where the alfalfa was not as prevalent. Mixedwith the fertiliZer was 2 lb red clover and 2 lb Alice whitegraZing clover per acre. On 27 of those acres, the Millersharvested 148 1,500 lb bales for a total of 111 tons, or4.11 ton/A yield.

The economic picture has been one of the MillersJ projecthighlights. Dan and CaraJs record keeping has shown thatcustom heifer graZing can return about 14m on assets, orabout o200 to o250/A on their farm. A more detailedanalysis is found in Table 4.

Management Tips

1. A scale and a chute are indispensable tools to measurewhatJs happening with the livestock. Safe animal handlingfacilities are a must. An alley and sweep tub are alsouseful tools.

2. Only clovers frost seed well and they must be seededearly.

3. One inch black plastic water pipe with ball valves onthe surface of the ground work well to provide water toeach paddock. Animals should not have to walk morethan 800J to water.

4. Dan recommends permanent perimeter fences of 12.5gauge high tensile wire with spring gates and interiortemporary fences of polywire on reels supported with step-in posts.

5. Alfalfa is probably the best legume for haying andperhaps graZing although it requires a soil pH of 6.3 orgreater, does not frost seed well, and persists three to fiveyears at best.

6. Move cattle every three days or so. Put cattle on apaddock when the forage is 10” high and remove themwhen it is 5” high.

7. It pays to worm cattle and use Rumensen.

8. Oats is still the best nurse or companion crop DanJsseen.

9. An A.T.c. is a useful tool for checking cattle and fenceand moving fencing supplies.

10. Custom seeding with a blower is highly efficient, evenwhen taking into account the additional seed required.Finishing with a culti-packer improves results.

Cooperators

!$551%F$9+$5B%Fillmore County Extension Educator, Preston, MN

U5";$%)35-92-7#9*#B Houston County Extension Educator,Caledonia, MN

^"63%)3$92$5I!*#$9B University of Minnesota SouthernResearch & Outreach Center, Waseca, MM

F*+%45375/2B Albert Lea Seed House, Albert Lea, MN`$*56$%e-++$5+7#B NRCS, Preston, MN<7".%<$2$59*#B University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Project Location

One and one-half miles east of Spring calley on Hwy 16and 1s miles north on gravel road between Hyland Motorsand the white Amoco fuel storage tanks.

Other Resources

:.0$52%Q$7%8$$/%^*"9$E 1414 W. Main, P.O. Box 127,Albert Lea, MN 56007, 800-352-5247.Web site: www.alseed.com

Bartlett, Ben. 1999. @72$5-#6% 9192$+9% =*5% 657]-#6.-C$92*;VE Michigan State University, P.O. Box 168,Chatham, MI 49816, 906-439-5880.

`57]$IQ% $+7-.% /-9;"99-*#% 65*",% (graZe-lucygnus.taranaki.ac.nZ). There is also an archive of pastdiscussions at the web site: http://graZel.taranaki.ac.nZ

F3$%82*;V+7#%`5799%\75+$5E%P.O. Box 2300, Ridgeland,MS 39158-2300, 800-748-9808. Monthly publicationdevoted to graZing.

University of Wisconsin Extension Service. >/$#2-=1-#6,792"5$%65799$9E Publication No. A3637. University ofWisconsin Extension Publications, 630 Mifflin Street, Room170, Madison, WI 53703, 608-262-3346. A spiral bound4” x 8” color pocketbook with information on seed, seedlingand mature stages of all the major cool season pasturegrasses, tailored to the north central region.

University of Wisconsin Extension Service. 1997. <792"5$9=*5%,5*=-2H%%:%6"-/$%2*%5*272-*#7.%657]-#6E WI No. A3529or MN No. AG-FO-6145. University of WisconsinExtension Service, Madison, WI, 608-262-3346 orUniversity of Minnesota Extension Distribution Center,612-625-8173.


—— 135


Livestock • Northwest Minnesota Grazing Group

Project Summary

Delivering recommended amounts of energy,vitamins, and minerals to improve calving,lactation and rebreeding to dairy cattle onpastures or dry lots is a problem all dairy farmersencounter. Four dairy farmers in northwestMinnesota will demonstrate increased growthrates and higher feed efficiency while loweringlabor and feed costs through the use of portableself-contained automated feeders that are capableof accurately delivering feed supplements.These feeders will provide various amounts offeed on a timed basis using a 12-vdc batterycharged with a small solar energy maintainer.

Project Description

The four participants of the NorthwestMinnesota GraZing Group are dairy and cropfarmers. The farms have between 25 and 40head of dairy animals. The crops raised includealfalfa hay or haylage, corn for grain or silage,oats, barley, and wheat. The labor resource onthe farms is family and contract labor forchopping the forages. Soil type in the region isprimarily sandy loam and the topography is flatwith small sand ridges.

The participants are demonstrating an automatedfeeder (SAF) manufactured by SheyenneAdvanced Feeding Systems, Inc. located inCooperstown, North Dakota. This feeder is 16Jlong, holds about threetons of feed, and has an18J feed bunk. The feedercan feed up to 30 youngheifers or 15 to 20 drycows at one time. Theretail price for the feederis about o4,500. Thebenefit of the SAF feederis that feed can be storedon remote pastures andfed at frequent intervalsduring the day using abattery powered systemwith a timer.

Supplement FSupplement FSupplement FSupplement FSupplement Feeding Daireeding Daireeding Daireeding Daireeding Dairy Cattle on Py Cattle on Py Cattle on Py Cattle on Py Cattle on Pastureastureastureastureasturewith Awith Awith Awith Awith Automated Concentrate Futomated Concentrate Futomated Concentrate Futomated Concentrate Futomated Concentrate Feedereedereedereedereeder


NorthwestMinnesota GraZing

Groupc/o Burkel Grain

Service Inc.PO Box J

Greenbush, MN56726

218-782-2121Roseau/Mahnomen

Counties

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

automatic feeder, drylot feeding, pasture

feeding, solarpowered,

supplemental feeddelivery

The savings to the farm operations come fromtime and equipment not being used to transportfeed on a daily basis. With this system the cattleare fed on a regular schedule and better utiliZepastures and other forages. The animals used inthis project will be evaluated using two methods.Heifers will be tape weighed and the close upheifers and dry cows will be body scored.

Results

The project started late in the season in 1999when the SAF feeders were delivered. Oneproject farmer started using the feeder on August10, two farmers began in early September, andone began in December. The results for eachfarm described below are for 1999 and 2000.

T47"'*##%#$'B($5< John Seeger used the SAFfeeder with 33 heifer calves for 111 daysbeginning on August 10, 1999. For that period,John fed a total of 24,050 lb of feed, which was6.56 lb/head/day. The weight gain on the heiferswas 2.1 to 2.5 lb/animal/day.

The ration on the John Seeger farm consisted of:Barley 6,200 lbCorn 1,550 lbSoybean Meal 1,300 lbMineral with Bovatec 500 lbLiquid Molasses 500 lb

David & Bill Shafer describe the automatic feeder

136 ——


On June 1, 2000, John moved 25 Holstein heifers averaging420 lb to the pasture. The supplemental grain mix wasautomatically delivered to the heifers three times a day.The calves were rotated to new pastures every three days.Through August 15 they graZed on bentucky bluegrass,reed canarygrass, quackgrass, and bromegrass. FromAugust 15 through September they graZed old alfalfa. InOctober they were in corn stalks and in November andearly December cattle were in the yard and fed alfalfa hayand grain. On December 5 the heifers averaged 888 lbwith an average daily gain of 2.48 lb/day.

F($$&'Q.$8#.)#'B($5< Barry birkeide deployed the SAFfeeder on September 2, 1999 to supplement bred Holsteinheifers and dry cows in the dry lot. Barry wants to increasethe growth rates of the heifers to attain a target calving ageof 24 to 26 months. He figures a gain of o150 to o200/head/year when heifers calve in this 24 to 26 month agebracket. Other benefits are increased lifetime productionand decreases in metabolic problems when you can calvein this range.

There was an increase in the heifersJ growth rates after thefeeder was used. The growth rate for the heifers on pastureduring the summer was 1.5 lb/head/day. After the SAFfeeder was deployed for 60 days the heifersJ growth rateincreased to 2 lb/day.

The ration Barry ised to supplement the heifers is a 14mration consisting of:Barley 825 lbOats 825 lbSunflowers 100 lb46m Soybean Meal 100 lb38m Extruded Soybean Meal 100 lbBrood Cow Mineral with Bovatec 50 lb

They moved the feeder to their heifer pasturein May 2000. The heifers had a gain of 2.3 lb/head/day for the pasture season that ended thefirst of November. The development of theheifers has been excellent and heats andbreeding improved. When the first group ofheifers freshened there was a great reduction ofretained placentas and less metabolic disordersthan previous years. The body conditionimproved one full score on a 1-5 scale.

N(:.)'(")'F.00'*27(;#$'B($5< David and BillSchafer started using a SAF feeder onSeptember 3, 1999 to feed dry cows and bredheifers while on pasture. Their goal was toimprove calving, lactation, and rebreeding. In

October, the cattle were moved to a dry lot and the feederwas used here to supply the supplements. They fed ninepounds of the grain mix per day with the automatic feeder.The feeder also had an impact on reducing labor by one toone and one-half hours/day.

The ration used on the Schafer farm consisted of:Cracked Corn 870 lb16m Dairy Flakes 1,000 lbDairy Premium Mix 75 lbcitamin E 20,000 5 lbLiquid Molasses 5 gal

David and Bill noticed a decrease in the number of retainedplacentas after they began using the SAF feeder anddelivering the recommended levels of energy, vitamins, andminerals to the cattle. From January 1 to August 31, 1999they recorded 52 calvings and had 15 retained placentas, a29m retained rate. From September 1 to December 31,1999 they had 24 calvings with only two retained placentas,an 8.5m retained rate.

They figure that there is quite an economic benefit ofreducing retained placentas. Cows with retained placentaswill have delayed rebreeding of 20 to 45 days. The cost ofdelayed rebreeding (over 100 days post freshening) is o5.00/day. Using a 30-day average for rebreeding, the 15 cowswith retained placentas in the early group cost them o2,250.

In 2000, David and Bill continued to have a reduction inretained placentas and attribute much of that success tothe feeder providing the nutrients. Providing a steady supplyof nutrients has given them a 7 lb/day/cow increase in milkproduction during peak lactation.

3(+0'(")'*(")&'N+$(&'B($5E The Durays deployed theSAF feeder in December 1999 in their winter lot with 30

Dairy heifers eating from automatic feeder on pasture


—— 137



Holstein heifers. The animals in this group had a weightrange of 300 to 900 lb. Because of limited water access,there was no way to group the animals according to siZe.

The ration fed through the feeder was 30m cracked corn,30m rolled oats, 22m rolled barley, 10m soybean mealand corn distillers grains. The mix was supplemented withcalcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, vitamins A, D, andE, trace minerals, and Bovatec. The feeding rate was 5 to6 lb/head/day of the grain mix with alfalfa-grass mixedhay and corn silage.

The Durays increased the frequency of feeding and notedthat the large animals did not crowd the smaller animalsfor feed. This improved the rate of gain on the smalleranimals in the group. This group of heifers gained 2.2 lb/head/day on average. The heifers began showing heatcycles 30 to 60 days earlier than previously observed.

The heifers were moved to a native grass pasture in earlyJune 2000. The pasture is one and one-half miles awayfrom the farm. Feed storage has always been a problem atthis site. The SAF feeder provides feed storage for four tofive weeks for 30 head. The heifers were on the pastureuntil November 10. The weight of the heifers averaged180 lb heavier than previous years, with a definiteimprovement in their physical appearance and health.

The advantage to the Durays operation is that these animalsare large enough to breed earlier and calve at 23 to 25months of age. The economic gain of o160 to o200/headtranslates to about o5,400 gain when heifers calf at an earlierage instead of the usual 26 to 28 months.

Management Tips

1. The SAF feeder gets a job done that is often overlookedbecause of time constraints. It is a real labor saver andprovides supplement at various times throughout the day.

2. There is an increased growth rate of heifers, improvementin heats, and numbers of services per conception whenproviding supplements on a regular basis.

3. Having a covered feeder in the pasture allows formultiple-day amounts of feed to be stored in remotepastures.

4. There is less feed wasted with this feeder than if feedingon the ground or with self-feeders.

5. The solar powered battery system works well to providesupplements in remote areas.

6. A great time to observe the conditions of the cattle iswhen the SAF feeder starts up and delivers the grainbecause all of the cattle come to eat.

Cooperators

!*3#%8$$6$5B%Mahnomen, MNU7551%_-5V$-/$, Greenbush, MNA7C-/%7#/%U-..%8;37=$5, Strathcona, MN<7".%7#/%87#/1%A"571B%Greenbush, MN!$5*+$%U"5V$.B Burkel Grain Service Inc., Greenbush, MNc-#;$%)5751B Polk County Extension, McIntosh, MNA$##-9%!*3#9*#B Dairy Scientist, West Central Research

& Outreach Center, Morris, MN`$*56$%P75W9B Dairy Scientist, NW Experiment Station,

Crookston, MNQ*5$#%c-6$977B President, Sheyenne Advanced Feeding

Systems, Inc., Cooperstown, North Dakota

Project Location

Contact Jerome Burkel at Burkel Grain Service Inc. fordirections to farms involved in this project.

138 ——


Livestock • Rabe

Project Summary

By using a whole farm system approach tofarming, we continue to demonstrate that adiversified beef and hog farm can generate agood income for a family. Demonstrating thisapproach shows that small farms can be bothprofitable and environmentally friendly.

Beginning in 1996, we have had the goal ofnetting o150/A on our 310 acre livestock andcrop farm. We are working to achieve this goalthrough a diverse combination of crops, pasture,livestock and various marketing efforts.AnalyZing the business in a whole farm manneris different than enterprise analysis. Theenterprise analysis approach does not give me agood picture of how the whole farm is doing.

Project Description

In our whole system management approach, allcrops are grown to meet livestock needs.Livestock is used to improve land, recyclenutrients, and provide a valuable product to sell.Net returns are calculated on the “Total Farm�sNet” divided by all 310 acres (even thehomestead and woods) rather than on anenterprise budget. The net profit goal for ourfarm is o47,250, a good middle class income.To achieve this goal we constantly analyZe ouroperation and make management changes whenchanges will help us achieve those goals.

Changes on our farm over the last 12 yearsincluded: 1) developing a beef herd which isefficient and fed on grass, not on high input cornd2) pasture farrowing hogs to reduce labor,improve herd health, and improve soil qualityd3) switched to deep-litter farrowing from raisedcrates to lower costs and improve sowsJ healthd4) eliminated as much machinery as possible,custom hiring field workd and 5) direct andcooperative marketing of pork and beef productsto add value.


Dennis RabeRR 1, Box 135Lake City, MN

55041651-345-4915

Wabasha County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

antibiotic free beefand hogs, deep litter

farrowing,marketing, pasture

farrowing, wholefarm system

Whole System ManagementWhole System ManagementWhole System ManagementWhole System ManagementWhole System Managementvs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Enterprise ManagementEnterprise ManagementEnterprise ManagementEnterprise ManagementEnterprise Management

Results

Land stewardship is not something you can puta dollar value on. For me it is very importantand is something that I feel very strongly about.As our beef herd grows in numbers our landstewardship improves. More cows mean moreforage and pasture. Rotational graZingmanagement is a must if you want to see yourland improve.

luality of life has improved since moving to alower input style of farming. Since we startedusing pastures as a main feed source for thecattle and as an area for farrowing sows, we doless work than the conventional system farms.Our main work is outside with the animals andthat is enjoyable and rewarding.

We have not been able to achieve the goal ofnetting o150.00/A, but keeping that level of profitin mind has helped us make good managementdecisions for the operation. In 1998 we nettedo109/A, only o75/A in 1999, and o124/A in 2000.

Dennis showing the paddock system

—— 139


Livestock • Rabe

In 1998 our production system was the same, but our hogincome was down about o28,000. By being diversified,using pasture and low input livestock production, we stillshowed a fair profit. We knew going into 1998 that hogswere on the down market cycle, but we never expected itto get so low for so long. We did make up some of our losthog income by finishing out more cattle and by loweringour expenses.

We only netted o75/A in 1999 because the farm economywas still struggling. We had our poorest net per acre sincewe started striving for a specific level of profitability.However, we definitely held our own in comparison to thevery large operations.

Besides the goal of netting o150/A, we had three additionalgoals for 1999. These goals were to make all principalpayments in full, have all accounts up to date by December31, 1999, and not borrow more money or raise our operatingloan. We reached these three goals mainly by workinghard on direct marketing and increased our sales by o5,000over 1998.

Our net per acre came back up to o124/A in 2000. Ourgross income was o112,642 and farm expenses wereo74,194. The biggest difference with 2000 was that wetrimmed our expenses by o7,000, increased sales fromdirect marketing by o9,000, and had higher hog prices.

C(--0#< We started to build a young beef cow herd froman old herd in 1993. As our herd grew, we noticed howhealthy the cows looked using our rotational graZingsystem. We manage the forages by moving the cows to anew paddock every three days.

We also noticed that the cows were not consuming mineralunless we forced it by adding salt. Five years ago I quitfeeding mineral and believe the cattle do notneed mineral as long as we use rotational graZingand low stress livestock handling. Conceptionand weaning rates are high as we had 190 cowsand heifers exposed to the bulls and weaned192 calves from 1998 to 2000.

Low stress handling works very well for us. Wecall and lead the cows and never round themup. We do not vaccinate or pregnancy test thecows, therefore they never need to go through ahead chute. Our vet bill for the last three yearsfor our beef cows was o60 and that was to helpdeliver a set of twins at calving.

We also use very low stress management forcalves. We start calving about April 25 and the

calves are tagged and banded for castration. We makesure the calf nurses and the rest is up to the cow. At thistime we slow our graZing rotation way down so that thecows do not produce as much milk. This has reallydecreased scours. In 1999 we had to treat only one calffor scours, in 2000 we did not treat a single calf. Also, byslowing down the rotation, we have not had any problemswith over-siZed calves in June.

We start the weaning process in early September toeliminate weaning stress. The calves are taught to enterpaddocks by using creep gates. As the graZing seasoncomes to a close, round bales are fed in the calf graZingpads. The calves will be consuming 10 to 12 lb of hay perday before weaning. We normally wean just beforeChristmas. Since we are developing a polled herd, do notvaccinate, and are banding at birth, there is no need toround the calves up in the fall.

Our low stress management really does payw We comparedour records with the Southeast Farm Management RecordAssociation. The average cost for the association forprotein, vitamins, minerals, vet, livestock supplies and creepfeed was o52.06/cow. Our cost was o4.60/cow, adifference of o47.46.

D4%,< Our hogs are treated very much like the cattle withlow stress handling. We utiliZe both pasture farrowingand Swedish deep straw farrowing. These systems areworking well for usd we raise antibiotic free hogs and takeadvantage of those market opportunities.

We started pasture farrowing in 1998. We have two 10J x16J buildings on skids which are used for group nursing.The sows are split into two groups. Those that farrow inthe first ten days are on one end of the pasture and the

Sue Rabe discussing their marketing schemes

140 ——


Livestock • Rabe

later ones are on the other end. The piglets are groupedtogether as they get older.

We remodeled our barn in 1999 for winter farrowing ondeep straw bedding. The barn was a high input raisedcrate system requiring lots of labor and power washing.What we learned from pasture farrowing, we implementedin our indoor farrowing using deep straw methods. We feltwe could use our fiberglass A-frames inside the buildingand eliminate the need for heat.

A group of pigs that were weaned on November 15, 2000really breeZed through the cold in the remodeled barn. Oncethe deep straw starts to compost, it provides plenty of heatfor the pigs. This group of 40 to 50 lb pigs was actuallystretched out while lying on the straw. The compost willactually warm your feet when bedding pens.

The December 2000 farrowing was during one of the coldestDecembers on record. We used the plastic A-frames andhad the door shut while farrowing. The barn was maintainedat 45° with a LP heater so that the water pipes did notfreeZe. Our weaning average was low, six pigs/sow due tothe extreme cold but once the pigs were three days old, wewere able to shut off the LP heater. No heat lamps or heatpads were used. At two weeks we pulled all but one ofthe huts out of the barn. The piglets liked going into theremaining hut because it provided a draft free warm placeto sleep.

The deep straw system of pork production is quiteinteresting. It allows you to raise hogs without antibioticsand the heavy use of LP for heating. The sows live morenaturally and use their nesting instincts. The sows milkwell because they are able to exercise. It takes more timeat farrowing, but less labor overall. The only shots weuse in our pork production are a Parvo-Lepto vaccine forthe gilts and one shot of Ivomec wormer for the markethogs. Ivomec also handles winter mange. Weaning atfive to eight weeks has eliminated ileitis.

The straw system eliminated the costs of pit pumping,labor for power washing, and makes it much easier toproduce antibiotic free hogs. This also is a great use forthe straw we produce giving our cropping system anenvironmental edge. We can eliminate 10 to 15 acres ofcorn by planting oats. When we wean the pigs, the sowsare in better condition and do not have feet or leg problems.The straw system also makes the barn suitable for multipleuses. We will occasionally use a pen for cow calving or itcould be used for sheep.

C$4>>."%' *&,-#5<% With more emphasis on forageproduction, our cropping system has gone to a six-year

rotation of corn, soybeans, oats, hay, hay, and hay. Thislong rotation has been very good to us both financially andenvironmentally. We rotate our pastures into cropproduction and this really helps the fertility levels for therow crops. This rotation also has greatly reduced ourtotal crop production costs, especially the costs ofproduction per bushel of corn. Our corn production in1999 was 168 bu/A and 172 bu/A in 2000 with an averagecost of o1.55/bu using o100/A land costs and custom rates.

?($8#-."%<% Marketing is still the key to success for anysiZe farm. Our naturally raised, antibiotic free animalsoffer many marketing opportunities.

j Direct market hogs and beef to consumers at farmersJmarkets and to friends.

j Sell hogs to Niman Meats, an outlet in Iowa, and beefto boleman Natural Beef in Colorado.

j Farming with Nature Co-op. A group of four farmersthat sell one-fourth of our products directly toconsumers and three-fourths through regional foodcooperatives and grocery stores.

j Sell barbecue hogs and appreciation dinners.j Provide specialty products such as hamburgers,

meatballs, and bratwurst.j Sell feeder pigs, steers, and breeding stock to other

farmers.j We barter bred heifers in exchange for custom

combining and baling.

Direct marketing is probably the area of our operation,which has the most potential to improve our bottom line.We marketed 15m of the hogs and 20m of our beef throughdirect marketing the last two years. We are looking atmany additional possibilities such as meat delivery routesand getting some products sold through grocery stores.

We enjoy meeting people who are interested in buying ourproducts. The time spent at farmersJ markets and preparingbrochures is well worth the effort. We are noticing apattern in our sales. Sales orders are becoming muchlarger as customers get to know our product. This will beour seventh year and it takes a long time to gain thecustomerJs trust. Our main problem with direct marketingis giving the customer easy access to pick up our products.

Management Tips

1. Decide what is important to you on the farm and planfor it.

2. Reduce your machinery line and its costs where possible- investment, repairs, fuel, insurance. Always ask yourself:Do you really need this to farm| Will it make money|

—— 141


3. Soil stewardship practices implemented now will paybenefits for many years.

4. Raise only enough corn to supply livestock needs.

5. Winter cows on froZen ground (free manure hauling fornext years corn ground). Make sure to remove the cowsbefore the ground thaws in the spring.

6. Straw systems are good for sowsJ legs and addslongevity to their usefulness. Old non-insulated barns makeexcellent straw bedding systems.

7. Conduct on-farm research of production practices anddirect marketing or other value added strategies.

Project Location

From Lake City, go south on Hwy 63 to Hwy 16. Turnright on Hwy 16 and go 1 mile. Turn right on Cty 82 andgo 1 mile. Turn left at schoolhouse. The long driveway isthe first on the left.

Other Resources

Blanchet, b., H. Moechnig, and J. DeJong-Hughes. 2000.`57]-#6% 9192$+9% ,.7##-#6% 6"-/$E MN Publication No.BU-07606-S. University of Minnesota Extension Service,St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

Lamb, John. 1998. ^*?% 2*% $9270.-93% 6*7.9H% %:% 65*",,5*f$;2% =*5% =75+$59% 7#/% 23$-5% =7+-.-$9E% The MinnesotaProject, St. Paul, MN, 651-645-6159.

Loeffler, B., H. Murray, D. G. Johnson, and E. I. Fuller.1996. _#$$%/$$,%-#%65799H%%:%9"5C$1%*=%2?$#21I#-#$%657]-#6*,$572-*#9%-#%P-##$9*27E MN Publication No. BU-6693-S. University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul,MN, 800-876-8636.

MacbenZie, J. and L. bemp. 1999. @3*.$%=75+%,.7##-#672%?*5VH% 8";;$99% 92*5-$9% *=% 2$#% =75+9E% The MinnesotaProject, St. Paul, MN, 651-645-6159.

Minnesota Whole Farm Planning Working Group. 1997.@3*.$% =75+% ,.7##-#6H% @372% -2% 27V$9E MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture, 90 W. Plato Blvd., St. Paul,MN, 651-296-7673.

Mulla, D., L. Everett, and G. DiGiacomo. 1998. @3*.$=75+%,.7##-#6H%)*+0-#-#6%=7+-.1B%,5*=-2B%7#/%$#C-5*#+$#2EMN Publication No. BU-6985-S. University of MinnesotaExtension Service, St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 2001. ^*691*"5%?71H%)3**9-#6%7%3*6%,5*/";2-*#%9192$+%-#%23$%",,$5+-/?$92E% MN Publication No. BU-7641-S. University ofMinnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.Joint publication by the Minnesota Institute for SustainableAgriculture, University of Minnesota Extension Service,and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture designed tohelp farmers make decisions on how to raise hogs in a waythat fits their overall personal, family, and financial goals.

Livestock • Rabe

142 ——


Project Summary

Management intensive graZing is a powerful toolfor healing the land, but graZing alone may notreplace the need to import nutrients, organicmatter, and seed to replenish the soil. LibertyLand and Livestock is focusing on pastures oflow to moderate productivity with the goal ofmaking them producers of lush forage that shouldadvance our sheep farm to a higher plateau ofoverall health. To achieve this goal, we havebeen analyZing the soil and plant tissue for plantnutrient availability and forage quality, thensupplying slow release fertiliZers and manure,and finally monitoring for changes in pasture andanimal health. At the conclusion of our threeyear project, we are seeing promising results.

Project Description

After seriously practicing management intensivegraZing for nearly a decade, we reached a plateauin pasture forage production. We have spentyears learning and practicing the basic principlesof good pasture management (timing of graZingand rest periods, animal stocking rates andpaddock design), but the pastures still sufferedfrom bare spots, thinning and a general lack ofproductivity. We have tried reseeding andfertiliZing the original pastures but this did notimprove soil biologicalactivity. We have alsotried to establish newpastures but all of ourattempts have failed toproduce lush growth.

Liberty Land andLivestock is a 180 acrefarm of which we haveconverted 75 acres to anintensively managedpasture system. Our fourpastures currently carry200 accelerated lambingDorset ewes and up to 15Jersey steers. The


Doug Rathke andConnie barstensLiberty Land and

Livestock61231 MN Hwy. 7

Hutchinson, MN55350-8020

320-587-6094Meeker County

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Keywords

animal health,management

intensive graZing,pasture

improvement, soilquality

RRRRReviving and Enhancing Soils foreviving and Enhancing Soils foreviving and Enhancing Soils foreviving and Enhancing Soils foreviving and Enhancing Soils forMaximizing PMaximizing PMaximizing PMaximizing PMaximizing Perererererforforforforformance of Pmance of Pmance of Pmance of Pmance of Pastures andastures andastures andastures andastures andLivestockLivestockLivestockLivestockLivestock

predominant pasture species are bromegrass,orchardgrass, ryegrass and white Dutch clover.The economic success of our grass-based systemhas allowed us to increase both pasture acreageand stock numbers. During this same period,we expanded our direct marketing of lamb, beefand chickens. In 1996, we opened a USDAcertified meat processing facility and retail storeon the farm.

When we purchased our farm, it had been rowcropped with corn and beans for years with“quick-fix” techniques. The result was a soildepleted of organic matter, biological activity,important plant nutrients, and trace elements.The task we now face is the need to revive andenhance the soil so that our pastures can provideabundant high quality nutrition for our livestock.

We began the process with a comprehensiveanalysis of our soil and forage composition,followed by a slow-release, soil biologyenhancing fertiliZation based on soil test results.We measured pasture progress through plant andanimal performance. Four pastures, each withits own history and soil type, have been upgradedwith a combination of fertiliZer, manure andreseeding. Control strips at the edge of eachpasture were left untreated to determine theoverall effects of our renovation.

Doug describes pasture renovation at a field day

Livestock • Rathke/Karstens

—— 143



the soil. We continued treating the pastures withamendments similar to those applied in 1998 with an addedemphasis on importing manure. Although we knew theprocess would take time, we continued to see improvementsacross all amended fields in comparison to the controlstrips. Pasture {3 (our poorest yielding pasture) continuedto show improved color and productivity.

Forage quality continued to improve in 1999. There wasan even greater increase in the sugar content of the forage

Results

HIIJ<$ The main focus of the first yearof the project was to pull together anarray of soil and plant tissue tests to tryand determine what was limiting pastureproductivity. The initial soil testsshowed low levels of phosphorus in allfour pastures. There were nooutstanding problems highlighted by thesoil tests, other than the low phosphoruslevels. This is consistent with ourhypothesis that the problem may not justbe a lack of major plant nutrients, but alack of life in the soil.

Using the soil test results, we focusedour spring fertility program on gettingphosphorus levels up. On April 23,1998, all four pastures (except thecontrol strips) were fertiliZed with rockphosphate (see Table 1). Although thisis a slow-release form of phosphorus,we were able to visually detect moregrowth in the fertiliZed pasture than inthe adjacent control strips throughoutthe growing season. On June 21, alltest areas were treated with a combination of bacterialinoculant and soil conditioner.

For many years, two of our pastures have consistently hadthe lowest productivity on the farm. Pasture {2 is arelatively sandy soil and prone to drought stress. Duringthe late summer and early fall of 1998, we noted that onlydeep rooted plants were green. Lack of rainfall was limitingoverall pasture growth during this period. This observationled us to seed more deep rooted species in this soil in1999.

Pasture {3 has never been productive in the fiveyears since its establishment. We decided tojump-start it with a liberal application of hogmanure in the late fall of 1998. The intent wasto increase organic matter and stimulatemicrobial activity.

On August 5, clover cell sap sugar wasconsistently higher in all amended pastures (seeTable 2), again suggesting that fertiliZeramendments were beginning to make adifference in pasture productivity and quality.

HIII<' The main focus of the second year ofour project was to continue to work on balancing

Table 1. 1998 Pasture Seed and Fertilizer Amendments

all

all

all

all

#3*

96142=0

*Used late fall warm weather window to amend the least productive pasture

400 lb/A

200 lb/A

1.5 lb/A, 2 lb/A,10 lb/A,

respectively

/640

April

April

May

June

December

]7;4@

Fertilized w/rock phosphate(27% P, 24% Ca, 1% S, .67% Zn)

Fertilized w/ammonium sulfate(21-0-0-24S)

Seeded chicory, Alice clover,BG-34 perennial ryegrass w/no-tilldrill

Sprayed liquid soil amendment(bacterial concentrate, soilconditioner, monopotassiumphosphate, magnesium sulfate, kelp,ammonium sulfate)

Spread liquid hog manure

+?4>P>4<

A brix meter is used to monitorthe sugar content of forage cell

Table 2. Sugar Content of Clover Cell Sap on August 5, 1998

134

96142=0

2.51.51.5

3.02.52.0

H7;4=73.+=06)014.+=06------- brix scale -------

144 ——


in 1999 than in 1998. We observed anoverall improvement in animal health,that the animals were responding to theimproved forage quality. A dramaticexample of this could be seen in theperformance of the lambing ewes in thewinter of 1999-2000. Our firstobservation was that they were notrequiring as much mineral as in previousyears. Secondly, they maintained condition and did notneed to be switched over to grain. Thirdly, the feeder lambsgained very well. We were seeing real results from ourefforts.

KLLL<' A definite improvement of the poorest yieldingpasture was observed. There were fewer bare spots,increased plant vigor and color, and increased plant speciesdiversity. It all added up to increased forage and animalproduction. There was an even greater increase in the sugarcontent of the amended forage in 2000 than in the previoustwo years (Table 3). Available soil phosphorus levels haverisen from 7 ppm in early 1998 to 45 ppm in the fall of2000 (averaged across all four pastures).

In addition to soil and plant analysis, animal productivitywas measured. Lamb weaning weights improved since theonset of the project. The average weaning weight of thelambs increased as follows:

1998 � 61 lb1999 � 65 lb2000 � 68 lb

We noticed another dramatic change in 2000. There wasan increase in the “breed-back” percentage of ewes. Inour management system, winter lambing ewes are exposedto a ram for an additional fall lambing. The improvementmay be due, in part, to the corrected balance of traceminerals in the soil which, in turn, affects the overall healthof the animals.

We will continue these soil building practices well into thefuture. We plan to continue to research the best ways to doso within our management system. We have found that the

Table 3. Sugar Content of Clover Cell Sap on June 6, 2000

1234

96142=0

3.03.53.04.0

9.58.59.5

10.0

H7;4=73.+=06)014.+=06------- brix scale -------

soil is the basis for a healthy farm, including the animalsthat feed the people.

Management Tips

1. Be patient. Returning the land to health requires a long-term commitment.

2. Seek several sources of information (plant, animal, soil)for clues about what might be missing.

3. Seek out local soil amendment resources to keep costdown and help with local waste stream.

4. Minerals alone may not be enough. Organic carbonsources such as compost and manure are needed to enhancesoil life.

Cooperator

Doug Gunnink, GraZing Consultant,,Gaylord, MN

Project Location

From Hutchinson, go west on Hwy 7 for 10 miles. We arethe first farm west of Cedar Mills on the south side of Hwy7.

Other Resources

8*-.%U-*.*61%<5-+$5E 1999. USDA NRCS. For orderinginformation contact Land Care at 888-landcare or email atLandcareuswcs.org

e-++$5B%`751E 2000. Biological farmer. Acres USA.,P.O. Box 91299, Austin, T� 78709.


—— 145


Livestock • Rolling

Project Summary

The objective of this project is to find a proteinsource that can be inter-seeded with a graZing-type corn. We hope to grow a balanced, seasonextending ration for graZing lambs. To achievethis goal, we must find species and varieties thatwill be ready to graZe at the same time as thecorn. The crops are grown and graZed togetherto eliminate off-farm feed purchases and reducefeeding labor. Annual medics were chosen forthis project because of their upright growthhabit, lack of competition with corn, andabundant biomass production. GraZing cornwas chosen for its palatability, biomass yield andpotential for grain production if it is not graZed.

Project Description

The Rolling operation is a 196 acre diversifiedgrain farm on the Coteau Ridge in southwesternMinnesota. We raise corn, organic soybeans,hay, and sheep. Local experience has shownthat lambs need both a high energy and a highprotein food source, something that cannot beprovided by grass or grass-alfalfa alone. Wehave chosen to combine graZing corn with alegume. Annual medics are being used with thecorn because they are less competitive thanalfalfa but still provide high quality protein.Annual medics are legumes that also have thepotential to suppress weeds in row crops.

The field used for thisstudy has heavy clay loamsoil that tends to swell andshrink with changes inmoisture. The field wasplowed in the fall and thendisked in the spring. In1999, extensive fieldcultivation was done priorto planting to reduce aninfestation of Canadianthistle. Corn selected forthis trial was 110-dayBaldridge “AmaiZingGraZe” graZing corn. Thiscorn variety has a higher


Joseph RollingPO Box 64

Arco, MN 56113507-487-5742

Lincoln County

ProjectDuration

1999 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

annual medic,graZing corn, inter-

seeding, sheep

Annual Medic as a ProteinAnnual Medic as a ProteinAnnual Medic as a ProteinAnnual Medic as a ProteinAnnual Medic as a ProteinSource Source Source Source Source in Grazing Corin Grazing Corin Grazing Corin Grazing Corin Grazing Cornnnnn

protein and energy content than conventionalcorn. Due to a wet spring in 1999, the corn wasnot planted until June 5. In 2000, the corn wasplanted on May 10. A 36” row planter was runover the field twice to give a final row spacingof 18” and a total plant population of 40,000plants/A. The day after corn planting, annualmedic was seeded into the corn with aconventional grain drill at a rate of 30 lb/A.Herbicide was not used to avoid any possibledamage to the medic. The seed cost was o50/Afor the corn and o60/A (o2.00/lb) for the annualmedic.

Results

HIII< Six acres of graZing corn and annual medicwere successfully established on June 5. Thecold spring weather hindered early corn growthuntil the end of June. The medic, however, grewwell. The extensive cultivation prior to plantingoverworked the soil, allowing an early June rainand hail storm to crust the soil. The crust allowedthe emergence of the medic seedlings only onthe edges of cracks in the soil. There was adrought for the remainder of the growing seasonthat reduced the growth of the corn and may haveinduced early maturity in the medic. The medicreached maturity and started to dry down by mid-August and was ready to graZe before the corn.

Field day participants inspect grazing corn

146 ——


By August 5 the corn was tasseling and intensive stripgraZing began with 70 ewes and 100 May lambs. GraZingwas controlled with polywire electric fence on reels andcontinued until September 30. The sheep consumed cornleaves and grain, weeds (including Canadian thistle) andmedic, but left the lower part of the corn stalks. The sheephad free choice access to grass hay during this time but,by observation, roughly 90m of their feed was obtainedfrom graZing the corn and medic. In spite of the reducedyield of forage due to the drought, the lambs gained anaverage of .6 lb/day during this period. The lambs weighedan average of 92 lb at the end of the graZing period. Noadditional supplements were purchased and the graZingminimiZed feeding labor. Using a gross margin analysis,the system showed a net profit of o30/A.

In a separate trial, we seeded snail medic simultaneouslywith soybeans. The medic seed was dribbled directly inthe soybean row using the herbicide boxes on the planter.We used cultivation and no herbicides, and found that themedic had a strong suppressive effect on weeds in the row,particularly on pigeon grass. We noticed that the roots ofthe thistles in the corn field were dead at the time of fallplanting. Whether this was due to the intensive graZing bythe sheep or due to an allelopathic effect from the snailmedic is not known.

KLLLS Twelve acres were planted to graZing corn and annualmedic on May 11. The two crops were planted with minimaltillage to reduce soil crusting. Extensive cultivation maynot be necessary since the sheep do a good job of weedcontrol. On August 1, the lambs and ewes were allowedto graZe at will. The corn and medic growth were good inspite of lower than normal rainfall. We received 15.9” ofprecipitation this year compared to an average of 23”.

Due to an outbreak of coccidiosis, the sheep were removedand medicated for two weeks. They were thenreturned and allowed to graZe until November10 at which time the lambs were put in a corralfor feeding. The ewes continued to graZe untilthe corn was gone.

The growth habit of the graZing corn affectedthe ability of the lambs to gain access to thecrop. The corn plants grew to a height of 10Jand the ears developed at 5J. The lambsthoroughly graZed the understory and up as highas they could reach but the stalks were toostrong to be broken and the ears were beyondreach. It was necessary to put the ewes in thecorn to break the stalks down so the lambs couldforage on the entire corn plant. This year the

lambs were pastured after weaning. It may possibly workbetter to put the ewes and lambs in the corn together whilethey are still nursing so the lambs can learn from the eweshow to handle the corn plants. If the animals were in thecorn earlier, they would be able to handle the smaller plants.

Overall results from the 2000 graZing project weredisappointing. The lambs did not gain well and were notthrifty, partly due to lack of access to feed, but mostly dueto the coccidiosis. The ewes, however, did well in thegraZing corn and are in excellent condition. On average,the lambs gained 20 lb over 90 days on pasture while theewes gained 50 lb over 120 days. The graZing systemyielded a net loss of o69/A. It seems advisable to supplya coccidiostat in the lambs drinking water. Although doingso would eliminate the lambs from organic certification, atleast they would be kept healthy and gaining condition.

As in 1999, the annual medic showed a strong ability tosuppress weeds. This was true for the medic in theunderstory of the corn and in the base of the soybeans.Pidgeon grass was controlled and in some areas totallysuppressed. Broadleaf weeds were not controlled.

We have experienced two dry years in a row as we attemptedto incorporate annual medics into our farm. We found thatmedics have the ability to produce good ground cover andsufficient biomass but they are susceptible to rapid die-offwhen rain ceases. This can occur within a weekJs time andthe crop does not recover with later rains. We still do notknow how this crop may perform in a wet year but at thispoint in our search, we are considering adding a deeperrooted legume that has a greater capacity to withstand latesummer drought. We will continue to explore the annualmedics as a weed control understory in soybeans and othercrops.

Close-up of grazing corn with black medic understory


—— 147



Management Tips

1. Start graZing the corn early. The crop matures rapidlyin midsummer.

2. Use the ewes to assist the lambs in gaining access tothe tall corn plants.

Cooperators

a-;375/%a*..-#6B%Ivanhoe, MN4.-]70$23%A1;VBSouthwest Research & Outreach Center

Project Location

From Ivanhoe, go 3 miles east on Hwy 19, then 1 milenorth on Lincoln Cty Rd 7, then s mile west on townshiproad.

Other Resources

De Hann, R. L., C. C. Sheaffer, and D. b. Barnes. 1987.4==$;2% *=% 7##"7.%+$/-;% 9+*23$5% ,.7#29% *#%?$$/% ;*#25*.7#/%1-$./%-#%;*5#E Agronomy Journal 89:813-821.

Moynihan, J. M., S. R. Simmons, and C. C. Sheaffer.1996. >#2$5;5*,,-#6% 7##"7.%+$/-;9%?-23% ;*#C$#2-*#7.3$-632%7#/%9$+-/?75=%075.$1%65*?#%=*5%657-#E AgronomyJournal 88:823-828.

^hu, i., C. C. Sheaffer, and D. b. Barnes. 1996. \*576$1-$./%7#/%D"7.-21%*=% 9-W%7##"7.%P$/-;76*%9,$;-$9% -#% 23$Z*523I)$#257.%[8:E Agronomy Journal 88:955-960.

148 ——



Frank Schiefelbein74227 } 360th St.

bimball, MN55353

320-398-8312Meeker County

frank4homeuaol.comhttp://www.

schiefelbeinfarms.com

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact

Wayne Monsen651-282-2261

Keywords

frost seeding,managed graZing,

nutrientmanagement,

pollutionprevention, riparianarea graZing, water

systems

Grazing Beef Cattle as a SustainableGrazing Beef Cattle as a SustainableGrazing Beef Cattle as a SustainableGrazing Beef Cattle as a SustainableGrazing Beef Cattle as a SustainableAgriculture Product in Riparian AreasAgriculture Product in Riparian AreasAgriculture Product in Riparian AreasAgriculture Product in Riparian AreasAgriculture Product in Riparian Areas

Project Summary

The reason we are doing this project is that wewant to show that beef cattle pastured alonglow ground, riparian areas, riverbeds, and theadjoining hillier land can be done profitablywithout hurting the environment. Our idea isthat with proper management of fertiliZerapplications and frost seeding we can have highyielding pastures with low input costs whilereducing overall pollution.

Project Description

Our farm is family run with five brothers andour father. The farm consists of 3,500 acreswith about 400 acres of corn, 400 acres ofsoybeans, and 400 acres of alfalfa, leaving about2,300 acres in pasture and hay ground. Ourmain income is from selling purebred cattle,about 550 registered Angus and Simmentalcows. The cows are pastured on the majorityof the land. Most of our land is very hilly, withmany small streams, one main river, and threelakes.

We are using about 200 acres, broken into 30 to40-acre pasture systems, for this project usingmanaged rotational graZing. One of our maingoals is to show how valuable it is to graZe thismarginal land. We are taking soil and watersamples to determine the impacts of fertiliZerand animals on environmental quality. We arealso comparing differentapplication methods offrost seeding as ways toimprove the pastureswithout tilling pasturesnext to the rivers andlakes.

Results

The drought of 2000 inour area really affectedthe outcome of the graZingand fertiliZer tests.GraZing went well untilthe end of June when the

drought started to affect the way we had to handlethe cattle. Many of the swamps and low grounddried up so we had to allow the cattle access tothe rivers and streams to get water. Thissomewhat hampered our rotational graZingscheme. We decided to dig some stock pondsand put in some waterlines and water tanks.Hopefully, with the added stock ponds andwaterlines, we will be able to do a better jobnext year of rotating our pastures and providingbetter water with less pollution.

The plans for the fertiliZer study were to applyurea to some of the pastures and comparenutrient levels with test strips that did not receivefertiliZer. Soil sample recommendations fromConsumers Co-op in Litchfield and theUniversity of Minnesota showed we could apply250 lb of urea. We planned to apply the urea insplit applications of 150 and 100 lb respectively.The first 150 lb was applied in early spring, butthe second application was not applied becauseof drought. Without rain the urea would havebeen wasted.

We took soil samples in the fall on both thefertiliZed areas and the test strips. The resultsshowed that nitrogen levels were about the samebut phosphorus levels were lower in areas wherethe urea was applied. These preliminary resultssuggest that fertiliZing pastures for grass growthmay benefit the natural resources. Improved

Frank next to the tire tank that flows all year

Livestock • Schiefelbein

—— 149


Livestock • Schiefelbein

nitrogen nutrition may have allowed the grass to utiliZemore phosphorus and keep excess phosphorus from enteringthe adjacent surface waters.

We want to enhance the forages on the pastures withouttilling up the pastures. It is important to us to controlerosion and keep the pastures in production. We triedfrost seeding 1.5 to 2 lb/A of clover seed using both afour-wheeler and custom applied by the co-op with thefertiliZer application.

The four-wheeler takes a lot of time and it is hard to get aneven distribution of seeds. The custom application ofclover seed added to the fertiliZer mix provided a betterdistribution of seed. We are pleased with the results of thefrost seeding and we have a good stand especially wherethere was a little bit of open ground. We plan to have theco-op custom frost seed again in 2001, adding some reedcanarygrass to the seed/fertiliZer mix.

One system we are excited about is a rubber tire tank thattakes water from a flowing spring with a tile through thecenter of the tank to use as an overflow. This tile drainsback into the stream well away from the tank. Hopefullythis will help keep the area around the tank dry and themoving water will keep the tank open all winter. We alsoadded two waterlines using well water in other pastures.

Management Tips

1. Apply urea to pastures just prior to rain. If you do notget rain the urea will be wasted.

2. Custom applying clover seed with the fertiliZer mix is agood way to frost seed and achieve even distribution ofseeds.

Project Location

From bimball go s mile south on Hwy 15. Take first lefton Golf Course Rd and go 3 miles to 360th St. Turn leftand farm is 1s miles on the left.

Other Resources

Blanchet, b., H. Moechnig, and J. DeJong-Hughes. 2000.`57]-#6% 9192$+9% ,.7##-#6% 6"-/$E MN Publication No.BU-07606-S. University of Minnesota Extension Service,St. Paul, MN, 800-876-8636.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2000. <792"5$d,$572-*#9%7#/%P-##$9*27%\$$/.*2%a".$9E Minnesota RulesChapter 7020. 877-333-3508.Available at: pca.state.mn.us/hot/feedlots.html{factsheetsFact sheet that describes rules regarding pasture systemsand feedlots.

University of Wisconsin Extension Service. 1993. <792"5$9=*5%,5*=-2H%%:%6"-/$%2*%5*272-*#7.%657]-#6E WI No. A3529or MN Publication No. AG-FO-6145. University ofWisconsin Extension Service, Madison, WI, 608-262-3346or University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul,MN, 612-625-8173.

150 ——


Livestock • Schilling


Peter Schilling45095 - 256th St.

Gaylord, MN55334

507-237-5347Sibley County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2002

ESAP Contact


Author: Greg Booth

Keywords

direct marketing,hogs, Swedish

system

AAAAAdding Vdding Vdding Vdding Vdding Value for the Small Producer viaalue for the Small Producer viaalue for the Small Producer viaalue for the Small Producer viaalue for the Small Producer viaNatural Production Methods and DirectNatural Production Methods and DirectNatural Production Methods and DirectNatural Production Methods and DirectNatural Production Methods and DirectMarkMarkMarkMarkMarketingetingetingetingeting

Project Summary

This project involves converting three older hogconfinement buildings to deep bedded Swedishstyle barns. Production capacity can beexpanded to about 1,100 head per year. Peterand Mavis Schilling plan to direct market thepork by selling whole, half and quarter hogs,plus packaged meat by using a USDA approvedfacility and freeZer trailer.

The Schilling farm is a conventional small scalehog operation on six acres. The Schillings raiseChester White and Berkshire hogs, as well assome vegetables they sell at local farmersJmarkets. Both Peter and Mavis work off thefarm. All feed is purchased. A hoop house hasbeen added for sows. Future plans includepasturing hogs, cattle and sheep, and raisingsome crops for feed.

Project Description

By converting the older barns to open, deepbedded farrowing facilities, Peter Schilling iscreating a more pleasant environment forhimself, his wife, Mavis, and three boys to workin. The deep bedded Swedish system meansless odor and more room for the pigs to movearound. The Schillings purchased a computerprogram so that Mavis, an accountant, canmonitor data on the hogs and on profitability.

Results

The first barn was converted in 2000. Friendsand family helped on weekends to fill in thedeep pits, insulate, ventilate and wire thebuilding, and install pens. The remodeling worktook longer than expected. With a demonstrationgroup of 24 sows, Peter has found that theworking environment is much improved. Thedeep bedded barn makes a pleasant place towork, and he enjoys watching the little pigs movearound freely. Sow condition and litter weightsare monitored for progress.

Management Tips

1. Look for breeding stock that has been raisedin pens as opposed to confinement.

2. Make use of county economic developmentresources for direct marketing.

Cooperators

A*"6%`"##-#VB Consultant, Gaylord, MNF-+%A*.7#B Sibley County Extension Educator,

Gaylord, MN82$C$%a$#D"-92B Sibley County Economic

Development, Gaylord, MNP75.$#$%̂ 7.C*59*#B Consultant, Northfield, MNZ*.7#%!"#6;.7"9B Farmer, Lake Lillian, MN

Project Location

Two and one quarter miles north of Gaylord onCty Rd 21, then ~ mile east on 256th St.

Other Resources

University of Minnesota Extension Service.2001. ^*69% 1*"5% ?71H% % )3**9-#6% 7% 3*6,5*/";2-*#% 9192$+% -#% 23$% [,,$5%P-/?$92EPublication No. BU-7641-S. University ofMinnesota Extension, St. Paul, MN,612-625-8173.

University of Minnesota Extension Service.1999. 8?-#$%9*"5;$%0**VH%%:.2$5#72-C$9%=*5%,*5V,5*/";$59E Publication No. PC-7289-S.University of Minnesota Extension, St. Paul,MN, 612-625-8173.

—— 151


Livestock • Stassen


Steve Stassen1105 - 140th Ave. SE

berkhoven, MN56252

320-264-5932Swift County

stevestassenumail.tds.net

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2003

ESAP Contact


Author: Greg Booth

Keywords

Farrow to finish,hogs, nest boxes,

pens

FFFFFarararararrowing Crates vs. Prowing Crates vs. Prowing Crates vs. Prowing Crates vs. Prowing Crates vs. Pens ens ens ens ens vs. Nest Bovs. Nest Bovs. Nest Bovs. Nest Bovs. Nest Boxxxxxeseseseses

Project Summary

This project will use on-farm study of sows tocompare farrowing in crates, pens and nestboxes. Sows will be studied for their behaviorand weaning success rates.

Project Description

Steve Stassen and his family raise purebredBerkshire hogs for alternative markets and fordirect marketing top end gilts to other growersfor breeding stock. They raise corn and beansin rotation on 18 acres and have 35 acres ofpasture. Their operation has evolved fromcrossbred Berkshires to a purebred herd andSteve has found a niche in marketing purebreds,as well as for naturally raised hogs. By targetingboth the purebred market and the market fornaturally raised pork, Steve can increase profits.Steve is a qualified producer for Niman Ranchwhich provides a premium price for hogs soldto east and west coast markets.

SteveJs goals are to farrow his sow herd of 40Berkshires on a schedule of four times a year,with two farrowings for each sow per year, andto make the operation efficient enough soeveryone in his family can be involved. Steveand his wife Jane have four children: Amber,16d bimberly, 13d Stephanie, 11d and Matthew,9. They raise Jersey steers for direct marketingand sheep for 4H projects. Steve also works atUnited Farmers Elevator inberkhoven. He has raisedhogs on his farm for 15years and grew up helpinghis father raise hogs. Steveis also president of thecounty Pork ProducersBoard, is on the AmericanBerkshire Associationboard, and serves on theUniversity of MinnesotaJsSwine Task Force. TheStassen farm is set up forenvironmentally friendlyhog production thatemphasiZes animal health

and well-being.

The StassensJ original setup included a farrowinghouse with eight crates. Steve wanted to addcapacity with the flexibility to raise hogs for thealternative markets. He also feels that it is moreeconomical to build nest boxes and pens ratherthan purchase crates and adapt a building to aconventional system.

A used building was moved to the farm in May2000 and a hoop barn was built later that summer.The hoop barn is used for farrowing pens and asa wean-to-finish facility. The used building isused for farrowing in nest boxes. The existingbarn has crates and is used in a conventional cratefarrowing capacity for comparison to the othersystems.

Steve built nest boxes from 2” x 10” lumber,making 5J x 7J or 5J x 8J boxes with 22” openingsfor the sow to enter. The building is insulatedand can be heated if necessary but is kept atapproximately 60°F. Bedding is provided in theboxes and lids help hold the heat and also provideprotection from the sows crushing the little pigs.

In the hoop shelter, farrowing pens are 6J x 8J.Pens have heat lamps and covers for heatretention and protection against crushing. Foradditional insulation, foam sheets can be addedon top of the pens.

Steve explains his deep bedded hoop system

152 ——


Livestock • Stassen

Information is recorded on pigs born alive, number crushed,and number weaned from sows in eight conventional crates,eight nest boxes and eight pens. Differences in behaviorof the sows in the three groups is alsoobserved. Starting with gilts, three tofour farrowing cycles will be observed.

Results

Steve and his family found that the pensand nest boxes took less time to cleanthan crates. In crates, manure andbedding have to be scraped out daily. In the pens andboxes, sows manure in one spot, keeping the pens cleanlonger. Pigs moved more freely and SteveJs children couldmove through the pens easily to do chores. They foundthat it was more difficult to separate the sows from theirpigs in the pen system. Sows tended to be more protectivein the pens than in the crates, especially when Steve andthe children handled the pigs for ear notching or other work.Steve developed a gate system and used grocery carts toseparate the little pigs.

The crate system has an advantage from birth to fourdays, Steve noted, because of the lower danger of crushing.When a sow farrows, she rolls over and the newborn pigsare in danger of being crushed. Steve used guard rails tohelp protect the young, installing a rail for heat lamps onone side of the pens, and a bumper rail on the other.

The Stassens also learned to manage for “boss” sows inthe more natural settings, making more room between pens.Boss sows want to be closer to feed and water, so extraroom has to be made to accommodate timid sows andmake sure they get enough to eat and drink. Steve alsofound that all sows in a group should be introduced to thepen system at the same time. Adding one later can createproblems in the group.

Steve keeps the layout simple so all the children can help.The four children purchased two sows and will share theprofits from their litters. Any one of the four children canmanage the daily chores, Steve adds.

The farrowing crate and nest box had the same results innumber of pigs crushed (Table 1). Steve thinks that thedesign of the nest box restricts the movement of the sowsmore than in the open pen, allowing her to settle downmore quickly. Guard rails added to the pens may help thissituation. Steve noticed that the sows had good nestinginstincts. This may be due in part to the sowsJ beinghoused in the deep-bedded hoop barn (see “Low Cost SowGestation in Hoop Structure,” `5$$#0**V%XOO). The sowswere used to making nests in their normal surroundings,

which seemed to help in their natural ability to nest. Thesows in the crates also have access to straw, which theyuse as much as the crate setting allows.

The Stassens also observed that the sows in nest boxesand pens have to all farrow within seven to ten days so thepigs stay with their mothers and sows donJt steal from otherlitters. Sows in nest boxes and pens exhibited betterappetites than those in the crates, probably due to moreexercise.

Management Tips

1. beep an eye on the boss sows. Give them enoughroom to prevent problems with more timid sows.

2. Put all sows into pens at one time.

3. Use guard rails to prevent crushing.

4. Use gates, carts, or other separation methods to makeit easier to catch and handle pigs.

Cooperators

@71#$%P752-#B Alternative Swine Production SystemsProgram, St. Paul, MN

!-+%c7#%A$5%<*.B Farmer, berhoven, MN

Project Location

One mile south of berkhoven on Swift Cty 35. Go straightahead on gravel road 1 mile south. The Stassen farm is onthe east side of the road.

Other Resources

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 2001. ^*691*"5%?71H%%)3**9-#6%7%3*6%,5*/";2-*#%9192$+%-#%23$%[,,$5P-/?$92E Publication No. BU-7641-S. University ofMinnesota Extension, St. Paul, MN, 612-625-8173 or800-876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1999. 8?-#$9*"5;$%0**VH%%:.2$5#72-C$9%=*5%,*5V%,5*/";$59E% PublicationNo. PC-7289-S. University of Minnesota Extension,St. Paul, MN, 612-625-8173 or 800-876-8636.

Table 1. Comparison of Farrowing Methods

CratePenNest Box

7.146.407.00

J7M.U06;0:

1.01.61.0

J7M.H=21@0:

8.148.008.00

J7M.+3>P0

8.778.408.00

J7M.B7=;56==78>;A.]04@7:

—— 153


Livestock • Stelling


Ralph StellingRal-Den DairyRR 1, Box 19Millville, MN

55957507-798-2410

Wabasha County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2003

ESAP Contact


Author: Greg Booth

Keywords

dairy, forageproduction,

rotational graZing

FFFFForage Production to Maintain One Matureorage Production to Maintain One Matureorage Production to Maintain One Matureorage Production to Maintain One Matureorage Production to Maintain One MatureAnimal PAnimal PAnimal PAnimal PAnimal Per Acre for 12 Monthser Acre for 12 Monthser Acre for 12 Monthser Acre for 12 Monthser Acre for 12 Months

Project Summary

This project involves improving forage producedfrom paddocks in order to feed an animal yearround. By graZing dairy cows and producingquality feed at optimum times, Ralph Stellinghopes to reduce the amount of winter feedpurchased for his dairy cows and eliminate grainsupplements.

Project Description

Ralph and Phyllis Stelling and son Dennis andhis wife Ronda operate Ral-Den Dairy, a 140-cow operation on 240 acres that utiliZes rotationalgraZing and emphasiZes direct marketing. Byimproving paddocks and quality of stored feed,Ralph believes that purchased grain can beeliminated from the farm budget whilemaintaining the quality of the animals and milkproducts.

Ralph has been farming since 1969 andconverted to graZing eight years ago. Annualprofit has increased by about o500/cow sincethe conversion, which took two years tocomplete. He has belonged to a graZing groupfor eight years and has held many field days atRal-Den. He is also a member of Pastureland, agroup of farmers involved in direct marketingdairy products including butter and cheese.

The goal of the Stelling project is to produceenough forage on 185 acres to feed 185 maturecows year round. Ralph and Dennis want tomake their farm sustainable and eliminatepurchased feed. They also want to increase profitand have more family time.

In 2000, the Stellings planted about 40 acres ofryegrass and Alice white graZing clover forgraZing and silage. They rotated dry cowsthrough paddocks and harvested grass for silagein paddocks that were not being graZed.

Harvested forage was tested for protein content,relative feed value (RFc), and calcium content.

The three-year goal is to re-seed two-thirds ofthe farm to grass and legumes that are palatable,highly digestible, and nutritious. Excess pasturewill be harvested and stored for winter feeding.Harvesting, whenever possible, is timed toproduce the highest quality feed.

Results

Tests from the 2000 silage showed 18m protein,95 RFc, and average calcium. Ralph waspleased with the results considering that theharvest was completed somewhat late, and soonafter a rain.

Approximately one-third of normally purchasedfeed was eliminated in the winter of 2000-2001.One field was harvested twice during the summerrotation. Ralph believes that he and Dennis couldhave maintained 100 head on 185 acres in asustainable manner, which is approaching theirgoal. An economic analysis of their project willbe available with next yearJs update.

Ralph shows longer cuttinglength from lacerator

154 ——


Management Tips

1. Make pasture silage at optimum graZing time to ensurefeed quality.

2. Plant ryegrass and a variety of other hardygrasses for better production and paddocks thatwill stand up to heavy graZing and harvesting.

3. Even when extremely wet, silage does notfreeZe in winter.

Cooperator

Doug Gunnink, Consultant, Gaylord, MN

Project Location

From ^umbro Falls, go east on Hwy 60approximately 5 miles to Cty Rd 2. Turn righton Cty Rd 2. Go 1s miles to first gravel road

Lacerator wagon unloading

on left, Cty Rd 69. Go 2 miles to “T,” turn left, go s mile,turn left, Stelling farm is first place on left.

Livestock • Stelling

—— 155


Livestock • Struxness

Project Summary

The father and son team of Don and DanStruxness have developed a year round rotationalgraZing system that has a highly flexible, efficientwatering system at its core. This projectinvolves converting land from CRP to a graZingsystem utiliZing beef cattle. Because of its lowcosts and flexibility, the Struxnesses believe thisproduction alternative may be attractive tobeginning farmers when compared to grainproduction. The main objectives were providinga year round water supply available to allpaddocks, developing a “leader/follower” graZingrotation, and developing diverse pastures with avariety of seeding techniques. Other goalsincluded extending the graZing season usingstockpiled forages such as standing corn, andlow cost options for winter shelter. The lastyear of the project added a comparison betweencattle groups using combinations of graZing,implants, and supplemental feed.

Project Description

The StruxnessesJ whole farm plan includessatisfying economic issues and profitability,family quality of life, and maintainingenvironmental quality and diversity while raisingbeef cattle. Aesthetic concerns include a desireto develop a landscape that is pleasing to bothhuman and cow. Theirideas for creating thisinclude using a diversityof pasture species as wellas planting a variety oftrees that will providewind protection, wildlifehabitat, and harvestabletimber.

luestions facing theStruxnesses at thebeginning of this projectincluded management andfacility issues. What type


Don and DanStruxness

RR 3Appleton, MN

56208320-734-4877 Don320-752-4733 Dan

Lac lui ParleCounty

ProjectDuration

1998 to 2000

ESAP Contact


Author: Greg Booth

Keywords

beef cattle, forageproduction,

overwintering cattle,watering systems

FFFFFirst and Second Yirst and Second Yirst and Second Yirst and Second Yirst and Second Year Grazers in a Year Grazers in a Year Grazers in a Year Grazers in a Year Grazers in a YearearearearearRRRRRound Pound Pound Pound Pound Pasture Setting Serasture Setting Serasture Setting Serasture Setting Serasture Setting Served by a Fved by a Fved by a Fved by a Fved by a FrostrostrostrostrostFFFFFree Wree Wree Wree Wree Water Systemater Systemater Systemater Systemater System

of fencing should they use, electric or barbedwire| Should they use permanent paddocks oruse temporary, portable fences| How could theyprovide water to the animals on pasture yearround without the animals coming back to a barnevery day| What forages could they use toextend the season farther into the fall| And whatwere their low cost options to shelter the animalsfrom the harsh winter conditions of westernMinnesota|

The land involved in this project is a single,rectangular parcel of 135 acres with clay loamand sandy loam soils. Rolling hills have slopesof up to 12m in some areas.

The StruxnessesJ initial outlay for equipment hasbeen minimal compared to other agriculturalenterprises, requiring only a tractor, mower,baler, and shelter and cattle handling facilities.Costs for seeding the pastures have been aboutthe same in the first years as for row cropsdhowever, the legume/grass mixture will requireonly minimal fertiliZation to optimiZe productivityover the following four to six years.

Results

In the fall of 1997, the Struxnesses installed apermanent electric perimeter fence, a two-wire

Dan and son at a field day

156 ——


internal fence dividing the pasture in half, and portablepolyrope with tread-in posts to create 18 paddocks forrotational graZing. Hay and cattle shelter is provided by a50Jx 60J hoop house. An energy free waterer was installedto the southeast of the hoop building in the lee of theprevailing northwest winter winds.

In May 1998, four rows of trees were planted for futurewind protection, running north to south along the west edgeof the property. Species planted included Black HillsSpruce, Green Ash, and Hackberry.

A water system was installed using a trenching machinethat made a slot 7” wide and about 6J deep. About 4,000Jof 2” PcC pipe was buried below the frost line at a depthof 6J6”, with female quick coupler hydrants installed inthe line every 300J. A 15” plastic culvert was installedvertically from the quick coupler hydrants to the surfaceto allow access to the waterlines. This is the access toboth the summer and winter water supply. This cost o.85/ft for materials and o.50/ft for labor. Cattle are wateredwith a small portable tub that is easily emptied and movedto the next paddock. A “Rife” full flow valve in the bottomof the tub allows for quick refill to satisfy the herdJs waterneeds without a large tank.

In 1998 the herd of 55 Red Angus/Hereford cows calvedfrom mid-March to mid-May. They used the hoop buildingfor calving with the west end closed off with a stack ofbean straw and corn stalk bales. From April 15 to May15, the 55 cows graZed 40 acres of unimproved CRP acres.Due to dry weather there was not sufficient regrowth onthis land to graZe it again until the fall. The herd wasmoved to another 40 acres of CRP and60 acres of improved, establishedpasture for summer graZing.

Forty acres of the CRP land was workedup and drill seeded on May 22, 1998with �FeastJ alfalfa, orchardgrass and anurse crop of oats. The Struxnessestook only two cuttings off the 30 acresof alfalfa seeded in the fall of 1997 and then stockpiledthe regrowth for graZing in November 1998. The nice fallweather allowed them to keep the cattle on the alfalfa untilearly December. From December to May the cattle werewintered in the lee of a hoop building that held their winterhay. Water was provided by a frost free drinker on aconcrete pad to avoid creating a mud hole around the water.

In 1999 a one-inch polyurethane pipe was rolled out underthe permanent fence to supply water to the paddocks wherethe waterline was not yet buried. Calving was accomplishedon pasture in early May. Cattle were managed in leader/

follower groups with the 52 yearling steers and heifers fromthe 1998 calf crop graZing ahead of the cow/calf group,creaming off the best grass. All cattle were moved dailyfrom May 15 to September 16. For 45 days from mid-September until early November, the 31 steers wereseparated off and allowed to strip graZe 15 acres ofBaldridge AmaiZing GraZe corn without any other feedsupplements. These steers gained an average of 2.35 lb/day while graZing corn. This translates into a corn yield of600 lb of beef per acre, at a cost of o.24 to o.26/lb. of gainwhen factoring in all direct costs. The heifers continued tograZe on the alfalfa pasture while the steers were on thecorn. Average gain for the entire group of heifer and steeryearlings over the entire graZing season from mid-May toearly November was 1.95 lb/day.

In the spring of 2000 the Struxnesses frost seeded red cloveron ten acres that had been graZed and wintered on for thepast three years. A neighbor boy trapped 300 gophers, andin early spring, gopher mounds were leveled on 60 acres.Bare spots were air seeded with red clover and orchardgrass.Late that summer the rye was plowed up and the land seededto Green Spirit, an Italian rye and clover mix. Under verydry conditions, the seed germinated but did not continue togrow well. The rye/clover pasture could possibly be graZedearly in 2001.

Also during 2000, the Struxnesses added a research projectwith the help of the West Central Research and OutreachCenter at the University of Minnesota-Morris. Two groupsof twenty 750 lb yearling steers were graZed. Half of thesteers in each group were implanted. One group receiveda rolled corn supplement that increased from 3 lb to 6 lb

over four months. The steers were weighed at the onsetthen every 28 days to the end of the project at 112 days.The results are shown in Table 1.

Some problems with bloat were seen, especially in theimplanted cattle. While they plan on direct marketing beefraised “as naturally as we could,” Don says, “we wantedto see what weJre giving up while doing that.”

“I was surprised that the supplemented ones didnJtoutperform the others the way we thought they would,”says Dan. Supplements of more than 5 lb/day would be

Table 1. Steer Weight Gain: Implants vs. Natural Grazing,Supplements vs. Natural Grazing

Control steersImplant steersNon-implant steersImplant steers

^=72G

Alfalfa/grassAlfalfa/grass

Alfalfa/grass + cornAlfalfa/grass + corn

500:

2.17 lb2.38 lb2.14 lb2.42 lb

^6>;.G0=.I6<


—— 157



needed for significant changes in weight gain, a fact thatreinforced Don and DanJs thoughts on naturally raised beef.

Looking at their own project, the Struxnesses believe moreresearch needs to be done on cow/calf pairs following thestockers in a graZing rotation. They would also like to seemore research on lessening the danger of bloat on legume/grass mixtures. They plan on continuing the graZingmethods adopted in their project and share informationtheyJve gathered along with new information as theyprogress. Neighbors have also complimented theStruxnesses on the healthy appearance of the farm andanimals graZing its hillsides.

Of all the aspects of their graZing project, Don and Danboth see the watering system as the biggest success. “Wereally proved some things with that,” Dan says. “Byrunning the watering system out to the paddocks, we cankeep (cattle) almost anyplace. The energy-free fountainworks.”

Dan views the work as a long-term project, one that hasseen progress but not complete success. “The biggestthing is it takes a long-term commitment to see the changeshappen,” he says. “ItJs not like spreading Roundup on afield. Society is too immediate-results oriented.” Withminimal fertiliZer beyond manure applied by the graZinganimals and no chemicals, Don and Dan are satisfied withtheir paddocks. There was little or no deterioration, evenin a dry year like 2000. Don has 40 cattle on his land andDan overwintered 75. They have plans to purchase 100additional head and continue with the implant research.

The Struxnesses also are adding direct marketing of beefto their plan. They are developing brochures, have obtaineda retail license, and want to do more consumer educationas they market their beef.

Management Tips

1. Insulate the riser pipe from the buried waterline.

2. Make sure the tank and valve are adequatelysiZed to serve the siZe of the herd.

3. Be sure the watering system has a lot offlexibility, both for different waterer parts andterrain.

4. If you have a totally energy-free fountain,provide some sort of windbreak or deflector tominimiZe windchill effects in the winter.

5. Heavier steers perform better when graZing corncompared to lighter steers.

Project Location

One and one-half miles east of the intersection of StateHwys 40 and 119, or 7 miles west of Milan on State Hwy40, on the north side of the highway.

Other Resources

U7./5-/6$%)*5#%^105-/9E PO Box 99, Cherry Fork, Ohio45618, 800-639-4484.

Bartlett, B. 1999. @72$5-#6%9192$+9%=*5%657]-#6%.-C$92*;VEMichigan State University, PO Box 168, Chatham, MI49816, 906-439-5880.

)$#257.%@-9;*#9-#% a-C$5%`57]-$59. 210 River Drive,Wausau, WI 54403-5449.

Nation, A. 1995. g"7.-21% ,792"5$H% %^*?% 2*% ;5$72$% -2B+7#76$%-2B%7#/%+7V$%,5*=-2%=5*+%-2E The Stockman GrassFarmer, Ridgeland, MS 39158-2300, 800-748-9808.Web site: www.stockmangrassfarmer.com

Robinson, J. 2000. @31%65799=$/%-9%0$92h cashon IslandPress, cashon, WA, 206-463-4156. Web site:www.eatwild.com

F3$%82*;V+7#%`5799%\75+$5E PO Box 2300, Ridgeland,MS, 39158-2300. 800-748-9808. Web site:www.stockmangrassfarmer.com. Monthly publicationdevoted to graZing.

[#-C$59-21%*=%P-99*"5-%\*576$%8192$+9%a$9$75;3%)$#2$5E21262 Genoa Road, Linneus, MO 64653.

Tour participants examine year-round waterer

158 ——


Improvement of PImprovement of PImprovement of PImprovement of PImprovement of Pastures for Horsesastures for Horsesastures for Horsesastures for Horsesastures for HorsesThrough Management PracticesThrough Management PracticesThrough Management PracticesThrough Management PracticesThrough Management Practices

Project Summary

Horse owners are interested in having goodlooking and productive pastures because of theirpotential as a forage source, as an exercise lot,and/or to have a beautiful landscape. Frequentpasture renovation can be a haZard for theenvironment besides being expensive andinconvenient. Tilling the land and reseedingpastures every two or three years, plus yearlyapplications of fertiliZer and herbicides are notonly an economic burden, but also raise seriousenvironmental concerns. Many of theseeconomic and environmental costs can be greatlyreduced through good pasture managementpractices.

Having legumes in a pasture is an important partof a pasture management plan. Legumes arebeneficial for grass growth, save chemicalnitrogen fertiliZer, and improve nutritional valuefor livestock. Healthy pastures tend to havefewer weed problems, and therefore require lessherbicide application. Unfortunately, horseshave a highly marked spot graZing habit. Theywill not graZe in or near the small areas theydesignate for droppings. At the same time, theycan graZe very close to the ground in theirfavorite area and, if allowed, can cause damageto the grass and legumes in the rest of the pasture.The resulting problem after a couple of years ofthis graZing pattern is that some parts of thepaddock get overgraZedand some spots get undergraZed, the nutrients frommanure get concentrated inone small area, and weedsspread into the overgraZedspots. cariousmanagement practices suchas dividing pastures androtating, as well asdragging the manure pilesonce the horses are out ofthe pasture can helpimprove this situation.


Maribel FernandeZWright County

Extension Service10 - 2nd Street NW

Buffalo, MN 55313763-682-7394

maribelfuumn.eduWright County

ProjectDuration

2000 to 2001

ESAP Contact


Keywords

horses, managementpractices, pasture

improvement

The project goals are to promote healthy pasturesthrough management practices such as evengraZing, avoiding too much manure accumulatingin one area, spreading nutrients throughout thewhole pasture and allowing rest periods so thatforage growth is as even as possible the nexttime the horses graZe that paddock.

Project Description

Owners of three horse farms are participating inthis project. They want to manage their pasturesto improve forage available to their horses andto help educate other horse owners.

The farms involved in this project have pastureswith different mixes of cool season grasses forgraZing horses. Some of the pastures wereseeded as long as ten years ago. Managementhad been minimal up to the start of the project,and severe spot graZing had caused extremelyuneven ground cover, weed infestation, andpotential for erosion problems. Before startingthe project, pastures were graZed continuouslyby horses. Some were mowed occasionally, timepermitting. At one of the farms, manure wasspread occasionally.

The project participants monitored forage growthto determine the best time to move the horses.They also broadcast seeded red clover into some

Maribel presenting information at a field day

Livestock • Wright County Extension

—— 159



of the pastures, and at one farm, they tried “horse-seeding”by feeding the seed to the horses.

*24--'(")'6#$$&'T47",4"U,'*>.$.-'D.00'B($5< “Our farmborders the North Fork of the Crow River in Wright County.We breed and sell Dutch Friesian horses. Twenty-threeacres of the farm are designated for graZing. Most of thepasture is reed canarygrass in a seasonal wetland. Onlythree acres have a cool season grass mix and can be usedthroughout the graZing season.

We did this project to learn how to more efficiently managethose three acres, and how to use the reed canarygrasspastures. The three-acre pasture was in very poor conditiondue to overgraZing. Improving our pastures by adding redclover was very inexpensive. We broadcast red cloverseed at the rate of 7 lb/A on one of the paddocks, and leftthe other paddock without treatment. We measured thepercent of clover in the pasture and estimated forageproduction with the pasture stick. One drawback to theproject was the drought during the summer, which madethe summer slump even harder to deal with. We managedthe paddocks by providing long rest periods betweengraZings. We let the horses out only a couple of hourseach day for exercising, but didnJt give them time to graZe.We fed them hay during this time.

Other than our labor for mowing weeds, spreadingcompost, and broadcasting the seed, our only cost waso10 in red clover seed.”

?($&'R+5."%4'(")'T47"'E+)##"U,'B($5< Mary andJohn decided to divide their two pastures into four androtate through them as needed. The main drawbacks theysaw to implementing the new management practices werethe time and money investments. To manage the manure,they spread it every day during the summer, dragged thepastures in the spring and fall, and compostedduring the winter. All of the weed control isdone through mowing once each month andhand-pulling every week. No chemical weedcontrol is used.

“Mowing and removing weeds by hand havemade a huge difference in the quality of ourpastures. Also, dividing our two pastures intofour has allowed more rest for the pastures.Dragging the pastures also seems to encouragemore even graZing and fewer flies.”

N(0#'(")'Q(-7&'E4""."%U,'B($5< “We leasenine of our 14.9-acre farm and use the rest tograZe three quarter horses. We got involved in

the project to make better use of the graZing area and preventovergraZing, bare spots, weeds, and erosion. We want tomake better use of the pasture and reduce the cost of buyingextra feed. We designed and built controlled graZing areasusing movable electric fences and gates. We tried to “seed”clover by feeding the seed to the horses, and we did seeclover sprouting in the manure droppings. We haveincreased graZing without increasing the area. We donJthave to lift as many bales of hay as we used to, the fieldsproduce more than enough feed. We have learned to lookcloser at land quality and management.”

Results

Even after just one graZing season, the three participantshave already noticed more available grass and clover, andthe weed population decreased. Forage production datawere collected, but results were inconclusive because theywere affected by the summer drought. Data will beincluded in next yearJs report.

Management Tips

1. Dividing pastures into smaller parts allows for moretime to rest the paddocks between graZings.

2. Improving pastures by adding red clover is veryinexpensive.

3. Horses have a highly marked spot graZing habit. Theywill not graZe in or near the small areas they designate fordroppings. Dragging the pastures to spread the manurethat has accumulated in these areas serves to amelioratesevere spot graZing, fly problems, and serves as fertiliZer.

4. Healthier grass and legume populations can out competeweeds in the pasture.

Pasture improvement field day

160 ——


5. Close monitoring of pastures allows for better timingof graZing and rest fallowing periods. Monitoring also helpswith proper timing of chemical-free weed control practices.All of this leads to healthier and more productive pastures.

Cooperators

8;*22%7#/%F$551%!*3#9*#B Spirit Hill Farm,Wright County, MN

P751%`"+-#6*%7#/%!*3#%a"#/$$#, Delano, MNA7.$%7#/%_7231%a*##-#6B%Waverly, MN

Project Location

Call or email Maribel FernandeZ for project locations.

Other Resources

Jordan, R.M. ^*59$%#"25-2-*#%7#/%=$$/-#6E University of


Minnesota Extension Service Bulletin FO-00480-GO.o2.00. Available for ordering at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/units/dc/item.html|item�00480

Moline, W.J., and R. Plummer. ̂ 71%7#/%,792"5$%=*5%3*59$9-#% 23$% #*523% ;$#257.% [#-2$/% 8272$9E Michigan StateUniversity Extension Bulletin E-2305. o.50. Availablefor ordering at: http://ceenet.msue.msu.edu/bulletin/

University of Minnesota Extension Service. <792"5$+7#76$+$#2% 3*+$% 92"/1% ;*"59$E MN Beef EducationSeries. Available by calling the University of MinnesotaExtension Service, Pipestone, MN Office, 800-967-2705.

Wegner, T.D., and T.R. Halbach. P7#"5$% 7#/% ,792"5$+7#76$+$#2%=*5%5$;5$72-*#7.%3*59$%*?#$59E University ofMinnesota Extension Service Bulletin BU-07540-GO.o5.00. Available for ordering at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/units/dc/item.html|item�07540

—— 161


New Grant Projects

Alternative Crops

V"-#%$(-#)'N#54",-$(-.4"'4;'P(-.:#'B4$/'*##)'3$4)+2-.4"*&,-#5,

Michael Reese ................................................ Pope CountyRR 1, Box 61Hancock, MN 56244 ..................................... 320-392-5853

This project will demonstrate that native forb seedproduction is a viable enterprise for Minnesota farmers.Plantings of narrow-leaved coneflower, purple prairieclover, and white prairie clover will be grown for seedproduction. Data on seedbed establishment, standcounts, weed pressure, labor, and finances will be shared.

Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility

N#:#04>5#"-'4;'!(,-#$"'R(5(%$(,,'3$4)+2-.4"Nathan Converse ........................................... Cass County12113 } 61st Ave. SWMotley, MN 56466 ........................................ 218-894-5621

The objective is to determine the suitability of easterngamagrass as a perennial forage in central Minnesota.A native warm season grass, eastern gamagrass willgrow up to nine feet tall in large clumps, is highlypalatable, and can be used for graZing, hay, and silage.

W,."%'A.X+.)'D4%'?("+$#' (,' *-($-#$'B#$-.0.@#$' (")?(G.5.@."%'P+-$.#"-,'4;'F#))#)'*9."#'?("+$#

Soil & Water Conservation District ........... Dakota County4100 } 220th St. W, Ste. 102Farmington, MN 55024 .................................. 651-480-7777

A cooperating farmer will demonstrate that desired cropyields can be obtained by relying primarily on properlymanaged manure. The project will demonstrate creditingsecond and third year manure nitrogen, especially deepbedded swine manure, and the use of collected feedlotrunoff as starter fertiliZer.

E#>0(2."%'M>#"'6.0#'V"-(8#,'9.-7'E428'V"0#-,'."'B($./(+0-C4+"-&

Soil & Water Conservation District ........ Faribault County415 S. Grove St., Ste. 8Blue Earth, MN 56013 .................................. 507-526-2388

SWCD staff will work with farmer cooperators toreplace open tile inlets with rock inlets and demonstratethe reduction in sediment, nutrients, and pesticidesentering tile drainage systems as a result of the change.

New Demonstration Grant ProjectsNew Demonstration Grant ProjectsNew Demonstration Grant ProjectsNew Demonstration Grant ProjectsNew Demonstration Grant Projects

V"S;.#0)'=."-#$'N$&."%'(")'*-4$(%#'4;'C4$"Y''1"'!24"45.21"(0&,.,'4;'C4,-,'(")'E#-+$",

Marvin Jensen .......................................... Douglas CountyRed Rock Stock FarmRR 2, Box 48Evansville, MN 56326 .................................. 320-965-2763

This project will determine the economic consequencesof letting a corn crop remain in the field during the wintermonths with harvest in the spring. The project willexamine the different wintering effects on three commonvarieties of corn with Bt and Roundup Readycharacteristics compared with the same varieties withoutthe added transgenic features.

34-(,,.+5'E(-#'6$.(0'4"'("'!,-(/0.,7#)'R$(,,ZA#%+5#3(,-+$#Y''N#-#$5."."%'!24"45.2'E(-#,';4$'R$(@."%ZD(&."%*&,-#5,

Dan and Cara Miller .................................. Fillmore CountyRR 1, Box 241Spring calley, MN 55975 .............................. 507-346-2261

The objective for this project is to show that grass/legumepasture may respond to potassium fertiliZer. Corn yieldsin southeast Minnesota have increased with nominal ratesof potassium fertiliZer when soil tests for potassium were80 ppm or less.

?#27(".2(0'6.00(%#'4"'3(,-+$#'(")'D(&'A(")'-4'3$454-#1#$(-.4"'(")'=(-#$'V";.0-$(-.4"'(")'E#[+:#"(-#'!G.,-."%B4$(%#

Robert Schelhaas .................................. Pipestone CountyRR 1, Box 198Edgerton, MN 56128 .................................... 507-442-8493

Forage ground will be renovated using a tool designedto perform aggressive deep tillage with a minimum ofsurface disturbance. Renovation sites will includepermanent pastures, alfalfa/grass hay, and rotationallygraZed pasture.

=4400&'C+>%$(,,'E#,#($27Leo Seykora .................................................. Steele County327 S. Walnut Ave.Owatonna, MN 55060 ................................... 507-451-2906

This project will look at the effects of rye as a covercrop for woolly cupgrass control. Winter rye will beplanted in the fall to dominate the field and control woollycupgrass in the spring.

162 ——


New Grant Projects

!:(0+(-.4"'4;'N(.$&'?("+$#'1>>0.2(-.4"'?#-74),'(")P+-$.#"-'A4,,';$45'10;(0;(

Soil and Water Conservation District ............ Stearns County110 Second St. S., Ste. 128Waite Park, MN 56386 ....................... 320-251-7800, ext. 3

In an attempt to minimiZe manure nutrient loss, SWCDstaff are investigating an alternative to surface broadcast,unincorporated manure on alfalfa. The “Aerway”manure applicator produces holes in the soil, similar to asoil aerator used on golf courses. Movement of manurenutrients will be monitored using a rainfall simulator.

?("+$#'*>$#()#$'C(0./$(-.4"'(")'N#54",-$(-.4"Soil and Water Conservation District ... Wabasha County611 Broadway, Ste. 10Wabasha, MN 55981 ..................................... 651-565-4673

Farm manure spreader calibrations and nutrientmanagement planning demonstrations and educationalworkshops will be held on cooperating farms. Bettermanagement of manure will reduce run-off of nutrientsto the ^umbro River and Lake Pepin, minimiZe thepurchase of commercial fertiliZer, and improve profit.

Fruits and Vegetables

E44-'C#00($."%'(")'C45>+-#$SC4"-$400#)'\#"-.0(-.4"';4$!;;.2.#"-'*-4$(%#'4;'M$%(".2'\#%#-(/0#,' ."'('P4$-7#$"?($8#-

John Fisher-Merritt .................................... Carlton County2612 Cty. Rd. 1Wrenshall, MN 55797 ................................... 218-384-3356

The design and installation of an automated temperaturecontrol and monitoring system in a root cellar willdemonstrate the efficiency and cost effectiveness ofutiliZing the earthJs natural differences to heat and coola space for storage of vegetables.

R44)'!(-."%'9.-7'A.--0#'D#(-."%Y''1'*-$(9/(0#'R$##"74+,#;4$'M;;S,#(,4"]'!"#$%&'!;;.2.#"-'3$4)+2-.4"

Linda Ward .............................................. St. Louis County5818 Munger Shaw RdSaginaw, MN 55779 ...................................... 218-729-7671

Extending the growing season for produce will bedemonstrated with the use of a strawbale greenhouse.Crop yields, plant health, labor, and finances will bedocumented. Excess heat generated in the greenhousewill be monitored and captured and used to heat anotherbuilding on the farm.

Livestock

!"7("2#5#"-'4;'M"S;($5'10;(0;('R$(@."%';4$'F##;'(")N(.$&'D#.;#$,

Dennis Johnson ............................................. Stevens CountyWest Central Research and Outreach Center, U of M

Morris, MN 56267 ......................................... 320-589-1711

This project evaluates growth, health, and cost ofproduction of beef and dairy heifers in intensive rotationalgraZing of alfalfa pastures. One farm will comparestocker steers with and without implants while graZingalfalfa. The second farm will compare two sets of 400-700 lb Holstein heifers intensively graZed on alfalfa withheifers fed in a feedlot.

34-#"-.(0';4$'?#).2."(0'30("-,';4$'E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%Management Intensive GraZing Groupsc/o Dave Minar ......... Scott, Dodge & Wabasha Counties25816 Drexel Ave.New Prague, MN 56071 ................................. 952-758-3540

Six dairy farms will study methods for managing 11different medicinal plants in rotationally graZed pastures.Livestock health and graZing of these plants will beobserved.

C("'P#9'3#$#"".(0'R$(,,#,'!G-#")'?.""#,4-(U,'R$(@."%*#(,4"^

Paul R. Peterson ........................................ Ramsey CountyDept. of Agronomy & Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota,411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle,St. Paul, MN 55108 ....................................... 612-625-3747

Minnesota livestock producers need options to extendthe graZing season and thereby reduce feed and fuel costs.This project will evaluate the potential of new varietiesof perennial ryegrass and tall fescue to complementexisting forage systems by extending the graZing season.Trials will be conducted on northwest and southeastMinnesota farms and on experiment stations.

D.%7'\(0+#'34$8'3$4)+2-.4"' ;4$'P.5("'E("27'W,."%'(?4).;.#)'*9#).,7'*&,-#5

Dave and Diane Serfling ........................... Fillmore CountyRR 2, Box 176Preston, MN 55965 ....................................... 507-765-2797

Providing market hogs for a specialty market with therequirements of being raised humanely, antibiotic free,and with high meat quality during the summer months isdifficult because farrowing needs to take place in thewinter. This project will compare farrowing in strawbedding in pens, huts, crates, and free stalls in January.

D.%7'_+(0.-&'`'A49'V">+-'B4$(%#,' ;4$'=."-#$'B##)."%A(2-(-."%'N(.$&'C49,

Mark Simon ..................................................... Rice County12250 } 45th St. W.New Prague, MN 56071 ................................ 952-744-5108

Agronomic feed quality and milk production fromalternative high energy ensiled feeds for dairy cattle willbe evaluated. Brown midrib sorghum-sudangrass andsoybean/milo combination will be grown, fed, and tested.

—— 163


Completed Grant Projects

Livestock

X[[[C4":#$-."%'('=740#'B($5'C(,7'*&,-#5-4' *+,-(."(/0#' A.:#,-428' 3$4)+2-.4"9.-7' V"-#",.:#'E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%Edgar Persons

N(.$&'*-##$,' (")'E#>0(2#5#"-'D#.;#$,E(.,#)'4"'3(,-+$#,Melissa Nelson

!,-(/0.,7."%' 3(,-+$#' B4$(%#,' /&B##)."%'*##)' -4'C(--0#Art Thicke

R$(,,S(")'B4$(%#S/(,#)'B.".,7."%' 4;F##;'9.-7'C4",+5#$'6#,-."%Lake Superior Meats Cooperative

A49' C4,-' *49' R#,-(-.4"' ."' D44>*-$+2-+$#Steve Stassen

A#($"."%' 1):("2#)' ?("(%#5#"-V"-#",.:#'R$(@."%'67$4+%7'?#"-4$."%West Otter Tail SWCD

X[[\N##>' *-$(9'F#))."%' *9."#'B.".,7."%*&,-#5'W-.0.@."%'D44>'F+.0)."%,Mark & Nancy Moulton

!G-#")."%' -7#'R$(@."%'*#(,4"'9.-7' -7#+,#'4;'B4$(%#'F$(,,.2(,]'R$(@."%'C4$"(")'*.0(%#'C0(5>,Jon Luhman

D45#' 4"' -7#' E("%#' C7.28#"C400(/4$(-.:#'3$4[#2-Sustainable FarmingAssociation of Southeast Minnesota

D44>' D4+,#,' (")' 3(,-+$#,' ;4$?(.",-$#(5'D4%'3$4)+2#$,Josh & Cindy can Der Pol

?("(%#5#"-' V"-#",.:#'R$(@."%'R$4+>,Dave Stish

E#"4:(-.4"'4;'E.:#$'F4--45'3(,-+$#Jon Peterson

67#'\(0+#,'1))#)'R$(@#$,Y' F+.0)."%E#0(-.4",7.>,]'C455+".-&' (")'*4.0calues Added GraZers

Completed Grant ProjectsCompleted Grant ProjectsCompleted Grant ProjectsCompleted Grant ProjectsCompleted Grant Projects

X[[]F+;;(04Y'1".5(0';$45'-7#'3(,-]'Q#&'-4'-7#B+-+$#Richard & Carolyn Brobjorg

R$(,,'F(,#)'B($5."%'."'("'V"-#",.:#'E49C$4>'C455+".-&Douglas Fuller

3(,-+$#)' 34+0-$&' 3$4)+2-.4"' (")E.>($.("'1$#('?("(%#5#"-Todd Lein

?($8#-."%'N#:#04>5#"-' S' *5(00'B($5*-$(-#%.#,'3$4[#2-Sustainable FarmingAssociation of Northeast Minnesota

X[[^F+-27#$'D4%,'4"'3(,-+$#Michael & Linda Noble

!,-(/0.,7."%'6$##,' ."'3())428,Dave & Diane Serfling

N#:#04>."%' 3(,-+$#,' W,."%' \($.4+,A49S.">+-'3$(2-.2#,Ralph LentZ

R$(@."%'D4%,' 4"'*-(")."%'R$(."' (")3(,-+$#Michael & Jason Hartmann

R$(@."%'*49,'4"'3(,-+$#Byron BartZ

A49' V">+-' *&,-#5,' ;4$' B##)."%'F##;C(--0#'4$'*7##>Dennis SchentZel

E(.,."%'1".5(0,' ;4$'B./#$Patty Dease

E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%' V5>$4:#,'3(,-+$#,MISA Monitoring Team

*#(,4"(0' N(.$&."%' (")' \(0+#'1))#)!"-#$>$.,#,' ."'*4+-79#,-'?.""#,4-(Robert & Sherril can Maasdam

*9#).,7'*-&0#'*9."#'B(2.0.-&Nolan & Susan Jungclaus

X[[_N(.$&' =(,-#' ?("(%#5#"-' 67$4+%7V"-#",.:#'C#00'R$(@."%'4;'N(.$&'C(--0#Scott Gaudette

!:(0+(-."%'3(,-+$#'_+(0.-&'(")'_+("-.-&-4'V5>$4:#'?("(%#5#"-'*8.00,Land Stewardship Project

!G>(")."%'."-4'M+-)44$'D4%'3$4)+2-.4"James can Der Pol

R$(@."%'A#"%-7Y' ' *#(,4"'A#"%-7' (")3$4)+2-.:.-&Doug & Ann Balow

X[[`!:(0+(-."%'N.(-45(2#4+,'!($-7' (,' (=4$5#$' ;4$'*7##>'(")'C(--0#David Deutschlander

V"-#",.:#' C4"-$400#)' R$(@."%' (")3(,-+$#'E#[+:#"(-.4"'4"'B$(%.0#'A(")Lyle & Nancy Gunderson

V"-#",.:#'E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%'4"'=($5*#(,4"'R$(,,#,Jim Sherwood

E4-(-.4"(0'64>S%$(@."%'(,' ('?#-74)'4;V"2$#(,."%' 3$4;.-(/.0.-&' 9.-7' ('D.%7S>$4)+2."%'N(.$&'D#$)Alton Hanson

X[[a!24"45.2,' 4;' E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%' :,<E49'C$4>,Harold Tilstra

=."-#$'R$(@."%'*-+)&Janet McNally & Brooke Rodgerson

X[[Y1' C45>($.,4"' *-+)&' 4;' V"-#",.:#E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%':,<'N$&S04-'B##)."%'4;*7##>R & b Shepherds

C4"-$400#)' R$(@."%' 4;' !9#,' 4"V5>$4:#)' 3(,-+$#,' (")' A(5/."%' 4"F.$),;44-'6$#;4.0Leatrice McEvilly

V5>$4:."%'3#$5("#"-'3(,-+$#,' ;4$'F##;."'*4+-79#,-'?.""#,4-(David Larsen

V"-#",.:#'E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%Chad Hasbargen

164 ——


E#,#($27' (")' N#54",-$(-.4"' 4;E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%'6#27".X+#,';4$'N(.$&B($5#$,'."'C#"-$(0'?.""#,4-(Stearns County Extension

X[[X1' N#54",-$(-.4"' 4;' ("' V"-#",.:#E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%' *&,-#5' ;4$'N(.$&C(--0#ben Tschumper

V"-#",.:#'E4-(-.4"(0'R$(@."%' ."'*7##>3$4)+2-.4"James M. Robertson

W,."%' *7##>' (")' R4(-,' ;4$' F$+,7C4"-$40' ."'('3(,-+$#Alan & Janice Ringer

Cropping Systems

X[[[B4$(%#'?.G-+$#'3#$;4$5("2#Itasca County SWCD

R$49."%'C4$"'9.-7'C45>(".4"'C$4>A#%+5#,' ;4$'D.%7'3$4-#."'*.0(%#Stanley Smith

V"-#$S,##)."%'D(.$&'\#-27' ."'*+";049#$(")'C4$"Red Lake County Extension

A#%+5#'C4:#$'C$4>,'V"-#$S,##)#)'."'C4$"(,'('*4+$2#'4;'P.-$4%#"Alan Olness & Dian LopeZ

*+$;(2#'1>>0.2(-.4"'4;'A.5."%'?(-#$.(0,Jane Grimsbo Jewett

67#'V"-$4)+2-.4"'4;'B##)'3#(,'(")'B##)F($0#&' ."-4'=740#'B($5'30(""."%ben Winsel

X[[\CE3' ."'('C$4>'E4-(-.4"'3$4%$(5Jaime DeRosier

!:(0+(-."%'Q+$('C04:#$' ;4$'A4"%S-#$53#$,.,-#"2#Bob & Patty Durovec

6.5."%'C+0-.:(-.4"' -4'E#)+2#'D#$/.2.)#W,#'."'E.)%#S-.00'*4&/#(",Ed Huseby

X[[]*+,-(."(/0#'1%$.2+0-+$#' ."'*27440,Toivola-Meadowlands School

X[[_F.404%.2(0':,<'C4":#"-.4"(0'C$4>'*&,-#5,N#54",-$(-.4"

Gary Wyatt

A.:."%'?+027#,' ."'=#,-' C#"-$(0'?P=7#(-'3$4)+2-.4"Dave Birong

?(8."%' -7#' 6$(",.-.4"' -4' C#$-.;.#)M$%(".2'3$4)+2-.4"Craig Murphy

P4S-.00'F($0#&'(")'B.#0)'3#(,' ."-4'C4$"*-(08,]'N#:#04>."%'3(,-+$#,' 4"'67#,#F($#'12$#,Jerry Wiebusch

=##)'C4"-$40' (")'B#$-.0.-&'F#"#;.-,' 4;*#:#$(0'?+027#,'(")'=."-#$'E&#'C4:#$C$4>Gary & Maureen cosejpka

X[[`!"#$%&' C4",#$:."%' *-$.>' C$4>>."%*&,-#5,Gyles Randall

V"-#%$(-.4"' 4;'P+-$.#"-'?("(%#5#"-*-$(-#%.#,' 9.-7' C4",#$:(-.4"' 6.00(%#*&,-#5,';4$'3$4-#2-.4"'4;'D.%70&'!$4)#)A(")' (")' A(8#,' ."'=#,-' M--#$' 6(.0C4+"-&Harold Stanislawski

E#)+2."%'*4.0' V",#2-.2.)#'W,#'4"'C4$"67$4+%7' V"-#%$(-#)'3#,-'?("(%#5#"-ben Ostlie

X[[a1""+(0'?#).2,Y'C4:#$'C$4>,';4$'P.-$4%#"*4+$2#,Craig C. Sheaffer

F.404%.2(0' =##)' C4"-$40' ."' B.#0)=.")/$#(8,Tim Finseth

B."#S-+"."%'A49S.">+-'=##)'C4"-$40David Baird

B0(5#' =##)."%' 4;' C4$"' -4' E#)+2#D#$/.2.)#'E#0.("2#Mille Lacs County Extension

X[[YC7#5.2(0'B$##'N4+/0#S2$4>>."%Jeff Mueller

N#54",-$(-.4"' 4;' A(")' *-#9($),7.>6#27".X+#,' ."' -7#'E#)'E.:#$'\(00#&Donald H. Ogaard

!($0&'6(00'M(-'(")'*4&/#("'N4+/0#'C$4>

Charles D. Weber

P.-$4%#"' W-.0.@(-.4"' ;$45' A#%+5#E#,.)+#'."'=#,-#$"'?.""#,4-(Arvid Johnson

X[[X10-#$"(-.:#'?#-74),'4;'=##)'C4"-$40' ."C4$"Sr. Esther Nickel

N#54",-$(-.4"' 4;' 6.00(%#' !;;#2-,' 4"W-.0.@(-.4"'4;'N(.$&'(")'D4%'?("+$#'."*!'?PJohn Moncrief

V5>$4:."%'R$4+")9(-#$'_+(0.-&' (")1%$.2+0-+$(0' 3$4;.-(/.0.-&' ."' !(,-C#"-$(0'?.""#,4-(Steven Grosland & bathy ^eman

D#$/.2.)#'F("^' 'C4+0)'O4+'1)(>-'4"'(F+)%#-^David Michaelson

?4).;.#)'E.)%#S-.00' *&,-#5' ;4$' *+%($F##-'3$4)+2-.4"Alan Brutlag

W,."%'P.-$4'10;(0;('."'('P4S-.00'C4$"'(")*4&/#("'E4-(-.4"Jeff Johnson

X[[bD(.$&'\#-27' (")'=."-#$'E&#' (,'C4:#$C$4>,Mark Ackland

Soil Building and Fertility

X[[\67#'=."4"('B($5'C45>4,-'*-$(-#%.#,Richard J. Gallien

X[[]1"'!:(0+(-.4"'4;'\($.(/0#'E(-#'B#$-.0.-&W,#'4"'E.)%#)'C4$"'(")'*4&/#(",Howard bittleson

B($5."%'3$(2-.2#,' ;4$' V5>$4:."%'*4.0_+(0.-&Sustainable Farming Association of SouthCentral Minnesota

X[[^C4":#$-."%' ;$45'('C4$"S*4&/#("' -4' (C4$"S*4&/#("SM(-S10;(0;('E4-(-.4"Eugene Bakko

?("+$#'1>>0.2(-.4"'4"'E.)%#S-.00Y' 'B(00:,<'*>$."%Dwight Ault


—— 165


X[[_F+.0)."%' *4.0'D+5+,'=.-74+-'1".5(0?("+$#,Gerry Waas

C4"-$400#)'?.2$4/.(0' C45>4,-."%' -4V5>$4:#'*4.0'B#$-.0.-&Howard & Mable Brelje

X[[`?("+$#'?("(%#5#"-ZW-.0.@(-.4"N#54",-$(-.4"Timothy Arlt

6(24".-#'(,'('*4.0'15#")5#"-Donald E. Anderson

X[[YC44>#$(-.:#' ?("+$#' C45>4,-."%N#54",-$(-.4"'(")'!G>#$.5#"-Rich cander ^iel

!24"45.2(00&' (")' !":.$4"5#"-(00&*4+")'?("(%#5#"-'4;'A.:#,-428'=(,-#Fred G. Bergsrud

PV6EM'10;(0;(]'D4%'?("+$#]'(")'W$#((,'P.-$4%#"'*4+$2#,' ."' ('*5(00'R$(."]C4$"]'*4&/#("'C$4>'E4-(-.4"Carmen M. FernholZ

X[[X*4.0'F+.0)."%'(")'?(."-#"("2#Larry H. Olson

X[[b*-$.>S2$4>>."%'A#%+5#,'9.-7'*>#2.(0-&C$4>,' ;4$' A49S24,-' ?+027."%' (")E#)+2#)'B#$-.0.@#$ZD#$/.2.)#' V">+-,Mark ^umwinkle

Alternative Markets andSpecialty Crops

X[[[C4":#$-."%' ('=740#'B($5'C(,7'C$4>*&,-#5'-4'Q##>."%'("'!&#'4"'_+(0.-&'4;A.;#'(")'-7#'F4--45'A."#'."'*+,-(."(/0#1%$.2+0-+$#' /&' W,."%' Q#&' B($5!24"45.2' E(-.4,' -4' 1.)' ."' N#2.,.4"?(8."%Red Cardinal Farm

N$&'!)./0#'F#(",'(,'("'10-#$"(-.:#'C$4>."'('N.$#2-'?($8#-."%'M>#$(-.4"Bruce & Diane Milan

P(-.:#' ?.""#,4-(' ?#).2."(0' 30("-3$4)+2-.4"Renne Soberg

X[[\C+0-+$(0'(")'?("(%#5#"-'6#27".X+#,';4$F+2897#(-'3$4)+2-.4"'(")'?($8#-."%Tom Bilek

N#:#04>5#"-'4;'?(-."%'N.,$+>-.4"'(")?(,,' 6$(>>."%' *-$(-#%&' ;4$' 1>>0#A#(;5."#$Bernard & Rosanne Buehler

T#,,#"0(")'M$%(".2'B$+.-,'3$4[#2-Minnesota New Country School

34")'3$4)+2-.4"'4;'O#0049'3#$27John Reynolds

X[[]10-#$"(-.:#'34."-'*4+$2#,'4;'=(-#$Joseph & Mary Routh

C45>($.,4"' 4;' 10-#$"(-.:#' (")C4":#"-.4"(0'?("(%#5#"-' 4;' C($$4-1,-#$'A#(;74>>#$,Minnesota Fruit & cegetable GrowersAssociation

!,-(/0.,7."%' (")'?(."-(."."%'=($5*#(,4"'R$(,,#,' aP(-.:#'R$(,,#,bPope County SWCD

M"S;($5' B4$#,-' W-.0.@(-.4"' (")3$42#,,."%'N#54",-$(-.4",Hiawatha calley RC&D

3$4>("#' B0(5#' =##)."%' \#%#-(/0#C$4>,Jean Peterson & Al Sterner

*4.0'_+(0.-&' B(2-4$,'1;;#2-."%'R($0.23$4)+2-.4"Tim bing

=."#' _+(0.-&' R$(>#,' ."' M--#$' 6(.0C4+"-&Michael & cicki Burke

X[[^C455+".-&' *7($#)' 1%$.2+0-+$#' (")*#(,4"' !G-#",.4"' ;4$' P4$-7#$"?.""#,4-(John Fisher-Merritt

A.:."%'?+027]' M$%(".2'?+027]' F($#R$4+")'C45>($.,4"Dan & Gilda Gieske

X[[`C(,7'C$4>'=.")/$#(8'N#54",-$(-.4"ZN#:#04>5#"-Phil Rutter

C+--#$'F##'3$4>(%(-.4"'W")#$'D+5.)C4").-.4",Theodore L. Rolling

E#)'N##$' B($5."%' (,' ("'10-#$"(-.:#V"245#Peter Bingham

=.0);049#$' *##),' (,' (' A49S.">+-3#$#"".(0'C$4>Grace Tinderholt & Frank butka

X[[X10-#$"(-.:#'?+027'*&,-#5,' ;4$'V"-#",.:#*>#2.(0-&'C$4>'3$4)+2-.4"Ron Roller/Lindentree Farm

F#"#;.-,' 4;'C$4>'E4-(-.4"' ."'E#)+2."%C7#5.2(0' V">+-,'(")' V"2$#(,."%'3$4;.-,."'=.0)'E.2#'3$4)+2-.4"George Shetka

F#"#;.-,' 4;' =##)#$' R##,#' (")C45>4,-#)'?("+$#,' ."' C455#$2.(0*-$(9/#$$&'3$4)+2-.4"Joan Weyandt-Fulton

C4554"'D($:#,-'C455+".-&'B($5Dan Guenthner

?#27(".2(0'?+027."%'4;'6$##'*##)0."%,Timothy & Susan Gossman

?.""#,4-(' V"-#%$(-#)'3#,-'?("(%#5#"-1>>0#'3$4[#2-John Jacobson


166 ——


Project Purpose

The Sustainable Agriculture Loan Program wascreated to accelerate the adoption of sustainablefarming information and technology inMinnesota. Loans up to o15,000 per farmer orup to o75,000 for joint projects are made at afixed 6m interest rate for a term of up to sevenyears. These low-interest loans are made tofarmers for purchasing new or used equipment,or breeding livestock that helps make the farmingsystem more sustainable.

Background

When this program began in 1988, the conceptsof sustainable agriculture were less understoodand less accepted by farmers and lenders thanthey are today. Many farmers had difficultyobtaining the capital necessary to refocus theirfarm operations since lenders were reluctant tofinance changes during the volatile economy ofthe 1980Js. The state chose to assist thesefarmers through direct lending.

The initial o1 million appropriation from the statelegislature was set up as a revolving fund. Asloans are repaid, the funds are pooled andredistributed in the form of new loans. Manyfarmers will benefit with no additional cost.

Evaluation Criteria

Applications for the Loan Program are acceptedthroughout the year and are competitivelyevaluated. A review panel representing a cross-section of agricultural professionals from variousregions of the state determine which loan projectsto recommend to the Commissioner ofAgriculture for funding.

The loan proposals are evaluated basedon the following criteria:

&S P/*6$!#);$=7&*3$0/)$'"#$,&);How does this investment fit the long termplans for the farm|BS M00#-'$/*$'"#$,&);.*6$:43'#;How will this investment lead to a moresustainable farm system|

Sustainable Agriculture LSustainable Agriculture LSustainable Agriculture LSustainable Agriculture LSustainable Agriculture Loan Programoan Programoan Programoan Programoan Program

Loan TechnicalReview Panel

Laura BihlFarmer

John HobertFarm Management

Specialist

Tim blassenAg Lender

Mark MoultonFarmer

Dennis SchentZelFarm Management

Specialist

Lynn SorensonFarmer

John WegmannAg Lender

-S M*2.)/*;#*'&7$?;9&-'Is there an environmental benefit to the proposedproject|+S ,&);$?*-/;#What is the added return to the farming operationfrom the proposed project|#S ?*9('$@#+(-'./*Does the project reduce or make more efficientuse of inputs|

Each proposal is judged on its relative merits.A farming method considered to be highlyinnovative in one region of the state may becommonplace in another region. Thus, loanprojects for facilities or equipment may befunded for one operation but determined to beless appropriate for another operation.

Impact of Program

The loans have given Minnesota farmers addedincentive to make changes toward more efficientuse of inputs while enhancing profitability andprotecting the environment. A total of 289farmers have borrowed over o3 million from theSustainable Agriculture Loan Program topurchase farm equipment, facilities andlivestock.

As loans are repaid and the funds redistributedapproximately o250,000 will be available eachyear for new loans. When farmers implementinnovative changes, their neighbors have anopportunity to observe and decide whether toadapt changes to their farming system. In thisway the farmers are demonstrating new,innovative, and alternative ways of farming andare serving to accelerate the rate of adoption ofsustainable agriculture in Minnesota.

Project Categories

269572334419!#-

Energy SavingsLivestock ManagementConservation TillageWeed ManagementNutrient ManagementAlternative Crops)7463.,76;.+??72;41

J2FE0=. 7O.+??72;419=7_0?4.)<G0

ESAP Projects • Sustainable Agriculture Loan Program

—— 167


ESAP Projects • Animal Mortality Composting

Composting is becoming the method ofchoice for livestock mortality disposal.

Composting is a naturally occurring process inwhich bacteria and other microorganismsconvert organic material into a stable organicproduct called “compost.” Whether this organicmaterial comes from animal mortalities or fromleaves, grass clippings, and other yard waste,The processes taking place are the same.

Mortality composting is managed as an aerobicprocess (with oxygen) and is virtually free ofthe offensive odors associated with anaerobic(without oxygen) decomposition. Compost hasonly a mild and inoffensive earthy character.

Though many composting structures are builtspecifically for this purpose, existing buildingscan be adapted. Mortality composting structuresmust be built on an impervious pad, generallyconcrete, to prevent the leaching of nutrientsfrom the compost into the ground. They shouldbe covered, typically by a roof, though the useof sawdust covers to shed excess rainwater ispossible. Multiple bins are constructed withinthe structure using rot resistant material for allwalls in contact with the compost.

Start the compost pile with a 12” layer of woodshavings or other carbon source such as poultrylitter or bedding materials. This insulates thepile from the outside environment, providescarbon to fuel thecomposting process, andprovides sufficient spacebetween particles to allowgas flow and preserve theoxygen-rich nature of thepile. Adequate moisturecontent in the compostpile is necessary foroptimal activity. Using acarbon source with highwater content will reducethe requirement foradditional water.

Animal Mortality CompostingAnimal Mortality CompostingAnimal Mortality CompostingAnimal Mortality CompostingAnimal Mortality Composting

ProjectCoordinator

Mary HanksMinnesota

Department ofAgriculture

651-296-1277

AdditionalInformation/

Resources

Carpenter-Boggs, L.1999. Composting

animal mortalityresource notebook.MN Extension Pub.No. 100-1999. WestCentral Research &

Outreach Center,Morris, MN 56267

320-589-1711.

MDA. 2001.Composting animal

mortalities. St.Paul, MN 55107,

651-296-7673.Web site: www.mda.

state.mn.us./composting

Minnesota Research& Outreach Centers

animal mortalitycomposting

demonsration sites.Contact Neil Hansen

Morris,320-589-1711Jim Boedicker,Grand Rapids,

218-327-4490Roger Walker,

Waseca,507-835-3620.

Place carcasses evenly on this layer, taking careto keep them at least 6” from the sidewalls. Thencover the carcasses with another 12” ofuniformly moist carbon source. Additionallayers are added to the pile as needed. If a largeanimal is added to the pile, it may be necessaryto dig a trough in the existing pile so that theanimal can be covered.

Temperature is monitored to ensure that the pilereaches and maintains a temperature in excessof 130°F for at least one week. This is sufficientto kill insect larvae and to reduce pathogensbelow detectable levels. When the temperaturebegins to drop, the pile is ready to be turned.The material is moved to an adjacent empty bin,one bucket at a time, with a skip loader. Wateris added to the pile during this process as needed.The temperature of the turned pile should reachand maintain at least 130°F for another week atwhich time it is suitable for land application.However, it is advisable that finished compostbe used for approximately half of the carbonsource in future compost piles.

Management Tips

1. When locating the composting structure, avoidareas of sensitive water quality and consideryear-round ease of access and availability ofwater.

Composting bins at West CentralResearch and Outreach Center

168 ——


ESAP Projects • Animal Mortality Composting

2. Adding water to the carbon source before adding it tothe compost pile can help make moisture more uniform.This can be accomplished either manually or by storingthe carbon source outside and uncovered.

3. Use sufficient carbon source, especially at the base ofthe pile, to minimiZe leaching from the pile.

4. luickly cover carcasses that have become partiallyexposed due to settling or animal activity.

5. Inoculate a new pile by substituting finished compostfor half of the carbon to increase microbial activity andhasten the process.

—— 169


ESAP Projects • Big Woods Dairy

Big WBig WBig WBig WBig Woods Dairoods Dairoods Dairoods Dairoods Dairy at Nerstrand �y at Nerstrand �y at Nerstrand �y at Nerstrand �y at Nerstrand �Big WBig WBig WBig WBig Woods State Poods State Poods State Poods State Poods State Parkarkarkarkark

The Big Woods Dairy is the only modernoperating dairy farm within a state park in

the nation. This unique distinction provides anopportunity to share farm life with the publicduring designated tour days. The everydaychallenges and rewards of working a grass-baseddairy operation will come to life through the eyesof Phil and Dawn Brossard, a young couple whohave agreed to cooperate with several stateagencies in a demonstration of sustainableagriculture.

The Brossards moved on the farm in January1997 to begin the dairy operation. The Brossardsand their three children, Amber, Trent, and Sethare working more than 50 head of dairy cattleusing a system of rotational graZing on about 80acres. The demonstration project will continuethrough 2006 at which time the Brossards hopeto have the dairy herd paid for and the assetsaccumulated to purchase their own dairy farm.

The BrossardsJ efforts, along with measurementsof the environment surrounding the farm, will berecorded for several years. The MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR), theMinnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA),The Nature Conservancy, and many otherpartners hope to gain valuable economic,social, and environmental data from thisdemonstration. An Advisory Committee oflocal, state and federal agencies, the extensionservice, non-profit organiZations, and arearesidents was formed to oversee thedemonstration, monitoring, and outreachactivities for the project. Plans are to have aday each year where the farm is open to thepublic to tour and learn about rotational graZingand sustainable agriculture.

ProjectCoordinators

Wayne Monsen,Minnesota


651-282-2261

Wayne Edgerton,Department of

Natural Resources651-297-8341

AdditionalInformation

Tour & educationopportunities areavailable, contact

Nerstrand - BigWoods State Park

507-344-8848

Monitoring Nutrient/ManureManagement

645'C4;;5("]'P(-+$(0'E#,4+$2#,C4",#$:(-.4"'*#$:.2#]'(")'F$()'C($0,4"]E.2#'C4+"-&'!G-#",.4"Phil and Dawn Brossard are working with TomCoffman of the Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS) and Brad Carlson, Rice CountyExtension Educator, to ensure that the manurefrom the dairy is not polluting the environment.The farm is located near an intermittent streamand keeping excess nutrients from entering thestream is a priority.

The Brossards were the recipients of cost-sharefunds from the Environmental luality IncentivesProgram (ElIP) from the USDA. The fundsprovided earth-moving work to divert wateraround the feedlot to prevent movement ofnutrients to the stream. A hoop structure wasbuilt in 1999 that allows the dry cows and heifersto be under cover with straw as bedding. Thehoop building will prevent manure runoff. ietto be completed are rain gutters on the barn,

The Brossard family

170 ——



which will prevent clean water from washing over the lot.When these are in place, virtually all pollution will havebeen eliminated from the building site.

Technically, it is possible to manage all the manure on thepastures contained within the Big Woods Dairy, butrestrictions placed by the county feedlot ordinance makeit very difficult. Because of the presence of an intermittentstream running along the east border of the property, manureis required to be injected in order to maximiZe spreadingacreage. The standard method of application on a pastureis to use an implement called an aerator. This implementis designed to aerate pastures and hay fields and, whenused for manure applications, channels the manure into theaeration holes preventing most runoff. Because there is noactual soil being used to cover themanure, this method is not consideredinjection in Rice County and thereforecannot be used.

The application problems describedabove contributed to PhilJs decision torent 120 acres of neighboring property.This addition will take the pressure offthe established pasture in terms ofmanure applications. This rented land will also be usedfor graZing and producing corn for feed and hay for winterforage. There is now significantly more flexibility in themanure management plan for the farm, which allows forsome changes if necessary.

Monitoring Soil Quality

?($8'c+59."80#]'?.""#,4-('N#>($-5#"-'4;1%$.2+0-+$#Good soil quality allows the land to be productive, soakup the rainfall, and keep nutrients in the soil so they do notescape and cause pollution problemselsewhere. This demonstration farmserves as a great place to do a long-term study looking at changes in soilquality in a grass-based system andhow this system affects the naturalenvironment.

A group of University of Minnesota andMDA soil scientists, natural resourceagency staff, extension educators, andfarmers are looking at the benefits and/or problems that arise from land beingin grass with a management intensivegraZing system. The study focuses onchanges in soil quality over time on 18

acres of newly seeded pastures the Brossards began rentingin 2000. This land was in row crop production and now ispart of the graZing system.

Long-term monitoring using a Purdue Rainfall Simulatorwill track changes in phosphorus movement through thesoil, changes in aggregate stability of the soil, changes insoil organic matter, water infiltration rates, and how muchrainwater the soil can absorb before run-off occurs as thesystem becomes a grass system. Results will be comparedto the adjacent already established pasture.

One question simulated rainfall can help answer is how thedairy is handling intense storms in relation to the morecommon corn-beans rotation common in the area. In 2000,

an across-the-fence comparison was made between theintensively graZed pasture on the dairy and the newly plantedpasture on row crop ground. On May 25, 2000, two rainevents (2.3”/hour) were applied to each system. Runofffrom 3J x 24J plots was collected and analyZed for sediment,total phosphorus, and runoff volume (Table 1).

The results were somewhat mixed. The pasture did a goodjob of filtering the runoff water, reducing both sedimentand phosphorus loss when compared to the row crop ground.However, the volume of runoff was high in both systems.One hour into the storm event, the graZing system had

Table 1. Effect of Cropping Systems on Runoff WaterQuality at Big Woods Dairy on May 25, 2000

63

170

0.07

0.20Adjacent Corn Field

MIG Pasture

Sediment (lb/A) Total Phosphorus (lb/A)

H2F2364>P0.]640=>63.)=6;1G7=40:.*;0.Q72=. >;476. !MXb./6>;O633.VP0;4

Figure 1. Runoff from Simulated Rainfall at Big Woods Dairy May 25, 2000

—— 171



reduced sediment losses by 63m andphosphorus losses by 65m (Table 1).The pasture reduced total runoff but waslosing nearly 60m of the water appliedafter one hour (Figure 1). The grass ishelping to filter the water but somethingneeds to be done to improve the rate atwhich water can infiltrate into the soilso that subsoil moisture can berecharged.

Monitoring Frogs, Toads, andBirds

!0(."#'B#.8#5(]'1$#('P(-+$(0.,-]P#$,-$(")SF.%'=44),'*-(-#'3($8The Brossards are among a growingnumber of folks making the choice tocombine work, family, and conservationin day-to-day practice. Passing on atradition of family involvement, thesefolks learn together, sharing discoverieswith excitement. For the Brossards,monitoring birds, frogs, and toads is afamily affair. During the past year,Amber and Trent received binocularsas birthday gifts. Now, everyoneparticipates fully in recording wildlifesightings. While monitoring providesimportant information to assessecosystem health, it also connectspeople with the seasons and the naturalresources on the landscape. MinnesotaState Park staff and the Brossard familyencourage dairy tour participants toshare the many opportunities of wildlifewatching on the farm during their visit.

Why monitor| Healthy land meanssustaining the ecosystem that supportsthe farm. Biodiversity is an importantcomponent of a sustainable, productiveecosystem base. Frogs and toads helpmeasure water quality because of theirsensitivity to changes in the water. Birdsrespond to both short and long termchanges in the habitat. Together theyprovide valuable environmentalindicators of biodiversity on the BigWoods Dairy Farm.

Table 2. Birds, Frogs and Toads, Big Woods Dairy Farm in1998, 1999 and 2000

BIRDS 1998 1999 2000

Blackbird, Red-winged X XBluebird, Eastern X XBobolink X X XCatbird, Gray X XChickadee, Black-capped X XCormorant, Double-crested XCowbird X X XCrow, Common X X XDove, Mourning X X XDuck, Mallard XFlycatcher, Least XGoldfinch, American X XGrackle, Common X XGreat Blue Heron XGrosbeak, Rose-breasted X XHawk, Red-tailed XJay, Blue X XKilldeer X XKingbird, Eastern X XKingfisher, Belted XMeadowlark, Eastern XMeadowlark, Western X X XOriole, Northern X XPheasant, Ring-necked X X XPigeon X XRobin, American X X XSparrow, Chipping X X XSparrow, House X X XSparrow, Savannah X X XSparrow, Song X X XSparrow, Vesper XStarling, European X X XSwallow, Barn X X XSwallow, Tree X X XSwift, Chimney X XTurkey XVulture, Turkey X XWoodpecker, Northern Flicker XWoodpecker, Red-bellied XWoodpecker, Red-headed X XWoodpecker, Yellow-bellied

Sapsucker XWren, House X XWren, Sedge X XYellowthroat, Common X X)7463.B>=:.DG0?>01 ![ X( !#

TOADS AND FROGS 1998 1999 2000

Chorus Frog X X XLeopard Frog X X XAmerican Toad X X XTiger Salamander X)7463.)76:1.`.5=7A1.DG0?>01 X c X

172 ——



Monitoring follows guidelines outlined in the “MonitoringToolbox”, developed by the Land Stewardship Project. Inthe third year of monitoring, 28 bird species were spotted,down from the 36 species seen in 1999, but about thesame as the 27 seen in 1998. Three new species, (mallardduck, great blue heron, and least flycatcher) were seen in2000. A total of 44 species were seen in three years (Table2).

Monitoring Economics

C7+28'*279($-(+]'R44)7+#'C4+"-&'!G-#",.4"37.0'd'N(9"'F$4,,($)]'B($5'?("(%#$,Not only is this farm a good demonstration site formonitoring the natural environment, it also serves as agreat site for demonstrating the business side of grass-based farming. Farms are economic businesses that usenatural resources to generate income for the farm familyas well as support for the local economy. caluableinformation about the economics of grass-based farmingwill be collected as well as telling the realities of a youngfarm family as they begin their farm career in todayJseconomy.

There are a few key elements of the year 2000 financialsthat are significant to note. Despite some fairly dismaldairy prices, the Brossards were able to make a modest2.3m increase in their total assets and, at the same time,reduce their liabilities by 17.4m. The end result is a networth increase of nearly 26m. All of this happened on afarm without loan deficiency payments (LDPJs) on graincrops. Remember that LDPJs were the savior of manyfarms in 2000. These figures were based on “costs,” notyear-end market values.

The Brossards adopted a grass-based dairy feedingoperation but recogniZe the value of optimiZing productionper cow, even under that regime. Their milk sales averagedover 17,000 lb/cow in 2000 and generated o2,074 of grossincome per cow from milk sales. They achieved this bysupplemental feeding of grain, hay, and corn silage butgrass was the centerpiece of their production system.Including sale of heifers and cull animals, the total incomeper cow unit exceeded o2,125 and generated a o305/cownet return. That o305 was then available for labor,management, and net return.

The grass-based system appears to be easier on the cows.The Brossards experienced a 20m cull rate in 2000, whilemore traditional dairy farms may have 30m cull rates orhigher. This lower rate allows the Brossards to sell a fewsurplus replacement heifers for which there is so muchdemand at this time.

Based on their farm management association records, thedairy had a total cost of production (direct expenses,overhead expenses, labor and management) of o11.64/cwtof milk for the year. They averaged o11.92/cwt for a milkprice during the year. That is only a modest margin percwt of milk, but a profit nonetheless.

The dairy herd graZed for 213 days in 2000, April 11 throughNovember 11. The graZing system is 120 acres, whichincludes the adjacent 40 rented acres, divided into 29paddocks. The cows are given a new paddock to graZeafter every milking. The BrossardsJ gross margin was o343/A for the time they were rotational graZing in 2000. Thegross margin represents the amount left over to pay fixedand overhead costs, labor and management, living andfamily expenses, etc.

The percent return to assets and equity are considerablyhigher for the Big Woods Dairy than traditional dairies.Much of this difference is due to the fact the land base isleased rather than being purchased. The BrossardsJ assetsare focused more on income-generating assets (cattle) anda relatively small amount in machinery. The cows are highreturn items. This is also reflected in the asset turnoverrate since milk income easily matches and exceeds the valueof the cow and the other overhead items are kept down.This is important for beginning farmers and fits theBrossardsJ goal of having the cows paid for before theybuy their own farm.

—— 173


ESAP Projects • Soil Quality

The 2000 growing season was a difficult yearfor on-farm rainfall simulation research.

Two unusually dry falls in a row created droughtcracks that extended from the soil surface wellinto the soil profile. These cracks eliminatedany runoff from simulated rainfall, so we delayedfurther study until natural rainfall eliminated thecracks. We were, however, able to completean initial monitoring of runoff at the Big WoodsDairy (see pages 169-172).

Four new rainfall simulation research projectsare being initiated this spring. They include:

i ?("+$#'1>>0.2(-.4"'W,."%'("'1.$9(&'4"10;(0;(' (")'3(,-+$#< Surface application ofmanure to alfalfa fields or pasture risks nutrientloss in runoff. An alternative to the surfacebroadcasting of manure is the use of a liquidmanure applicator that creates holes in the soil(similar to an aerator used on golf courses). Thisstudy assesses the ability of such a tool toprevent undesirable movement of nitrogen,phosphorus and organic matter in manure whenapplied to perennial forage crops.j 6.00(%#]'374,>74$+,]'30(2#5#"-]'(")'C4:#$C$4>'!;;#2-,'4"'1%$4"45.2'(")'!":.$4"5#"-(0C4"2#$",'."'*+%($'F##-,< Rain simulation willassess the difference in sediment quality andquantity from conventional and new sugar beetcropping systems.j *.-#S,>#2.;.2'?("(%#5#"-'4;'P.-$4%#"'(")D#$/.2.)#,' -4' V5>$4:#*+$;(2#' (")' R$4+")=(-#$'_+(0.-&< Runoff,erosion, and leaching offertiliZers and pesticideswill be measured in plotsthat have been managedwith agriculture practices.Lithium bromide will beused as a tracer forpotential downward andlateral contaminantmovement.j 374,>7(-#?("(%#5#"-' *-+)&< Alarge, long-term study

Soil Quality and Rainfall SimulationSoil Quality and Rainfall SimulationSoil Quality and Rainfall SimulationSoil Quality and Rainfall SimulationSoil Quality and Rainfall Simulation

ProjectCoordinator

Mark ̂ umwinkleMinnesota


651-282-6204


Growers who feelthey have soil healthissues that could be

addressed usingrainfall simulation

should contact:Mark ̂ umwinkle

651-282-6204email:

Mark.^umwinkleustate.mn.us

Copies of%:99$99-#623$%8*-.%8192$+can be obtained

for free by callingMark ̂ umwinkle

651-282-6204

takes a comprehensive look at phosphorus asaffected by source (commercial fertiliZer vs.manure), placement (broadcast vs. deep banded),and tillage (no-till vs. fall chisel).

We will be continuing our simulated rainfall workwith ESAP grantees, Jim Sovell (pages 69-71)and Tony Thompson (pages 72-73).

*4.0'_+(0.-&'A.-#$(-+$#'E#:.#9< “Assessing theSoil System,” was published in the spring of1999. This review gives a good background ofthe renewed focus by soil scientists in the lastdecade on the need to optimiZe the holistic, livingnature of the soil resource to benefit long-termagricultural productivity and environmentalquality. For those interested in pursuing theendlessly complex world of soil health, theprimary topic areas included in the review are:

j what is soil quality,j influential early publications,j indicators of soil quality,j making soil quality assessments, andj managing for soil quality.

Although the source of most of the citedliterature was the soil science community, theaudience was chosen to be non-soil scientists.We hope that this document can help increasecommunication between soil scientists and thosewho make decisions on the land.

Fourth grade students observe soil erosion firsthand at the Mankato Childrens Water Festival

174 ——


ESAP Projects • The Organic Industry in Minnesota

The Organic IndustrThe Organic IndustrThe Organic IndustrThe Organic IndustrThe Organic Industry in Minnesotay in Minnesotay in Minnesotay in Minnesotay in Minnesota

ProjectCoordinator

Mary HanksMinnesota


651-296-1277


Excerpted from theMDAJs “2001 Status

of OrganicAgriculture in

Minnesota.”

Copies of the entirereport from the

survey of organicfarmers in the upper

Midwest, by anational organic

farming survey, andby the MDAJs

Organic AdvisoryTask Force can be

obtained bycontacting the

Energy andSustainable

Agriculture Programat 651-296-7673 or

on the web site:www.mda.state.mn.us

The organic food industry is growing withpositive long-term potential though organic

production still accounts for only a small portionof overall agricultural land - 0.1m in the UnitedStates. Certified organic production practiceswere estimated to be in use on 1.3 million acresin the U.S. in 1997.

Minnesota ranked seventh overall in certifiedorganic acreage in the U. S., with 4.73m of thetotal U. S. acres, or about 64,000 acres in 1997.Approximately 0.2m of farmland in Minnesotawas farmed organically in 1997. Minnesotaranked first in organic corn and buckwheatproduction, second in soybean and flaxproduction and third in overall small grainproduction. In livestock, Minnesota ranked thirdin organic dairy cattle and eighth in number ofegg layers. Farm gate prices for organiccommodities in 1999 ranged from 35m to 141mabove those for conventional commodities.

In a survey of Minnesota organic farmers in2000, respondents representing from one-thirdto one-quarter of the organic producers in thestate reported cropping an average of 214certified organic acres. Respondents withtransitional acres reported an average of 242acres in transition to certification. About halfof the respondents reported earning 25m or lessof their income from organic production.Income from organic production ranged fromo500-o100,000 per year with the majorityreporting earning o30,000 or less per year.

Organic food is the fastest growing segment inthe U.S. food industry. U.S. domesticconsumption of organic foods is expected toreach o9.5 billion this year, continuing the annualoverall growth in organic food sales of 20m.Growth in Minnesota sales of organic foodsexceeds that national annual increase. Between1995 and 1998, the number of stores in the TwinCities with organic products doubled from 40to 80 and the number of organic productsoffered increased from 345 to 1,043. By 1998,sales of organic milk accounted for 1.8m ofthe total fluid milk market in the Twin Cities.

State and Federal Programs DirectedToward Organic Agriculture

In 1986, Minnesota became the second state todevelop an organic program. MinnesotaJsorganic law allows the state to set standards,regulate organic certification, and takeenforcement action against those who attemptto commit fraud and sell conventional productsunder an organic label. The MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture receives input onorganic certification, policy and enforcementfrom an appointed Organic Advisory Task Force.

The Federal organic standards were announcedin December 2000 and are expected to be fullyimplemented by October 21, 2002. Individualstates like Minnesota that currently accreditcertifiers and enforce state organic laws willrelinquish accreditation authority to the federalorganic program. They will retain enforcementauthority if they choose to maintain state organicprograms under the federal rules.

Information and other resources are availableto Minnesota farmers from state agencies, theUniversity of Minnesota, and federal programs.Minnesota was recently recogniZed for itsexcellent work in the areas of organic researchand resources available to organic producers.Research done at the Southwest Research andOutreach Center at Lamberton and theinformation resources available at the MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture (MDA) and at theUniversity of Minnesota were specifically citedas examples.

XS 8.**#3/'&$>#9&)';#*'$/0$56).-(7'()#a. The Energy and Sustainable AgricultureProgram (ESAP) supports on-farm researchthrough grants, provides productioninformation, field days and low interest loansfor equipment. It provides staff for the MDAOrganic Advisory Task Force and managesthe state Organic Certification Cost ShareProgram. The cost share program was thefirst program of its kind in the nation,providing partial reimbursement forcertification and inspection costs.

—— 175


ESAP Projects • The Organic Industry in Minnesota

b. The Agricultural Marketing Services Divisionprovides organic and natural foods trade showcoordination, direct marketing support, and a variety ofother resources.c. The Dairy and Food Inspection Division providesconsumer protection by ensuring compliance to organicstandards.

YS D*.2#)3.'4$/0$8.**#3/'&a. The Southwest Research and Outreach Center atLamberton conducts research on 120 certified organicacres, hosts educational events, operates an organicfarmer mentorship program, and provides productionsupport through an information hotline.b. The University of Minnesota Extension Service inseveral counties organiZes local field days andconferences for organic producers.c. The Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture(MISA) at the University of Minnesota operates an on-line information exchange that connects producers toUniversity faculty and publishes a guide to organiccertification in Minnesota.

aS D*.'#+$:'&'#3$>#9&)';#*'$/0$56).-(7'()#$cD:>5da. The National Organic Program will implement thefederal organic standards, accredit state and privatecertification programs and oversee enforcement of thefederal standards.b. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and EducationProgram provides funding for organic research,demonstration and education through a competitive grantprogram. Their information service producesinformation packets on organic agriculture practices.

Barriers to Growth and Research Needs

Growth barriers and research needs were identified by arecent survey of organic farmers in the upper Midwest,by a national organic farming survey, and by the MDAJsOrganic Advisory Task Force. These include:

j bnowledge about organic production among the farmpopulation, and traditional support structures (banks,feed millers, etc.) are limited.

j More research is needed by land grant universities,particularly in the areas of non-chemical pestmanagement, fertility management, methods for reducingrisk especially during the transition period, and parasiteand disease control in livestock.

j Organic certification costs may be a barrier to smalloperations.

j Organic processing is often done out of state or thedistance between producer and processor is substantial.Farmers often do not have the economy of scale to

develop profitable on-farm processing capacity andthere is inadequate assistance to develop cooperativesand marketing associations.

j The potential for cross-pollination of organic crops bynearby genetically engineered crops creates barriers indomestic and export markets.

j Technical support for organic production, particularlyfor the transition to organic farming, is limited.

Recommendations

The MDA, with input from the Organic Advisory TaskForce, recommends the following to increase the vitalityof MinnesotaJs organic industry.

j Education and Information: Develop and distributeorganic fact sheets on production and marketingdcontinue to support a farmer mentoring programd provideinformation on organic production, food processing andhandling standards to all members of the food productionand distribution chaind encourage education in organicsthrough education.

j Marketing and Promotion: Develop an organics website that links producers, processors, buyers andconsumersd expand representation of Minnesota organicsin the MDA promotional material and at trade showsand the State Fair.

j Business Development: UtiliZe MDAJs co-opdevelopment programs to aid organic farmersd developa Minnesota Organic label to market organic productsas a unit.

j Regulatory Support: Review MinnesotaJs organic lawsand revise them to match federal regulationsd evaluatethe costs and benefits of continuing MinnesotaJs stateorganic program under the federal rules and act on thosefindingsd continue enforcement of MinnesotaJs organicstatute and labeling regulationsd develop clear andaccessible consumer and producer complaint processes.

j Technical and Financial Assistance: Provide financialassistance to farmers during the transition to certifiedorganic productiond provide education on organicmethods to Extension agents, bankers, and othersdsupport organic research, demonstration, andknowledgeable staff at MDA.

j Policy and Program Support: Encourage USDA toexpand crop insurance eligibility to include organicfarmersd survey to determine organic research needs.

j Research: Support the UniversityJs efforts in plantbreeding effortsd encourage the inclusion of statisticson organic production in national and state AgriculturalStatistics Service surveysd continue and expand organicresearch at state Research and Outreach Centers.

176 ——


ESAP Projects • Integrated Pest Management

Vegetable IPM

The Agricultural UtiliZation Research Institutefunded the MN cegetable IPM Newsletterproduced in cooperation with Dr. WilliamHutchison at the University of MN, EntomologyDepartment. This project has initiated acomprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach todisseminating IPM strategies, educatingproducers, creating infrastructure tocommunicate timely pest pressure and controlinformation to growers, and providing feedbackinformation for use in prioritiZing basic research.The newsletter can be found at the Universityof Minnesota web site:http://www.vegedge.umn.edu/mnvegnew/mnindex.htm

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)funded “IPM - Food luality Protection Act -Fruit and cegetable Proposal.” Three surveyswill be developed and implemented later thisyear for Minnesota fruit and vegetable growersstate-wide to assess the impact of the loss ofminor use pesticides as part of the Food lualityProtection Act and determine what alternativemeans of pest management growers arechoosing. As part of the survey, we will alsodetermine what growersJ needs are so that futureeducational and research efforts can be directedtowards these. The three individual surveys willbe for vegetables, apples, and strawberries.

Weed IPM

A Weed IPM Working Group was formed as aresult of the 1996 State LandsJ Plan. TheMinnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)works cooperatively with the MN Departmentof Natural Resources as co-chairs of the group.The group will develop an improved Weed IPMNewsletter which will be available via theMDAJs web site. The Newsletter will be for allland managers interested in the many weedmanagement activities carried out in Minnesotaby the many different agencies (federal, state,county and local) that participate in weedmitigation.

Integrated PIntegrated PIntegrated PIntegrated PIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) Programest Management (IPM) Programest Management (IPM) Programest Management (IPM) Programest Management (IPM) Program

ProjectCoordinator

Jean CiborowskiMinnesota


651-297-3217

School IPM

><P% -#% 8;3**.9% >#=*5+72-*#% 7#/% F57-#-#6<5*f$;2E We received funding from the US EPAfor a pilot project in which we developed a setof IPM fact sheets, and developed a trainingcurriculum designed for Minnesota public andprivate b-12 schools. We conducted regionalworkshops in 2000 for school health and safetyofficers and/or other district personnel in leadmaintenance roles. We have received additionalfunding from the Legislative Commission onMinnesota Resources and will develop additionalpest management fact sheets and expand uponthe IPM training workshop, developed above,for school personnel in maintenance roles. TheMDA is implementing the project in cooperationwith a multi-agency IPM in b-12 SchoolsWorking Group. The fact sheets are availableat:http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ipm/IPMPubs.html

Below is a list of the current research projectsbeing funded by the IPM program:

j Can Canola Control Weeds in StrawberryFields| - Dr. Emily Hoover. University ofMN. On-farm research and demonstrationin growersJ fields will evaluate theeffectiveness of canola, as a weed controlstrategy in strawberries, on a larger scale andin several different climatic regions ofMinnesota.

j New Tools for Apple Scab Decision Making- Dr. Emily Hoover. University of MN. Shewill develop a decision-making tool formonitoring and quantifying apple scab.

j Implementing cegetable IPM: calue of On-farm Research and Demonstration - Dr.William Hutchison. University of MN. Thisproject will evaluate and demonstrate newon-farm IPM practices for cabbage, sweetcorn, and cucurbit pests under both irrigatedand non-irrigated production systems. It willalso quantify the economic impact of IPMvs. conventional pest management practices.

j Risk-efficiency and calue of cegetable IPMPrograms - Dr. William Hutchison.University of MN. They will develop a new

—— 177


ESAP Projects • Integrated Pest Management

method to quantify and present the benefits and risksassociated with vegetable IPM programs for researchers,practitioners and clients.

j Publication of an IPM Manual: >#9$;2%<$929%*=%P-/?$92Q7#/9;7,$9 - Dr. c. brischik. University of MN. Anintegrated pest management color manual, >#9$;2%<$929*=% P-/?$92% Q7#/9;7,$9, will be developed andpublished.

j Organic Blueberry Production - Dr. D. Wildung.University of MN. The project will determine if a highvalue crop like blueberries can be grown organicallyand demonstrate the impact of organic weed controlwith and without wood chip mulch.

j Deep ^one Tillage and Crop Rotation as an IntegratedManagement - Dr. c. FritZ. University of MN. Reducedeep soil compaction and improve internal soil drainagein pea production in order to decrease the incidence ofpea root rot.

j Apple Bagging - Mr. L. ^illiox. Douglas CountyExtension Service. Eliminate the need for homeownersto spray their apples for the control of apple maggotfly.

j Selection for Pesticide Resistance in Parasitoids ofGreen Peach Aphid - Dr. David Ragsdale. Universityof MN. They will mass rear and release resistantparasitoids of green peach aphid to enhance performanceof these beneficial insects in potato pest management.

j Wool Mulching Systems for Specialty Crops - Mr.Steven Poppe. University of MN. The project willlook at providing a safe and reliable weed managementalternative in high value specialty crops.

178 ——


ESAP Staff

67#'!*13',-(;;'/$."%,'('/$4()'$("%#'(")'5("&&#($,'4;'#G>#$.#"2#'."',+,-(."(/0#'(%$.2+0-+$#($#(,<' '=7.0#' #(27'7(,' .").:.)+(0' -4>.2'($#(,

-7(-'-7#&';42+,'4"]',7($#)'$#,>4",./.0.-.#,'4;'-7#',-(;;."20+)#':.,.-."%'%$("-'$#2.>.#"-,]'(--#")."%';.#0)')(&,](,,.,-."%'."'9$.-."%'(")'#).-."%'4;'-7#'R$##"/448'(")94$8."%'-4%#-7#$'4"'4-7#$'>$4[#2-,'(,'"##)#)<

P.*+&$1/(6.#, Secretary, has been working for ESAP sinceit began in 1988. Linda provides administrative and clericalsupport to the staff/program. Linda is responsible for andassists in a variety of ESAP projects.

e#&*$A.B/)/E3I., Integrated Pest Management (IPM)Coordinator, has been a part of the ESAP staff since 1997.During her tenure at the MDA, she has coordinated theBiological Control Lab (1989-91) and the Exotic PestProgram (1991-97) including the Gypsy Moth program.She currently works on development and implementationof statewide strategies for increasing the use of IPM onprivate and state managed lands.

57.3/*$,.3", Secretary, does desktop publishing and word-processing for the program, helps design ESAP brochures,handles mail requests and maintains the SustainableAgriculture Loan and Grant files.

About the StaffAbout the StaffAbout the StaffAbout the StaffAbout the Staff.........................8&)4$T&*I3, Program Supervisor, handles ESAPJs budget,represents ESAP on state and federal agency committees,and interacts with university and non-profit organiZationson sustainable agriculture projects. She works with staffto develop their project goals and implementation strategiesand works with them to keep ESAP on course. MaryJstraining is in plant pathology with a research focus. Shecame to ESAP in 1990 from private industry.

K&4*#$8/*3#*, Program Coordinator for the Grant, Loanand Whole Farm Planning Programs. Wayne oversees theapplication process and supervises the review and contractprocedures for the grant and loan programs. He assistsfarmers with whole farm and graZing plans and networkswith agency staff, university researchers, and non-profitorganiZations. Wayne began working for ESAP in 1992after farming for 12 years near St. James, MN.

8&)I$f(;E.*I7#, Sustainable Agriculture Specialist,provides hands-on experience for farmers working on soilquality and acts as a liaison with university researchersand farmers coordinating the use of the rainfall simulator.Mark uses soil and cropping system health as focal pointsfor farmers exploring management issues and options andprovides the non-farm community with access to soil healthinformation. Mark is a vegetable grower from North CentralMN with research experience in living mulches. Markjoined the ESAP staff in 1993.

—— 179


ESESESESESAP Staff RAP Staff RAP Staff RAP Staff RAP Staff Resource Directoresource Directoresource Directoresource Directoresource Directoryyyyy

Agroforestry jAlternative Crops & Livestock j jCommunity Supported Agriculture (CSA) j jComposting j jESAP Grants j jESAP Loans j jFarming Systems/Tillage, Weed Control, Crop Rotation j j jIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) j jLivestock Production jLiving Mulch jManagement Intensive GraZing j jManure Management jOrganic Production/Livestock,cegetables, Grain, Fruit jOrganic Rules and Certification jPlant Diseases/Insects j jSoil luality and Soil Fertility, Composting jcegetable Production jWhole Farm Planning j

e#&*

A.B/)/E3I.

8&)4

T&*I3

8&)I

f(;E.*I7#

K&4*#

8/*3#*

ESAP Staff

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

!*13'?.,,.4"'*-(-#5#"-F*%?*5V%2*?75/%23$%6*7.%*=%9"927-#70-.-21%=*5%P-##$9*27%765-;".2"5$%01%/$9-6#-#6%7#/%-+,.$+$#2-#6%,5*657+92372%+$$2%23$%-/$#2-=-$/%#$$/9%7#/%9",,*52%23$%;5$72-C-21%*=%P-##$9*27%=75+$59E

180 ——


Notes

NotesNotesNotesNotesNotes

cropping systems and soil fertility

Education

minnesota agriculture

acres fertilizer

overall fertilizer

fieldincorporated manure

taylor farms

minnesota farmers

minnesota residents

greenbook interesting