UW-Discovery Farms Program

April 3, 2012

Saxon Homestead Farm has participated in the Discovery Farms Program since 2004. This dairy operation utilizes spring seasonal calving, modeled after methods used by New Zealand and Irish dairy farmers. This 5th generation family partnership of Robert and Karl Klessig and families have been practicing spring seasonal calving and rotational grazing for decades. The workload is intense, as approximately 125 cows and heifers calve each month during March, April, and May.

Check out this great video by Wisconsin Dairy News to see the calves and the team of family members that it takes to care for all those newborns!

Everybody gets involved during calving season at Saxon Homestead Farm.

Spring seasonal calving is an intense time of year at Saxon Homestead Farm in Cleveland, WI, with more than 125 cows giving birth each month in March, April and May.

April 3, 2012

This past winter has provided a lot of opportunities for cleaning up around the farm.  In our region of the state, farmers have been cleaning up fence lines, brushing, fixing equipment and getting ready for spring.  Wood piles are as big as ever and people are ready to get into the fields!

One nice thing about a mild winter is that on many farms, manure spreading was done several times this winter.  The open winter allowed most people access to bare ground and fields that would normally be inaccessible.  The lack of a long cold spell also allowed manure to be hauled greater distances from the facilities, which means that people were able to apply nutrients on fields that really need them.  I want to congratulate the vast majority of livestock farmers in Wisconsin for taking time to properly evaluate the conditions on their farms and for applying manure in a proper manner.

We are past the first critical time period for manure spreading (late winter snow melt) and are now into the period of time when saturated soils determine spreading risk.  In the past, this time period occurred between May and June (see table below) when we often begin picking up spring rains.  Getting manure on your fields earlier in the spring and getting the crops planted and established can help reduce your risk of runoff.

Runoff Time Periods

One final reminder – it is still late March.  Planting spring grains and new seeding is starting on fields that are fit for machinery, but there is no rush to get everything in the ground.  Getting the hay and small grains established early is important if we want to reduce soil erosion and runoff from those fields.  Have a safe and enjoyable spring!

Written by Dennis, drframe@wisc.edu

April 2, 2012

As result of the early spring, allowing field activities to occur at the beginning of April, registrations for the Manitowoc County UW-Discovery Farms Seminar scheduled for April 10th are not adequate to hold the event.  Therefore it has been postponed.  We will target the rescheduling of this meeting during the last week of November when most field activities should be completed.  Please contact Eric Cooley at (608) 235-5259 if you have any questions.

March 27, 2012

The time for spring soil sampling is fast approaching.  If you take your own samples, find your probe and bucket, and re-stock your supply of bags.  Otherwise, call your agronomist and get your name on the list for spring work.

Soil probe, bucket and bags

Guidelines for soil sampling are provided in the University of Wisconsin – Extension (UWEX) publication “Sampling soils for testing” (A2100) (http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/pubs/A2100.pdf).  The Wisconsin – NRCS Nutrient Management Standard (590) and Technical Note (WI-1) both refer to Sampling Soils for Testing.

What is a soil sample?  In general, an individual soil sample is a composite collection of ~ 10 soil cores taken to the depth of tillage, from each 5 acre area in a crop field.  The soil cores get mixed in a bucket and about 2 cups of soil are transferred into a field-labeled bag.  Once at the soil testing lab, values are determined for pH, organic matter, phosphorus and potassium; each based on analysis of a 1 ounce scoop from the 2 cup sample.

It is important that a soil sample accurately portrays the field area it represents.  Through the sampling process, the degree of representation gets smaller and smaller; from field – to 5 acres – to 10 cores – to 2 cups –to 1 ounce.  Ultimately, crop production recommendations for lime, phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) are provided for each routine soil sample, based on lab analysis of a very small amount of soil.  Producers and their agronomists need to be confident that a collection of 1-ounce scoops of soil are worthy to base a growing season’s worth of soil fertility and crop nutrition decisions on.

UWEX nitrogen (N) recommendations for corn are not based on routine soil sampling, but are provided based on soil yield potential and previous crop grown; fine tuned by the price of N compared to the value of corn.

How many samples should be taken from individual fields?  Remember, you want representative and trustworthy sampling so that the recommendations address the nutrient needs for crops planted in the field.  The common answer to this question is 1 sample per 5 acres of field, meaning fields larger than 5 acres have multiple soil samples taken.

There are guidelines for taking fewer soil samples per field, applicable only when P and K soil test levels are high enough to be defined as “non-responsive”.  Fewer soil samples can be taken from individual fields if, during the last 4-year sampling cycle, a field tested very high (VH) or excessively high (EH) for both P and K.  Fields with VH and EH soil test levels will have limited response to added P and K, thus you can get by with fewer samples per field.  Refer to the table below, adapted from A2100:

Additional questions can always be directed to your local County Agriculture Extension Agent.

Written by Kevan, kevan.klingberg@ces.uwex.edu

March 12, 2012

Listen to this segment with the Fabulous Farm Babe, Pam Jahnke and Eric Cooley on assessing the risk for runoff in your local area!

http://www.wisconsinfarmreport.com/resources/audio/file-20120312055941.mp3

For more information, we’ve recently put together an article called, “Runoff Lessons: Frozen and Snow-Covered Ground”  that will give you more detailed information on the risk factors for runoff. Even though temperatures are predicted to stay warm, some areas may still be frozen, and with subsequent rain events, frozen or saturated soil could lead to water leaving the fields.

January 31, 2012

This has been another year of uncharacteristic weather in many areas of Wisconsin.  Unlike last year that had above average snowfall, this year has been unseasonably warm with lower than average snow.   We did finally have a cold snap a few weeks ago that resulted in the rapid development of frost depth in the soils as a result of the lack of snow cover to insulate the ground.  Subsequently we had another warm-up last week and many areas in northeastern Wisconsin had over an inch of rain.  Water ponded in many areas that are typically well drained and significant runoff was observed in many areas.

Commonly termed “concrete frost,” this soil condition is a result of most of the pore space in the surface of the soil being occupied with frozen water.  During warming conditions, especially when additional precipitation in the form of rain is received, the water on the surface begins to infiltrate into the soil and then is frozen when it reaches the frost layer below.  In some situations, the upper profile of the soil becomes nearly saturated with water that then freezes during the night when temperatures drop below freezing (Figure 1). 

Concrete frost removes the soil’s ability to infiltrate additional water as the entire surface pore space is already filled with ice.  Additionally, it takes higher and/or prolonged temperatures to remove concrete frost conditions as compared to frost in the soil formed during unsaturated conditions.

Data collected by Discovery Farms has shown that during concrete frost conditions, little to no infiltration occurrs in the soil.  Nutrients applied to soils during concrete frost conditions have a very high likelihood of loss via surface runoff.  Nutrient applications should be avoided during concrete frost conditions.  This is not always possible, so nutrient applications that need to be made during concrete frost conditions should utilize internally drained land (closed depressions) or low sloped (flat) land.

In areas of Wisconsin where concrete frost has formed, it is likely that this condition will remain until after the frost comes out of the ground, typically in mid-March.  The extended warm conditions that are forecasted for this week may potentially remove the concrete frost in some areas.  Fields should be observed for standing surface water during frozen ground conditions for an indication of concrete frost formation and these fields should be avoided for nutrient applications.

Written by Eric Cooley, etcooley@wisc.edu

January 18, 2012

UW – Discovery Farms has done a tremendous amount of on-farm research, generated some tremendous data sets on nutrient and sediment losses coming from agricultural settings and has developed a vibrant information and education program.  As with any program there are supporters and detractors, but the key to the success of this program is the focus on learning the facts about non-point losses and engaging others in identifying solutions.

The “facts” for our program are based on actual measurements, derived from a number of different settings and farming systems over a number of years to account for the natural variation in weather conditions.  Over the past four years Discovery Farms has worked very hard to publish our data and make it available to a wide variety of people.  Publications like our graduation reports, which provide a summary of the entire data set for each project conducted in the initial phase of the program are available through our website (uwdiscoveryfarms.org) or by contacting our staff.  A number of more targeted issues (winter manure spreading, soil moisture, monitoring methods and a summary of the edge-of-field studies) have been researched in partnership with facilities at UW – Madison and the United States Geological Survey, and published in peer reviewed journals.  The important point is that our data has been or is being published and is available to people in a number of ways.

Why is this important?  Let me give you a few examples . . . I was sitting in a meeting in November when a person at the table made a comment about the lack of training available in an area of the state.  One of my bosses turned to me and asked if this was true.  I said no, and explained what was really happening in that area.  He responded that I needed to say that, as we can’t let misinformation be spread. Not responding could be seen as confirming the point and this is a disservice to our clientele – he was right!

A second and more common example is when people use portions of our data to make a point and either take it out of context or get it wrong.  Whether the data be about losses coming from tile drainage, natural settings, or manure on frozen ground conditions; we have to be sure that the information being conveyed is accurate and truthful.   That’s why we work so hard to publish the data, so that everyone has access to it and can use the correct numbers.  If you hear something that doesn’t seem right, you can either go to our website and get the information or contact our office (1-715-983-5668) and we will get you the correct information.  Some of the reports are still under development, but if we presented it we will make sure you get the information that we provided.

The key point is to “get the facts” and don’t simply assume that information from a second hand source is accurate.  We may not like the data, but it is what it is and it is accurate.

Written by Dennis Frame, drframe@wisc.edu

January 3, 2012

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) recently revised Chapter NR 151, Wisconsin Administrative Code, which establishes runoff performance standards for agricultural practices and manure management prohibitions for agricultural operations.  The revised NR 151 was published in December 2010 and became effective on January 1, 2011.  There are three major changes to the previous NR 151 rules.

The first significant change was the addition of the tillage setback performance standard.  NR 151.03 (1) and (2) state, “No crop producer may conduct a tillage operation that negatively impacts stream bank integrity or deposits soil directly in surface waters. No tillage operations may be conducted within 5 feet of the top of the channel of surface waters. Tillage setbacks greater than 5 feet but no more than 20 feet may be required to meet this standard.”  In addition, “adequate sod or self−sustaining vegetative cover that provides a minimum of 70% coverage” is required in the tillage setback area.  This standard does not apply to grassed waterways installed as conservation practices.

A second important change is the phosphorus index performance standard.  NR 151.04 (2) (a) states, “Croplands, pastures, and winter grazing areas shall average a phosphorus index of 6 or less over the accounting period and may not exceed a phosphorus index of 12 in any individual year within the accounting period.”  It should be noted that the phosphorus index requirement for pastures is effective beginning July 1, 2012.

A final considerable change is the process wastewater handling performance standard.  NR 151.055 (2) states, “There may be no significant discharge of process wastewater to waters of the state.”  As defined by NR 243.03 (53), “’Process wastewater’ means wastewater from the production area directly or indirectly used in the operation of animal feeding operation that results from any or all of the following:

(a) Spillage or overflow from animal or poultry watering systems.

(b) Washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure pits, or other animal feeding operation facilities.

(c) Direct contact swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals or dust control.

(d) Water that comes into contact with any raw materials or animal byproducts including manure, feed, milk, eggs or bedding.”

Additional definitions for “feedlot” and “pasture” were also added and the definition of “direct runoff” was expanded in NR 151.015.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) has opened ATCP 50, the Soil and Water Resource Management Program rules, to address changes in NR 151.  DATCP establishes conservation practices in ATCP 50 to meet the performance standards adopted under NR 151.  Listening sessions on ATCP 50 rules changes prior to development, occurred in December 2011 and comments are being taken until January 15, 2012.  Drafting of the ATCP 50 rules changes is slated to begin on January 16, 2012.  Send any comments to Jim VandenBrook at  DATCP jim.vandenbrook@wisconsin.gov

Written by Eric Cooley, etcooley@wisc.edu

December 28, 2011

What does it cost you to own and operate agricultural machinery for crop production?  Should you own the equipment or seek a custom operator for 1 or more field operations?  What should you charge someone else to have your people and your machine conduct field operations on their farm, and vice versa?  These questions definitely need answers as you put a final wrapping on the 2011 growing season and evaluate your cost of production for grains and forages produced.

Three publications commonly used by Wisconsin agricultural producers and their advisors to put values on machine operations are listed below.  These machinery cost guidelines and estimates are based on 2010 information from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.  You should make appropriate adjustments for price changes to machinery, fuel, and / or labor when using this 2010 information for subsequent years.

The Wisconsin and Iowa information are both based on survey answers from farmers and custom machinery operators, as to prices paid or charged in 2010.

The Minnesota information is based on calculations (not a survey).  Engineering and economic assumptions are made for depreciation, labor, fuel price, machine capacity and efficiency, etc.

Machine operation cost guidelines and estimates available from the Internet:

Wisconsin

Custom Rate Guide – 2010, National Ag Statistics Service, WI-DATCP, Feb, 2011.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wisconsin/Publications/custom_rates_2010.pdf

Minnesota

Machinery Cost Estimates, University of Minnesota, May, 2011.

http://faculty.apec.umn.edu/wlazarus/documents/machdata.pdf

Iowa

2011 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey, Iowa State University, March, 2011.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a3-10.pdf

Written by Kevan, kevan.klingberg@ces.uwex.edu

December 13, 2011

In these last few weeks of 2011 it’s time to reflect on what worked well and what could be improved on our farms and in our lives.  Not making resolutions, but carefully evaluating how things are working, evaluating sustainability and making decisions on your enterprises and inputs.  Current prices mean that a farmer is handling more money, but does it necessarily mean that a farm is profitable?  Now is the time to conduct some enterprise analysis to determine the level of profitability of each enterprise on your operation and look for ways to improve or protect your operation’s sustainability. 

This is also the time of year when many producers sit down with their advisors and make purchases of fertilizers, chemicals and seed.  Much of this has to be done to ensure that products are available next spring, while maintaining a proper balance of farm income and expense.  It appears that many non-farm people don’t understand that fertilizer purchases are based on information gathered and analyzed by producers.  These decisions are made carefully based on crop needs, available supply and the cost of inputs; not just guesses and “ballpark” situations. 

The question is being asked “why aren’t farmers adopting nutrient management”?   I would contend that over the past 15 – 20 years there have been tremendous gains in widespread adoption of nutrient management.  Based on nutrient management classes conducted since 1992, the number of farmers entering classes that don’t credit manure or legumes has dramatically decreased.  Soil sampling has increased, and as the price of fertilizer increased, the vast majority of farmers have looked for assistance in balancing their nutrient applications.  That said, very few of these farmers are looking to government agencies for assistance; they work with their advisors such as independent crop advisors, extension or technical college staff and staff at the supply dealerships.  With high fertilizer prices and the high cost of land and other inputs; farmers cannot afford to over apply fertilizers and chemicals. Most are very careful about the sustainability of their operations.

Written by Dennis, drframe@wisc.edu