The TreeThe UW Discover y Farms Newslet ter

Fall 2012

continued on page 3

continued on page 6

THE DROUGHT SHOULDN’T CAUSE MAJOR CHANGES IN FERTILIZATION STRATEGIES FOR 2013by George Rehm, Discovery Farms-Minnesota

The drought of 2012 has created and will continue to stimulate numerous conversations throughout the

Corn Belt. Some management practices and marketing plans will change as we move to 2013. However, major changes in fertilization plans will not be necessary.

We’ve experienced severe droughts in past years. Al-though some believe that major changes in fertilization practices are needed as we moved to the year following the drought, we’ve learned from the past that the use of common sense and decisions based on fundamental concepts was the best strategy. So, let’s look at some of those fundamental concepts.

Ignore Crop Removal: There’s no question. Nutrient uptake and removal are not “normal” when crops are stressed by dry weather. And, there’s no way to accu-rately determine the exact reduction in this removal.

DRY RUN CREEK WATERSHED: 2010-2011 EDGE OF FIELD DATA SUMMARY

Data collection started at monitoring stations in Jersey Valley Watershed (JV) and Dry Run Creek Watershed (DRC) during the fall of 2010. In DRC, there are two monitoring sites located in agricultural fields, three sites within the Willow River, monitoring perennial flow, and one station in an intermittent stream. In addition to the water quality monitoring sites, UW-Discovery Farms has installed weather stations within the watersheds that record precipitation, wind speed and direction, air tem-perature, solar radiation, relative humidity, and soil moisture and temperature.

I NSI D E

The Drought Shouldn’t Cause Major Changes in Fertilization Strategies For 2013 ....................................... 1

Dry Run Creek Watershed: 2010-2011 Edge of Field Data Summary ............................................................................. 1

Director’s Column ............................................................... 2

Uncharacteristic Growing Season Establishes High Potential of Fall Nitrogen Loss .......................................... 4

Consider Using A Cover Crop This Fall ............................. 5

Upcoming Graduation Party: Riechers Beef ................... 7

2The Tree-Fall 2012

Director’s Column

The summer of 2012 is rapidly coming to an end and I’m sure I speak for others in that I will not miss the lack of rain, the excessive heat or the never ending list of projects that need to be done before winter. For me, “to-do-lists” and detailed calendars help me focus and sort through the daily emergencies that detour my goals for both my professional and personal life. In the olden days my calendar and to-do-lists were simple paper tools that I filled in with meetings, visits, time off, projects and other activities that required my involvement and that I scheduled for myself. More recently, it was suggested that I should use an electronic calendar and allow someone to oversee all the calendars in the office so that meetings could be scheduled without any conflicts. Great idea! Now anyone who wants to schedule a meeting with me can contact the person overseeing my calendar and see if I’m available. As a result, I am no longer the one in control of my calendar. Shouldn’t the person responsible for attending these events and meetings have a say in whether or not he is attending?! Additionally, my to-do-list is often affected by what is in my calendar. So, allowing someone else to control my calendar leaves me with a to-do-list and a schedule that may or may not be something I can actually execute successfully when coupled with all the things going on in my life that don’t even make it to my calendar as ‘events’.

As I was sitting in my office thinking about my lack of calendar control, I was also working on several nutrient management plans. These plans were either part of a project or were sent to me by farmers who had concerns about their plans. The issue was that the planner is required to develop a plan that meets the state requirements and, as such, doesn’t have any non-compliance flags. In some cases the plan writer had to implement conservation practices, change rotations, tillage or manure application practices, or add several more years to the plan to eliminate these flags. While the plan was compliant according to the computer model, it did not reflect the current situation on the farm or things that the farmer could execute. As a producer, when you receive a totally compliant plan that you may or may not be able to implement (though you are the one totally responsible for implementing it), it is just like someone else controlling your calendar and scheduling events you are unaware of. The question is: is it more important to have a ‘perfect’ nutrient management plan on paper or to have a plan you can implement effectively? Or, in my case, is it more important to have a meeting on my calendar or to actually be able to prepare and show up ready to contribute to it?

Dennis Frame

3The Tree-Fall 2012

The information presented in this article comes from data collected in DRC for Field Year 2011, the first com-plete year. This information is totally based on data from the edge of field sites, no stream data is included. It is important to consider that the information present-ed here is from only one year of data, and that year was below average in precipitation. Through past Discovery Farms research, we have seen that the timing and amount of precipitation in any given year can greatly impact the amount of annual runoff volume, and nutri-ent and sediment loss. Final conclusions shouldn’t be made from the preliminary information presented here, but rather use these data as a point of context for infor-mation gained in future years.

Precipitation

The total precipitation measured from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 was 27.7 inches, about 4 inches (13%) below the 30-year average of 31.9 inches. Howev-er, snowfall depth was 70.4 inches, nearly double the average snowfall depth of 44.3 inches. Only December, March, April and July were not drier than average dur-ing the year.

Runoff Volume

Annual surface runoff from the edge of field sites ranged from 3.55 to 11.66 inches, or 10 to 36 percent of the year’s total annual precipitation. The average annu-al surface runoff from the two sites was 7.61 inches. This average was 27 percent of total precipitation, which is more than triple the past runoff values from other Dis-covery Farms sites across the state. Further

continued from Dry Run Creek Watershed: 2010-2011 Edge of Field Data Summary on page 1

investigation of soil and bedrock characteristics will be performed in 2012 to understand why irregularity at one field site exists.

Sediment Loss

For the year, sediment loss ranged from 173 to 3717 lbs/acre. The wide range between field sites resulted in a higher than average sediment loss of 1945 pounds per acre. This average is well above past Discovery Farms field site averages. Similar to annual runoff, the factors contributing to the increased sediment loss need to be investigated further.

Phosphorus Loss

Total phosphorus refers to the combined total of the particulate (bound to soil particles), and dissolved forms. Historically, Discovery Farms field sites have aver-aged 2 lbs/acre of total phosphorus loss annually with losses split evenly between the dissolved and particu-late forms. During the first year of monitoring in the Dry Run Creek Watershed, total phosphorus loss averaged 2.2 lbs/acre and ranged from 0.71 to 3.67 lbs/acre. Both sites had a majority of P losses in the particulate form.

Nitrogen Loss

Total nitrogen refers to the combined total of ammonium, nitrate, and organic nitrogen. Previous Discovery Farms sites averaged a loss of 7 lbs/acre of ni-trogen through surface water with most losses in the organic form. In the Dry Run Creek Watershed, the aver-age annual total nitrogen loss was 17.1 lbs/acre with a range of 3.17 to 31.04 lbs/acre. Approximately half of the nitrogen loss was in the organic form, just under 40% as nitrate and the remainder was ammonium. The field sites varied as to whether more nitrogen was lost while the ground was frozen or unfrozen.

The Dry Run Creek Watershed Project is a study of the

Surfa

ce ru

no�

(inc

hes)

State Average runo�

Dry Run Creek Average runo�

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Phos

phor

us lo

ss (p

ound

s per

acre

) State Average P loss

Dry Run Creek Average P loss

4The Tree-Fall 2012

UNCHARACTERISTIC GROWING SEASON ESTABLISHES HIGH POTENTIAL OF FALL NITROGEN LOSS

It has been a year of highly variable weather patterns throughout Wisconsin. The unseasonably warm

spring allowed many producers to plant crops early. In-frequent summer precipitation events were often high-ly intense, small cells of rain. Variation in planting date combined with the timing and amount of precipitation received, resulted in distinct differences in the degree of drought stress exhibited by crops, even within a local-ized area. Especially in the southern portion of Wiscon-sin, the drought stress was so severe that many produc-ers will harvest corn as silage that would otherwise have been harvested for grain.

These circumstances have set-up conditions to have high potential of nitrogen loss from the upcoming late fall through early spring if nutrients are not correctly managed. The current setting is very similar to what was observed in the 2005 growing season. In that year, the droughty summer months were followed by a warm, wet fall. Total nitrogen loss data collected in tile drainage at a Discovery Farm in October, 2005 through May, 2006 were over four times the average loss in pro-ceeding and subsequent years.

The high nitrogen loss during this time period can be attributed to a number of factors:

1. Corn production was severely impacted by the drought, thus some of nitrogen applied for the 2005 corn crop remained in the soil as it was not utilized by the crop.

2. Three days after the corn was harvested early for si-lage, manure was applied to the soil to provide most of the nitrogen requirement for the subsequent corn crop in 2006.

water quality and land management practices in a small watershed in Western Wisconsin in cooperation with the community of people that live and work there. The study watershed is typical of the surrounding area, both in topography and land uses. The study will be in place for five to seven years.

For more information on the first year of data from the Dry Run Creek Watershed, please visit our website and check out the Watershed Projects page. §

3. Soil temperatures remained above 50° F until early November, 2005 allowing for the rapid conversion of ammonium nitrogen and organic nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen from the applied manure.

4. Large, frequent precipitation events in late Novem-ber, 2005 to May, 2006 leached the nitrate nitrogen through the soil profile and into the tile drainage system.

It should be noted that although the elevated nitrogen losses were observed in tile drainage systems, similar losses may be observed in groundwater in non-tile drained landscapes.

Although it is hard to predict the weather patterns of the upcoming fall through spring, there are manage-ment options that can be taken to reduce the loss of ni-trogen so it remains in the soil for next year's crop:

9 If fall applying manure or nitrogen fertilizer, wait until soil temperatures remain under 50° F to mini-mize the conversion of ammonium and organic ni-trogen to nitrate nitrogen.

9 If fall applying manure or nitrogen fertilizer, using a nitrification inhibitor or slow release fertilizer can reduce nitrogen loss.

9 Utilize cover crops to both retain nutrients and protect against soil erosion.

For additional information on reducing nitrogen loss, please reference UW Extension Publication A2809 Nutri-ent application guidelines for field, vegetable, and fruit crops in Wisconsin. §

Nitro

gen l

oss (

poun

ds pe

r acre

)

State Average N loss

Dry Run Creek Average N loss

0

5

10

15

20

5The Tree-Fall 2012

CONSIDER USING A COVER CROP THIS FALL

Corn silage harvest began early this year and is now in full swing statewide. This year’s earlier than nor-

mal corn silage harvest (or silage harvest due to drought conditions) provides producers an excellent opportunity to make use of cover crops.

There are several benefits of growing a cover crop:

9 Providing an emergency forage.

9 Scavenging excess soil nitrogen—plants take up highly leachable nitrate nitrogen in the fall and re-turn it back to the soil as stable organic matter.

9 Reducing soil erosion—plants protect soil from the impact of falling raindrops while also creating ob-stacles to slow the speed of moving surface water.

9 Improvement of soil quality—organic matter pro-duced by cover crops improves soil structure, which increases water infiltration and soil water-holding capacity.

9 Bio-tillage—active root growth disturbs and loos-ens compacted layers. Decomposing roots leave large pores in the soil for greater water infiltration.

In Wisconsin, oats, oilseed radish and winter rye are the most common cover crops planted after corn silage

harvest. Oats or oilseed radish planted alone or in a mix with winter peas should be planted prior to September 10th. If planting after September 10th, use winter rye. Below are some traits about commonly used cover crops in Wisconsin.

For more information about cover crops, please use the following list of resources:

Discovery Farmshttp://www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org/OurResearch/Crop-pingSystemsManagement/CoverCrops.aspx

UW Soil Science Extension

http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/covercrop.php

Midwest Cover Crop Councilhttp://www.mccc.msu.edu/

Oats Oilseed Radish Winter Rye

Recommended seeding date August to early September

Mid-July to early September

Mid-September to mid-October

Seeding rate -alone 1 to 2 bushels/acre 8 to 10 pounds/ac 1 to 2 bushels/acreSeeding rate with legume ½ to 1 bushel/ac 4 to 5 pounds/ac None

Legume rate 26 to 40 lbs/ac winter peas 33 to 50 lbs/ac winter peas None

Seeding depth ½ to 1 inch ½ to ¾ inch ¾ to 1 ½ inchesSpring forage yield None, winterkills None, winterkills 1.34 to 3.88 ton/acre

Nitrogen credit None Unknown None

Miscellaneous Low seed cost Decays rapidly in spring Germinates well with little moisture

6The Tree-Fall 2012

continued from The Drought Shouldn’t Cause Major Changes in Fertilization Strategies For 2013 on page 1

There are many descriptions of drought stress and there’s not one number that can be used to characterize nutrient uptake in these stressed situations.

Past research has also shown that fertilizer programs based on nutrient removal are inefficient and wasteful. Use of crop removal as a guide for fertilizer programs is an expensive way to plan fertilizer programs. So, if nu-trient removal should be ignored in a “normal” produc-tion environment, it should also be ignored when crop growth has been stressed by drought.

It would be a serious mistake to base the 2013 fertilizer program on crop removal or some estimate of nutrients removed by the drought damaged crop. For 2012, the number of acres harvested for silage will be higher than normal and nutrients will be removed in the silage. This nutrient removal should not be a serious consideration. After all, fertilizer recommendations based on crop re-moval have never before been effective. If nutrient re-moval in the silage causes a change in the fertility level of the soil, this change will be reflected in the results of a soil test.

Soil Testing Will Be More Important Than Ever: A good, routine soil testing program has always been the base for a fertilizer program that is economical and en-vironmentally sound. This practice is even more impor-tant following a drought.

Analysis of soil samples collected from a depth of 0 to 6 inches or 0 to 8 inches provides the most effective guide for the application of lime, phosphate, potash, and zinc. This analysis will detect any available nutri-ents not used by the 2012 crop. If the crop is not used as silage, nutrients in the residue returned to the soil will become available over time and measured in the routine soil testing program used in the years ahead. Base nutrient rates on the results of a soil test.

Farmers have some choices with respect to placement when the application of phosphate, potash, and zinc is considered. Regardless of the source (manure or com-mercial fertilizer), there is no reason to change the placement that the grower has used in the past.

It’s All About Temperature: Everyone realizes that farmers like to get work done on time and early, if possi-ble. If the drought damaged crop is destroyed or

harvested for silage, those acres can be fertilized for 2013 this fall. This is a concern because there will be the temptation to apply nitrogen early. Whether as com-mercial fertilizer or manure, this would be a mistake.

Our goal should be to keep a maximum amount of am-monium-N in the soil going into the winter. This is not possible if the ammonium-N is applied early. The rule of 50 degrees F still applies. Delay application of N (or-ganic or inorganic) until soil temperatures drop below this magic number.

Yes, there are bona fide products that will delay the conversion of ammonium-N to nitrate-N. These nitrifi-cation inhibitors can be added to either manure or com-mercial fertilizers and are effective. This delay in nitrifi-cation, however, only lasts for about 2 weeks and then, the nitrification reaction proceeds normally. So, use of these products does not justify an early application of N either as manure or commercial N fertilizers. There are some who think that when inhibitors are used, N sourc-es can be applied much earlier in the fall. This thinking is not correct. Soil temperature does not have to be at 50 degrees if the inhibitors are used. It can be warmer. However, the weather patterns should suggest that 50 degree soil temperatures are not too far in the future. In general, you only gain one to two weeks in applica-tion time if nitrification inhibitors are used. It may be difficult for some. But it pays to be patient when plan-ning fall applications of N. The rule of 50 degrees F still applies.

You’ve heard it before and it should be repeated. No N, regardless of source, should be applied to sandy soils in the fall.

Nitrogen Carryover: Because of the drought, we can expect carryover of nitrate-nitrogen. This carryover can be measured by a soil testing procedure. This test is

7The Tree-Fall 2012

recommended and the nitrogen rate adjusted accordingly.

No Magical Products: I visited Minnesota’s Farm Fest in early August and noted an increase in the number of foo-foo juice products being sold this year. They all claim to help the crop overcome some type of stress perhaps thinking that it will be dry again in 2013. We may or may not have dry weather in 2013. Who knows? Nevertheless, these products simply don’t work, they’ve not worked in the past, and there’s no reason to expect that they will work in 2013.§

UPCOMING ONE DAY CONFERENCE: CONSERVATION AS A RISK MANAGEMENT TOOL

As a farmer, you’re always at the mercy of factors be-yond your control. While there are many, I am think-

ing mostly of commodity prices and the weather. Risk management tools like price contracting, picking seed genetics for pest management or other traits and tillage to warm and dry the soil can help you protect yourself from these unknowns. Have you ever thought of con-servation as a risk management tool? As we all learned from the 2012 crop season, too little water can be dev-astating, but getting an intense storm with too much water in a short time can be just as risky. UW Discovery Farms is hosting a one-day conference to explore the economics of conservation, and whether conservation practices can serve as one of your valuable risk manage-ment tools.

Mark your calendar for December 12th at the Wilder-ness Glacier Canyon Conference Center in Wisconsin Dells. During the day, you’ll hear from several speakers that will answer the following questions and many more:

9 How much water can you really afford to lose in an average precipitation year before you see losses to profitability? How much impact can a single storm have on annual soil and nutrient losses?

9 How have recent precipitation and weather pat-terns in Wisconsin and the Midwest changed over the past few decades? What does that mean for Wisconsin agriculture?

9 How much does conservation tillage cost? What works well on farms in our state when market pric-es for crops are at ‘the new normal’?

9 How much does manure handling cost at your fa-cility? What are the challenges and benefits of some systems currently in place?

Look for more information on this opportunity through the next few months! Please contact our office with any questions at (715)-983-5668. §

UPCOMING GRADUATION PARTY: RIECHERS BEEF

The Riechers family has been a part of the Discovery Farms Program for a number of years. This fall, the

final reports from this farm will be published and we will be holding a graduation party to honor the family’s commitment to the program. Mark your calendar for October 16 at 1:00 pm at the Darlington Super 8 Hotel and Banquet Center in Darlington, Wisconsin. §

Return Service Requested

University of Wisconsin

Cooperative Extension Trempealeau County

Discovery Farms

PO Box 429, 40195 Winsand Drive

Pigeon Falls, WI 54760-0429

PIGEON FALLS, WISCONSIN 54760

NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 2

This newsletter can be found on the web at: www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org

Regarding the mailing list, call/e-mail 715-983-5668 or jgoplin@wisc.edu.

UW Discovery Farms is a producer-led research and outreach program based out of the University of Wisconsin-Extension. The program is unique in that it conducts research on working farms located throughout Wisconsin, seeking to identify the impacts of production agriculture on water quality. The program is managed by faculty from the University of Wisconsin, along with oversight from a steering committee of producers, citizens and agency personnel representing a wide variety of non-profit and government organizations. Funding has been provided by the State of Wisconsin, UW-Extension, as well as a number of annual grants from producer groups and our federal partners.

An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming, including Title IX and ADA requirements. Request for reasonable accommodation for disabilities or limitations should be made prior to the date of the program or activity for which it is needed. Publications are available in alternative formats upon request. Please make such requests as early as possible by contacting the Discovery Farms office at 715-983-5668 so proper arrangements can be made.

DirectorDennis Frame 715-983-2257 drframe@wisc.eduOutreach SpecialistsKevan Klingberg 715-983-2240 kevan.klingberg@ces.uwex.eduEric Cooley 608-235-5259 etcooley@wisc.edu Amber Radatz 608-235-5182 aradatz@wisc.eduProgram AssistantJudy Goplin 715-983-5668 jgoplin@wisc.eduData/Information SystemsSusan Frame 715-983-5668 susan.frame@ces.uwex.eduResearch SpecialistAaron Wunderlin 920-839-5431 aaron.wunderlin@ces.uwex.edu