tri-national initiative on water quality and agriculture ... · tri-national initiative on water...

Tri-National Initiative: Shared Experieices of 70

Tri-National Initiative on Water Quality and Agriculture,

Current Technologies: Shared Experiences

Clint Hilliard1, Teresa Tattersfield Yarza

2, Mary Ann Rozum

3 , Sheryl Kunickis

4

1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada-PFRA,2Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service4U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

This paper is a contribution of the Tri-National Initiative on Environmentally Sustainable Agricultureand Water Quality. The Initiative is an informal working group of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

Introduction: North American

Agriculture

Mexico, U.S.A., and Canada share a number ofphysiographic, climatic and cultural features that haveled to the development of their agricultural systems.They also exhibit some important differences.Similarities are most evident in the border areas of theU.S. and both other countries. Canada and the northernU.S. share the challenges of cold climates, short growingseasons, and excess soil moisture in spring. Mexico andU.S. share the challenges of water scarcity and large-scale irrigation. Canada and Mexico are more dissimilar

in terms of geography and climate. In terms of socio-economic factors, North America is united in a tradingpartnership (NAFTA) but each country still retainsimportant cultural and economic differences that shapethe character of its agriculture industries.

North America contains approximately 11% of theagricultural land on earth and produces about 17% of theworld’s root, tuber and cereal crops. Cultivated landsoccupy 13% and pasture lands about 17% of the totalcontinental area of North America (OCDE). Table 1below indicates the approximate distribution ofagricultural lands in North America.

Table 1. Total Area of Agricultural Lands and Proportion of Total Area

Mexico USA Canada

Total Agricultural

Lands (ha)

27,300,000 179,000,000 67,800,000

Agricultural Lands as

% of Total Area

13.9% 18.6% 7.0%

Sources: Apoyos al Campo Comparación Mexico-USA, SAGARPA, CoodinaciónGeneral de apoyos directos 2005, andActon and Gregorich (1995)

There is much more agricultural land in the USA than ineither Canada or Mexico and these lands represent arelatively larger proportion of total area. Although theUS has a larger population than the other two countries,the area dedicated to agriculture is not proportional topopulation. The U.S.A. has approximately three timesthe population of Mexico and ten times the population of

Canada. The population of Canada is roughly one thirdthe size of the Mexican population.

The trade of agricultural products is an important part ofthe economies of all three countries and the majority ofthis trade takes place within the continent. The U.S.A. isthe most important trading partner for both import andexport of agricultural products for both Canada and


Mexico. Fully, 83% of Mexico’s agricultural exportsand 65% of its imports are exchanged with the U.S. ForCanada, exports to and imports from the U.S.A. are 85%and 76% respectively (Statistics Canada).

One of the principal cultivated areas of North America inall three countries is the American Great plains wherecropland in some states and provinces occupies morethan 30% of the land area. Nevertheless, states with

smaller areas of cultivated land relative to other land usesmake significant contributions to total production. Forexample, California has less than 3% of the agriculturalland in the U.S. but the central valleys and coast generatemore than 11% of the national agricultural revenue(Gleik et al. 1995). Much of agricultural production inNorth America relies on large-scale irrigation. Figure 1shows the importance of irrigated agriculture by provinceor state on the continent.

Figure 1. Map of the Extent of Irrigated Agricultura in North America

Source: Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental de América del norte, 1995. El Mosaico de Américadel Norte (Online). Available.http://www.cec.org/soe/index.cfm?varlan=espanol


Agricultural production in all three countries is organizedin a market system that has evolved from Europeaninfluence. Traditional production systems were largelyreplaced under colonial rule. The Spanish ‘latifundia’system of large, private land holdings which existed inMexico and the plantations of the southern U.S.A. havebeen replaced. With land reform movements in Mexico,social organization of the agricultural sector has becomemuch more like that of the U.S. and Canada withindividual families being the primary production unitswithin a market system. The U.S. and Canada may showsome additional diversity in practices reflecting theethnic differences in the populations of immigrants whobecame farmers. More recently, there has been a trend toa concentration of agricultural operations into agri-businesses with ownership extending to groups largerthan the single family.

Historically farm families have produced for their ownneeds first and sold additional product into the market formoney to buy non-agricultural products. However, theagricultural economy has evolved, perhaps more rapidlyin the U.S. and Canada than in Mexico, toward a system

which is increasingly based on the production of alimited number of commodities for sale into national andinternational markets. These changes in productivityhave caused dramatic changes in the agricultural labourforces in North America. The present composition of thefarming sector shows a marked difference in Mexicofrom the other two countries. Table 2 shows thepercentages of people engaged in agriculture in eachcountry and the proportion of GDP derived from theagricultural sector. Participation in the agricultural labourforce is much higher in Mexico than in Canada and theU.S., however its contribution to GDP is notproportionally high. As well, the standard of living ofpeople who work on farms is different in the threecountries. In Canada and the U.S., farmers are well-integrated into the national economy and enjoy lifestylesthat are typical of the middle classes. Farmers are alsogenerally highly regarded by the rest of the population.In Mexico, much of the rural population is marginalizedfrom the mainstream society and lives under difficulteconomic circumstances.

Table 2. Percentage of Population Engaged in Agriculture and Contribution to GDP

Mexico United States Canada

GDP Employment GDP Employment GDP Employment5.9% 21.2% 1.4% 2.5% 2.2% 3.8%

Source: Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de Mexico, INEGI. Presidencia de la Republica (2003).Tercer Informe de Gobierno. Agricultural, Polices in OECD Countries. Monitoring and Evaluation2002. OECD.

Agriculture and Water Quality

With specialization of commodities has come higherproductivity largely through the use of fertilizers,pesticides, and the development of higher-yielding plantcultivars. A similarity in the trends toward specializationand higher productivity has been accompanied in allthree countries by an increase in the pressure ofagriculture on the quantity and quality of waterresources. Irrigated agriculture is a major consumer offresh water and agricultural practices may have a numberof negative impacts on water quality. These includesediment loading, nutrient additions, pesticide pollution,pathogen contamination, enrichment with organic matter,and contamination with chemical compounds such as oil,gas, paint, and wood preservatives. In the U.S., theEnvironmental Protection Agency reports that, by itsestimates, agriculture accounts for 72% of river water

quality deterioration, 56% of lake degradation, and 43%of contamination of estuaries (EPA, 1992). There islittle reason to think that the situation is much differentin Canada and Mexico.

North American Case Studies

This project is focussed on exchanging informationbetween the three North American countries aboutexisting strategies for implementing change inagricultural practices that protect and enhance waterquality. In order to contribute to this goal, several‘success stories’ from each country have been selectedand are described in this paper. It is hoped that closeexamination of specific examples can reveal some of thereasons for success and that sharing these insights may


contribute significantly to the goal of protecting waterquality.

Six individual cases, two from each country, aredescribed in this paper. They are similar in somerespects and very different in others. They reflect someof the similarities and differences that have been brieflyreferred to above. From Mexico, there is a case studythat describes a coordinated change in the intensiveproduction of hogs in the Yucatan peninsula to protectthe very vulnerable groundwater resources of that region.Another Mexican example relates the evolution of acoordinated effort to provide a much needed initiative toprevent environmental degradation and provide ameasure of economic stability to a region often afflictedby drought. From the United States, there is a case studythat describes the large-scale adoption of drainagemanagement practices to reduce downstream nutrientenrichment and to provide a tool to increase nutrient andwater-use efficiency for producers. Another case fromthe U.S. summarizes a successful regional collaborationof agriculture industry groups, federal, state, and localagencies, technical experts, environmental organizationsand university researchers to protect water quality in anarea of very intensive agriculture in California. Andfrom Canada, there is a description of a local watershedproducers’ group that initially formed to deal with floodcontrol issues and has evolved into a multi-partnered,national agricultural research site and demonstrationfacility. There is also a Canadian case study of anorganization that assists cattle producers in findingsolutions to some of the water quality problems arisingfrom free-ranging livestock.

The stories are told using a similar framework for eachcase. The framework allows for greater ease ofcomparison between cases. As an introduction to eachnational pair of cases, there is a very brief description ofthe major agricultural systems and relevant socialcharacteristics of the country in order to establish thecontext of the local action. For each case study there is:

a short, introductory summary of the case, a brief description of the agricultural

context of the project with a discussion ofthe environmental risks,

an inventory of the specific, agriculturalpractices that are being promoted andadopted,

a chronology or history of the study an analysis of the methods of

programming and outreach, a summary of the indicators of and reasons

for success, a discussion of the limitations to success or

identified requirements for increasedsuccess.

References

Acton and Gregorich (eds) (1995). The Health of OurSoils. Centre for Land and Biological ResourcesResearch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Publication 1906/E.

Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental de América delnorte, 1995. El Mosaico de América del Norte (Online).Available.http://www.cec.org/soe/index.cfm?varlan=espanol

EPA. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report toCongress. Washington DC; United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1992:EPA 841-94-001

Gleik et al. (1995) in Comisión para la CooperaciónAmbiental de América del norte, 1995. El Mosaico deAmérica del Norte (Online).Available.http://www.cec.org/soe/index.cfm?varlan=espanol

OECD (2002) Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales deMexico, INEGI. Presidencia de la Republica (2003).Tercer Informe de Gobierno. Agricultural, Polices inOECD Countries. Monitoring and Evaluation.

SAGARPA Apoyos al Campo comparación Mexico-USA, , Coodinación General de apoyos directos 2005;Contigo Procampo, Acerca. (unpublished)

Statistics Canada (2006) Canada’s Imports and Exports(Online). Available:http://www.canadainfolink.ca/charteleven.htm


0.0

50.0

100.0

250.0

500.0

750.0

1000.0

1500.0

mm

Climatología enero - diciembre

Lámina media acumulada 773.2 mm0.0

50.0

100.0

250.0

500.0

750.0

1000.0

1500.0

mm

Climatología enero - diciembre

Lámina media acumulada 773.2 mm

Average Precipitation 1941-2004

Accumulated January-December

Accumulated layer 773.2 mm

The Case Studies

Mexico: Overview

Physical Environment

Mexico has a great diversity of climate which can beclassified according to temperature and precipitation.Temperature regimes range from hot to temperate andprecipitation zones include very dry, arid, sub-humid andhumid. Figure 1 shows average annual precipitationvalues for the country.

The arid climate region is in the northern part of thecountry and occupies 28.3% of the land area of thecountry. This region receives between 300 and 600mmof precipitation annually with average temperatures inthe range of 22 to 26˚C in some areas and 18 to 22˚C inothers. Very dry areas are characterized bytemperatures in the range of 18 to 22˚C with extremes inexcess of 26˚C. Precipitation in very dry areas is only100 to 300mm per year. Very dry areas represent 20.8%

of the country. The hot climate region of the country canbe sub-divided into hot humid and hot sub-humid. Thehot humid zone occupies about 4.7% of the country andis characterized by average annual temperatures rangingfrom 22 to 26˚C and precipitation amounts from 2000 to4000 mm annually. The hot, sub-humid zone covers23% of the country. It receives between 1000 and2000mm of rain annually and temperatures vary between22 and 26˚C.

The temperate climate region is also divided into humidand sub-humid zones. In the humid zone, temperatureaverages range from 18 to 22˚C and receives between2,000 and 4,000mm or rain annually. This area occupiesonly 2.7% of the total land mass. The temperate, sub-humid region occupies 20.5% of the country and receives600 to 1,000mm of rain per year.

Because of the great diversity of climate, Mexico is ableto support a wide variety of farming, livestock, forestryand fishing activities.

Figure 1. Average Annual Precipitation – Mexico

Source: situación del clima, boletín 01 de Sagarpa con información de Conagua del 28 de septiembre del 2005


Social Environment

The distribution of population is much different inMexico than in the rest of North America. Mexico has amuch larger rural population. Approximately 23 millionpeople live in the rural areas of Mexico. This populationis located in some 196,000 locations with fewer than2,500 inhabitants. Of these villages, 28% have fewerthan 100 inhabitants. The states with the biggest ruralpopulations are Oaxaca (55.3%), Chiapas (54.5%), andHidalgo (50.4%). These states are characterized by theimportance that primary production plays in theeconomy. The states with the lowest proportions of ruralinhabitants are Baja California (8.3%), Nuevo Leon(6.6%), and the Federal District (0.2%). In these statesthe service, communications and transportationindustries are most important to the economy (PoderEjecutivo Federal; Comisión intersecretarial y grupoampliado, 2006).

Much of the rural population is composed of indigenouspeoples. This segment of the population consists of 12million people; 65% of whom live in rural areas, 19% inmedium-sized towns and only 16% in urban areas. Themajority of the indigenous population is located in thestates of Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz (SAGARPA eINEGI 2002)

Social conditions in some rural regions are not good.Inadequate organization of widely-dispersed settlementsin rural areas has left people in poor communication withthe outside world. This isolation has led to theinadequate provision of social services and governmentsupport, and a lack of economic opportunities inagriculture. The end result is been the existence of manysmall settlements with high levels of poverty,marginalization, and isolation. The lack of institutionalsupport for health, education, nutrition, and agriculturalproduction limits the development of the human capitalnecessary to drive the economies of these regions. At thesame time, limited levels of social organization are anobstacle for small and dispersed communities to dealwith political and social authorities. As a consequence,rural populations have been left isolated and largelyunprotected.

Education

The Mexican education system has not adequatelyprovided the conditions for growth or made accessiblethe opportunities to improve the lives of rural people.Inequity in the education system has been a powerfulmechanism for social exclusion. For example, almost amillion children under the age of 14 live in communitiesof 100 inhabitants or less. At one time, a single teachermay be responsible for students registered in differentareas. The children of day labourers (between 400,000

and 700,000 according to different estimates) encounterserious difficulties accessing education because of theirmobility, their ethnic and cultural diversity, and theirearly incorporation into the paid agricultural labourforce. Illiteracy is a phenomenon which is largelyconfined to the rural sector. Half of illiterates are adultsover the age of 49 years. The group between 15 and 49years represents 5.6% of the illiterate population which isroughly 2.8 million people. These people arepredominantly the rural inhabitants of Chiapas,Gurerrero, Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Puebla. Much of theilliterate population is indigenous. Illiteracy in theaboriginal population is triple the national average andthe rate among indigenous women is between three andsix times the national average (Poder Ejecutivo Federal;Comisión intersecretarial y grupo ampliado, 2006).

Health

One of the characteristics of the health conditions inMexico is the inequality between regions, between ruraland urban areas, and between higher and lower incomegroups. An indicator of this situation is the fact thatwhile mortality in men has decreased in urban areas,rural areas have experienced no change. For women, themortality rate has decreased 12% in the urbanenvironment but in the country it has increased by 5%.Access to health care in the rural areas is very difficultowing to the wide dispersal of towns. One quarter ofrural households in highly marginalized areas do nothave access to health services within 5 km. Anotherimportant factor having an impact on health conditionsand development possibilities is poor nutrition inchildren.

Sixty-six percent of houses in rural areas are withoutdrinking water and more than 30% of households haveno bathroom. This indicates the lack of an importanthealth resource. Having no toilet facilities exacerbateshealth problems for families. The water supplies insmall towns and rural communities are often inadequatebecause many people rely on shallow aquifers which arevulnerable to contamination by untreated wastes fromurban areas, industry and agricultural activities (Ibid.)

Cropping Systems

In 2000, the cultivated area of Mexico extended over21.8 million hectares. Of this area, 4.8 million wereirrigated and 17.0 million were in dryland production.Ninety percent of the irrigated areas use traditionalirrigation practices and 10% are under newer systems oftechnology. The range of crops produced is extensive.Table 1 shows the amount of land dedicated, the volumeof product and the value for selected crops in 2000.


Table 1. Area, Production and Value of Selected Crops

Crop Area (ha X 1000) Production (tonnes X

1000)

Value (US$ X 1000)

Corn 7,132.5 17,559.8 2,802,227.1Sorgum 2,093.7 9,477.2 810,569.7Wheat 714.4 3,557.8 543,880.4

Oranges 323..4 3,811.2 320,348.4Tomatoes 74.6 2,086.0 846,796.4

Source: SAGARPA con datos de SIAP. Subsecretaría de Desarrollo Rural. Panorama del Sector Ruralen México 2002. (Unpublished)

Livestock production is also an important part of theMexican economy. Like the rest of the primary sector, ithas served as a base for development of national industryby providing food, raw materials, revenue andemployment for the rural population. Ranching is anactivity that is widespread and undertaken in everyecological region of the country making use of soilresources that are generally not of high enough qualityfor crop production.

Environmental Risks

Over the past thirty years there has been little success inpreserving the ecological balance of the Mexicancountryside and there has been a continuing deteriorationthat is lowering the quality of life for producers. Animportant factor in this environmental deterioration hasbeen the introduction of the intensive production modelwhich makes use of modern technologies in irrigation,chemical fertilization, genetic engineering and the use ofphytosanitary products.

Little by little, the traditional Mexican agrarian model islosing self-sufficiency in the production of food,fertilizers and tools. Farming is becoming more relianton inputs from the chemical industries and mechanizedagriculture. Food production for the needs of theproducers is being replaced by purchases made ingrocery stores and markets, impoverishing both nutritionand pocketbooks.

The ancient traditions of mixed farming have beenreplaced by specialized, monoculture production

demanded by the international markets: coffee, corn,citrus fruits, sugarcane, and finished livestock products.Monoculture involves the reduction of naturalbiodiversity. One of the negative results of this has beenan increase in unwanted species owing to thedisappearance of natural mechanisms of populationcontrol. As well, the transport of fertilizers andpesticides from farms into soil, water, and air are anenvironmental concern. The use of some phyto-sanitaryproducts, that are prohibited or strongly controlled indeveloped countries because of high toxicity, is commonin Mexico.

The expansion of ranching has had and continues to haveserious environmental consequences. First, theimporting of breeding stock from developed countries tocross with Mexican animals has led to a serious loss ofgenetic diversity which can lead to vulnerability of herdsto disease. Second, the expansion of ranchlands has ledto intense deforestation to create pasture lands.

References

Poder Ejecutivo Federal; Comisión intersecretarial ygrupo ampliado. (2006) Programa Especial Concurrentepara el Desarrollo Rural Sustentable.2002-2006.

SAGARPA e INEGI (2002) Poder Ejecutivo Federal;Comisión intersecretarial y grupo ampliado. ProgramaEspecial Concurrente para el Desarrollo RuralSustentable.2002-2006.


Mexico: Alternativas Case Study

Introduction

“Alternativas y Procesos de Participación Social”(Alternativas) is a not-for-profit, civilian association withits headquarters in the City of Tehuacán, Puebla. Theiractivities take place in the Mixteca region, located insoutheast of the State of Puebla and the northwest of theState of Oaxaca. The main reason for the formation ofthis organization was the conditions of severe povertysuffered by indigenous people. These conditions havebeen caused by technically inadequate and sociallyinequitable natural resource management in this semi-arid and mountainous region, provoking acceleratedenvironmental degradation and an unequal distribution ofproperty and control of natural and social resources. Inresponse to this situation, Alternativas has made it itsmission to collaborate with the different communitiesthat live in this region, in the search of alternatives, andto promote participatory, decision-making aimingtowards sustainable development.

Agricultural Systems and Environmental

Risks

The Mixteca region, located in the South-central regionof Mexico, is known for being an isolated and poorregion. This situation derives from its limited and erraticprecipitation regime, as well as its rough topography.Seven out of every ten years, the region suffers fromdrought. Recurring droughts have led to insecurity of thefood supply which has given rise to serious problems ofout-migration, loss of cultural identity, illiteracy, healthproblems and economic marginalization of the localpopulation. The Mixtecan farmers identify water

shortages and poor water quality – both for humanconsumption and for food production -as their greatestproblems challenging their food security.

The water problems of this region are common in manyparts of the world. The inhabitants in upland areas havecut down much of the forests to fulfill their basic needsfor fuel and land-clearing for agriculture. Excessivecommercial logging has worsened the problem. Drylandagriculture in steep soils has advanced over areas that arenot very favourable for crop production; yields are oftenlow, and the impacts on natural ecosystems high.Excessive pasturing, with inadequate management,seriously limits the ability of natural vegetation torecover from intensive logging and land clearing. Thecombined effects of deforestation and excessivepasturing have been the disappearance of naturalvegetation in many areas. Without the protection of rootsand surface litter, deforested areas are very vulnerable tosurface runoff and soil erosion. Increased runoff meansdecreased infiltration and over time ground wateraquifers become depleted and streams that are fed bybase flow for part of the year may dry up for periods oftime.

On steep slopes the problems of soil erosion can be muchworse. The situation has become serious in the Mixtecaregion with areas of the landscape being eroded down tobedrock and rapid declines in aquifer levels becomingevident. Eroding sediment and nutrients also cause waterquality problems and silting downstream


Figure 1. Location of the Alternativas Local Action

Figure 2. Environmental problems - water pollution


Figure 3. Environmental problems - water erosion

Figure 4. Environmental problems - erosion


Figure 5. Environmental problems: over-grazing

Figure 6. Environmental problem - Illegal timber-cutting


Inventory and description of practices

Environmental Action

Research carried out by Alternativas reached theconclusion that an appropriate solution for improvingwater quantity and quality for agricultural/livestock anddomestic activities was to undertake a watershedregeneration program. The regeneration program iscalled the ‘Water Forever Program’ (Programa Aguapara Siempre). This program, created in 1988, isfocused on the recovery and conservation of waterresources; rainwater collection for replenishment ofaquifers and surface waters, drinking water safety, soilmoisture retention, sanitation, and efficient use of waterfor irrigated food production.Fortunately, the farmers of the region have not lost theirdeeply-rooted traditional hydro-agri-ecological culture.Regeneration processes are the exact the opposite ofdeforestation processes. Instead of starting with theconstruction of a large dam to collect the water at thebottom of a slope, it focuses in the watershed’s uplandareas, identifying areas where rainwater collects andbegins to produce rills. Soil conservation works areundertaken in these areas to control erosion. In lowerlands, dams are constructed with rocks and gabions aswater retention structures for groundwater recharge.Increasing water use efficiency in irrigation and livestockwatering activities is another important part of theprogram. Temporary rainwater storage structures areused for animal watering and the implementation of dripirrigation. Sanitation technologies such as bio-digestors,allow wastewater treatment and protect rivers andstreams from contamination.

Socio-Economic Action

With the aim of finding viable alternatives to combatmalnutrition and considering the recurring droughtproblems in the Mixteca region, an urgent objective ofAlternativas has been to find viable crop alternatives forthe area. In 1983, the organization initiated a researchand development project called “Amaranth asagricultural, economic and nutritional alternative indrought lands.” Amaranth cultivation presents apromising cropping option for farmers in thisdisadvantaged region. Amaranth is a valuable food cropin that the grain and the leaves are an important source ofnutritional elements such as iron and calcium. It is alsoone of the highest yielding grains in terms of bothquantity and quality of protein. The plant is highlydrought-resistant which makes it an attractive, reliablealternative in arid areas like the Mixteca.

Amaranth production by the Quali cooperative group inthe Mixteca region is based upon several principles:

Maximum water use efficiency. Preferential use of labour in order to

provide employment to the ruralpopulation.

Low capital investment requirements. Cultivation in small areas in small

farms. Maximized production per unit area.

A specific set of cultivation practices have been designedfor subsistence farmers with a small land base, and littleor no available water. The main characteristics of thisintensive cultivation method for semiarid areas are:

Seedling production before the onset ofthe rainy season.

Use of hygroscopic materials thatabsorb and retain humidity to make itavailable during drought periods.

Transplantation of seedlings to thefield, incorporating micro-catchmentareas around the root to trapprecipitation and hold moisture.

Low cultivation density to minimizecompetition between plants for lightand nutrients

Biological pest control.

Transplant cultivation is a key part of the package. Itprovides for several benefits:

It allows optimal plants to betransplanted to the field.

It ensures good moisture conditions inthe root zone at the time oftransplantation.

It makes maximum use of scarceprecipitation.

It facilitates natural weed control as theheight of transplanted plants inhibitsweed growth.

The regional sustainable development model promotedby Alternativas also encourages the development ofbusiness skills to generate employment and income forthe population. The Quali social enterprises cooperativegroup was formed to facilitate training amongparticipating farmers in order to develop the knowledge,attitudes and skills that are necessary for their organizedparticipation in production, processing and marketing ofamaranth food products.


Figure 7. Water retention practices - reforestation

Figure 8. Water retention practices - terraces


Figure 9. Water retention practices - retention walls

Figure 10. Water erosion control - riprap structures


Figure 11. Water treatment practices - digestors

Figure 12. Amaranth crop


Figure 13. Amaranth crop - planting

Figure 14. Amaranth crop - planting


Case History

Alternativas has had a long and fruitful history thatbegan in the early 80’s. It has evolved through differentstages to the current development model. Each of thesestages has faced different challenges and the organizationhas been adapted to meet the challenges of changingeconomic, social and environmental conditions.Although Water Forever and the Quali programs havehad independent and parallel developments, bothprograms have always had the same goal: improving thelife conditions for the poorest and marginalizedpopulations of the Mixteca region. Three main stagescan be distinguished:

Stage 1: Model creation. 1980-1994Stage 2: Strategic transformation. 1994- 1995Stage 3: Impact scale-up. 1996-present

Methods of Programming and Outreach

The Alternativas approach to ecological regeneration hasbroad potential for use in other regions with similarproblems to those faced in the Mixteca region. Thesuccess achieved by the Alternativas programs can showthe way to more sophisticated institutional structures tosupport the growth of programs in a larger region. Thechange from a local vision to a regional perspectivesuggested new ways to promote development, whichallowed for the broadening of geographical horizons,incorporation of a larger number of participants, andincreasing the density of ecological regeneration works.The Quali program promoted the vertical integration ofan agricultural sector. In order to transfer theachievements of Alternativas to others, courses,workshops and diffusion activities have been designed,and educational materials related to the institution’s workhave been written.

The Alternativas approach is a dynamic one thatconsiders social processes, seasonal and agriculturalcycles, community participation, and resourcemanagement opportunities in order to respond to theneeds of the farmers. Preparatory work and planningstudies are an important component of the process.Analysis of existing conditions, traditional practices, andtypes of social organization are essential to the projects’success. It is also important to integrate this knowledgein educational activities incorporating scientific data andgeographical information. Carrying out studies beforebeginning projects serves three main purposes:

Involvement of local farmers in definition of theproblems and formulation of solutions.

Evaluation of the pertinence of a solution for aspecific problem.

Education of inhabitants in the process ofconsidering several alternative courses ofaction.

Good preparatory studies involve consideration of all thegroups affected by the problem and should cover allrelevant social, technical, financial and legal aspects.

Evidence of Success

After a quarter of a century of work in the Mixtecaregion, and the area of influence of the City of Tehuacán,the following achievements can be highlighted:

The ‘Water Forever Program’ been highlysuccessful at restoring upland recharge areasand has restored streams that now flowpermanently throughout the year.

The tributary watershed regeneration modeldeveloped by Alternativas has demonstrated itsvalue for the analysis and integration of actionsto tackle the problem of water in many otherregions around the country.

A suite of effective, environmental technologieshas been developed through the implementationof the ecological regeneration program.

The Museum of Water was opened in 1999,being the first in the country. The museumpresents the elements that facilitate theunderstanding of the problem, and availablealternatives to solve it. In 2005, the museummoved to a new, larger location within theMesoamerican Centre for Water andAgriculture, in the Tehuacán Valley.

The Alternativas and Quali cooperative groups,created to manage agro-industrial operations inthe region have contributed to the creation ofpermanent, fairly remunerated employment for175 persons as well as some temporaryemployment. In addition, 1,100 farm familiesfrom the Mixteca region participate in the co-opand are organized into sowing cooperatives.

The organization has benefited 176,000inhabitants from 164 towns in 60 municipalitieswithin an 8,000 km2 area in the neighbouringstates of Puebla and Oaxaca.


Figure 15: Information Centre

Figure 16: Information Centre


Figure 17. The Museum of Water

Figure 18. The Museum of Water


Limitations

In spite of successes achieved, and the enthusiasticparticipation of inhabitants from towns and severalprivate and governmental institutions, the Alternativasprogram requires greater participation in order toimprove the problem- solving of water shortages andpoor quality caused by inappropriate natural resourcemanagement. Increased agricultural and urbandevelopments impose further pressures on waterresources through pesticide and nutrient contaminationof springs and streams.

Limitations include the lack of interest on the part ofsome governmental authorities in regards to long-term

environmental projects, and the lack of financialresources to fund ecological regeneration projects.

References:

HERNANDEZ GARCIADIEGO, Raúl andHERRERIAS GUERRA, Gisela, ““Water Foreverand Quali: a quarter of a century of regionaldevelopment”. Alternativas y Procesos deParticipación Social A.C. Latin American Councilfor Adult Education, México 2004. 47 pp.HERNANDEZ GARCIADIEGO, Raúl andHERRERIAS GUERRA, Gisela, “AlternativasProject – Building Development Models”Alternativas y Procesos de Participación Social270 pp. México 2003.


Mexico: Yucatán Case Study

Introduction

The Sustainable Swine Production project arose from aresearch project undertaken at the Technological Instituteof Conkal (Instituto Tecnológico de Conkal) in 1996.This Institute was founded in 1973 as InstitutoTecnológico Agropecuario No. 2. In 1980 it occupiedbuildings and experimental areas in the Conkal Countynear of Merida City. The mission of Institute is:Teaching undergraduate and graduate students in order toproduce competent professionals in the field ofsustainable development and research and technologicaldevelopment. The goal is to contribute to societywelfare with technical assistance.

In collaboration with the Environmental EngineeringDepartment of the Faculty of Engineering at theUniversity of Yucatan and under the direction of theConkal Institute, other local and federal institutions arebecoming involved, such as the Department of RuralDevelopment and the state Department of Ecology whohave begun to support projects that maintain productivitywhile introducing technologies for recycling water andprotecting aquifers from contamination. Other supportingfederal agencies are involved, including the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT);the Federal Office of Environmental Protection(PROFEPA), and the National Water Commission(CNA) whose principal contribution has been thedevelopment of regulations that prevent groundwatercontamination without affecting swine production.

The information used to compile this case study wasprovided by Dr. José Roberto Sanginés García, Professorand Researcher at the Technological Institute of Conkal.As well, material was generously provided by Dr.Armando Rodríguez from the Grupo PorcícolaMexicano.

Agricultural Systems and Environmental Risk

The Yucatan peninsula is located in the eastern part ofthe Republic of Mexico. The region is largely a karsticphysical environment, characterized by the presence ofcaves, underground wells (locally known as cenotes) anddry, deciduous (caducifolium) vegetation. The onlywater source in the Yucatan peninsula is provided by asystem of fragile aquifers. The aquifers consist of freshwater floating on saline water (Doehring and Butler,1979).

The following photos show two typical cenotes in theYucatan peninsula. The ease with which the limestonebedrock formation dissolves leads to high permeability.This results in very little surface runoff and rapidinfiltration of water into the subsoil. Depths of watertables range from 5.0 to 15.0 m and the potential forcontamination of these aquifers is high since there is athin to non-existent soil cover (Marin and Perry, 1994).The thin soil over bedrock is evident in Figure 3.

In the northern part of the peninsula there is an extensivenetwork of underground caverns in which there are atleast two major groundwater systems. The aquifers areseparated by a ring of ‘cenotes’. The subsurfacedrainage waters from this system flow toward the coast.In addition, very shallow groundwater formationscombined with very thin soils produce conditions that arevery similar to those of karstic aquifers. Vertical andhorizontal transport of solutes is very rapid. Thesefactors have made the Yucatan groundwater system veryvulnerable to the movement of contaminants from thesurface into aquifers in relatively short periods of time(Pacheco and Cabrera 1997, Graniel et al., 1994). Mostof hog farms are located inside of ring of ‘cenotes’.Figure 4 shows the ring of ‘cenotes’. Figure 5 shows thelocations of swine operations.


Figure 1. Location of Yucatán Local Action

Figure 2. Cenote of Xkeken, located to the east of Merida.


Figure 3. Sisal culture in a typical soil in the north west of the Yucatan Peninsula.

Figure 4. Image showing the ring of cenotes in the Yucatan peninsula.

Source: www.answers.com/ topic/chicxulub-crater


Figure 5. Location of hog farms in Yucatan State

Source: SANGINÉS GARCÍA, Roberto, Instituto Conkal ,Aprovechamiento de las agues residuales enla producción agrícola.2004.

Figure 6. Vulnerability of groundwater in the Yucatan peninsula to contamination

Source: CNA, región hidrológica de la Península de Yucatán, sin fecha


The transport of nitrogen into groundwater is a majorenvironmental concern. In the form of nitrate, it may bea serious health risk for some individuals. Nitrite isusually unstable in the environment and the human body,but under particular circumstances it is produced byreduction of nitrates in sufficient quantities to causeillness or death. ‘Blue baby syndrome’, ormethemoglobinemia, is the best understoodmanifestation of nitrite toxicity. Infants and persons withspecific gastro-intestinal disorders are unable reverse theproduction of nitrite from nitrate. (Jasa et al. 1998).There is also some evidence to suggest a relationshipbetween cancer and nitrosamines, which may form in thehuman gut from nitrates, but this relationship is not wellestablished. Nitrate is a stubborn pollutant and is noteasily removed with standard water treatment. Nitratesmay also promote eutrophication in surface waters wherenitrogen is limiting to algae growth.

The high degree of vulnerability of groundwater in theYucatan peninsula has been revealed by studies carriedout by Doehring and Buttler (1979) and later by Vazquezand Manjarrez (1993) which detected the presence offecal coliforms in wells deeper than 30 meters. Theprincipal contaminants found in water underlying hogfarms are total and fecal coliforms (Pacheco andCabrera, 1993) and nitrogen found in the form ofunacceptably high levels of nitrate (Pacheco y Vazquez,1992). A study conducted in the northern part of YucatanState shows that more than half of the wells sampledhave levels in excess of 45 mg/l (World HealthOrganization) and a gradual increase in nitrates has beenobserved in the area studied.

The observed nitrate levels reported in Figure 8 are veryhigh. Only one is below the level of 45 mg/L, which iswidely regarded as the level at which there may be healthrisks to infants.

Swine Production in Yucatan

In the state of Yucatan, swine production stands out asone of the most important economic activities. This is

due to a preference of the population for pork and also tothe relative proximity of the USA which facilitates theimportation of grain through the port of Progreso. Thesefactors are reflected in a sustained growth in the swineindustry (Magaña, 2000). In fact, the state of Yucatanranks fourth in the country as a swine producer. In 2004,the swine population reached 1,200,000 animals(AMEPA, 2004).

The increase in the size and number of production unitshas resulted in an increased environmental impact owingto the generation of large quantities of manure(Voermans et al., 1994; Adeola, 1999). For each 1,000kg of live weight in a hog farm, 65 kg of urine and fecesare produced (ASAE, 1991). The quantity of manureproduced depends on the number of animals, the averageweight of the animals in the operation, and the quantityof waste water generated (swine slurry) which is afunction of the volume of water used on the farm. Intropical regions, waste water from hog operations iscomposed of feces, urine and wasted food, as well as thewater that is lost from drinking troughs, wash water andwater used to cool the animals. The water collects inopen drains and therefore also contains soil and otherparticulates (Taiganides, 1992).

Inventory and Description of Practices

In established operations modern technologies for swineproduction and waste water treatment systems are used.The project introduced primary treatment (manual ormechanical separation of solids), secondary treatment(anaerobic digestion), and tertiary treatment (landtreatment). This was combined and integrated withmodern, fertigated crop production and a semi-intensive,cattle grazing system. Indigenous knowledge of organicfertilizers has been an important aspect of the project.Scientific knowledge was drawn upon in the areas ofhydraulics, chemistry, biochemistry, architecture,agriculture, veterinary and animal science, earthwormculture, biotechnology, and accounting and businessadministration.


Figure 7. Coliforms detected in wells, both domestic and on hog farms in

Conkal, Yucatan

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Nu

mb

er o

f co

lon

ies/

100m

l

May June July Aug Sept

House total House fecal Farms total farms fecals

Cabrera y Pacheco, 1994

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

May June July Aug Sept Oct

Farm 1

Farm 2

Farm 3

Farm 4

Farm 5

Farm 6

Farm 7

Farm 8

Farm 9

Farm 10

Pacheco y Vázquez, 1993.

Figure 8. Concentration of nitrates (mg/L) in wells located on hog farms i n Conkal, Yucatan.

Source: Pacheco y Vásquez, 1992

(Pacheco y Cabrera, 1993)


Figure 9. Fattening pigs

Figure 10. Swine slurry


Figure 11. Growing pigs

Figure 12. Manual separation of solids


Figure 13. Mechanical separation of solids

Detailed description

Growing pigs only use between 30 and 35% of thenitrogen and phosphorus ingested (Jongbloed and Lenis,1992). The rest is held in the manure (Table 1) whichalso contains a large quantity of organic matter (Table 2).Nutrients are held by swine slurry and in the effluent inthe lagoons. For this reason, a number of technologieshave been developed that make use of these nutrients andreduce their environmental impact. They have alreadybeen used for fertilizer in crop production; feedsupplements, methane gas production (biogas), growth ofalgae as using of nutrients and decrease amount ofnitrogen, phosphorus and other chemistry elements,aquaculture. Despite their potential as contaminants,well-managed hog manure represents a valuable resourcefor swine producers.

The nutrient content of swine manure can varysignificantly depending on the developmental stage ofthe animals. Table 3 shows some of this variationbetween animals of different ages.

The efficient use of effluent from swine waste-waterlagoons as fertilizer for cultivated agriculture requiresthat plants assimilate large quantities of nutrients. Dueto the fact that the land used for this purpose is limited,the use of effluent depends primarily on the type of cropand the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil.Crop response and behaviour in the soil are governed byclimate, the composition of the effluent, and theapplication rate.

Potential contamination from the waste lagoonsthemselves can occur through overflow or fromintentional release of the contents to fresh water. Thepossibility also exists for contamination of groundwaterto occur where lagoons are inadequately sealed.Application of manure in excess of the amount ofnitrogen that can be used by the crop can also lead toleaching of nitrate to groundwater. Nevertheless, thesimplest and least expensive solution is agricultural useof manure through application of waste-water to crops(Prats, 1996; Miner, 1999).


Table 1. Intake, excretion and retention of N, P and K in different status of growing pigs

Growing (9-25 kg) Fattening 25 - 106 kg) Sows*Nutrient

Int(kg)

Exc.(kg)

Ret.(%)

Int(kg)

Exc(kg)

Ret.(%)

Int(kg)

Exc(kg)

Ret.(%)

N

P

K

0.94

0.21

0.40

0.56

0.13

0.36

40.0

39.0

9.0

6.32

1.22

2.89

4.24

0.82

2.73

33.0

33.0

6.0

27.78

6.56

14.66

22.42

5.42

14.22

19.0

17.0

3.0

* Mean production: 19.6 piglets/year. N = Nitrogen; P = Phosphorus; K = Potassium.Int = Intake; Exc= Excretion; Ret = Retention.

Source: Jongbloed y Lenis (1992).

Table 2. Organic Matter produced in swine farm

ItemFor each 100kg of weight.

100 fatteningswines d-1 Per year

Oxygen biochemistry demand (kg) 0.25 12.5 4562

Oxygen chemistry demand (kg) 0.75 37.5 13687

Total suspend solids (kg) 0.60 30.0 10950

Total solids (kg) 0.75 2.25 13687

Source: Chará, 1998


Table 3. Effects of production phase on mean nutrient concentration in swine lagoons

Element(ppm)

Sow Nursery finish Finish to-finish SEM

Nitrate <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ammonium& 841ab 1,252 ab 1,506a 1,469a 643b 1,142

Organic 125c 312ab 346a 351a 166bc 260

Total1 967b 1,563ab 1,852a 1,820a 810b 1,402

Phosphorus, 141ab 223ab 302a 246ab 106b 204

Phosphate 320ab 503ab 686a 559ab 241b 462

Potassium 856b 1,351ab 1,750a 1,786a 1,125ab 1,374

Potash 1,030b 1,625ab 2,106a 2,150a 1,354ab 1,653

Calcium 225bc 463ab 465ab 500a 198c 370

Sodium 284 282 437 439 281 345

Magnesium 30c 89abc 112a 97ab 43bc 74

Sulfur 30b 105a 110a 94a 36b 75

Copper 1.0b 6.1a 3.1ab 3.7ab 1.5b 3.1

Zinc 3.1b 40.7a 20.2b 16.2b 4.0g 16.8

Iron 14.8bc 58.0a 41.0ab 35.4abc 10.7c 32.0

Manganese 1.3b 4.2a 4.4a 4.4a 1.2b 2.51Calculated (Organic = N Total – (NH4

+-N)- (NO3

--N).

From DeRouchey et al., 2002.


Figure 14. Inadequate Management of Waste from a Hog Production Facility

Case History

Between 1997 and 2000 the project was initiated torespond to the difficulties being experienced by thefarmers of the henequen-growing region in the center ofthe state of Yucatan. The objective was to design,operate, and evaluate an integrated strategy to provideproducers with information for good decision making onthe efficient use of water. The expectation was tofacilitate the adoption of changes in production andwaste treatment systems tailored to the specific on-farmsituation

Faced with the prospect of swine production practicesleading to contamination of soil and groundwater, theTechnological Institute of Conkal initiated a series ofprojects related to the extraction of nutrients contained inswine slurry for use in the production of forages fromgrasses such as African stargrass (Cynodon nlemfuensis),Tanner grass (Brachiaria radicasn) and shrubs such aswhite mulberry (Morus alba) and hibiscus (Hibiscusrosa-sinensis).

As well, they introduced practices such as pasturing onenriched soils and the production of earthworm compost

from hog manure. Solid wastes are piled and turnedroutinely to promote rapid and efficient aerobicdecomposition. The finished product is sold or appliedto agricultural fields at sustainable rates.

Two groups of people are involved in the project: peopleinside the company (managers, section heads, operators,technicians, etc.,) and people outside the company whocontributed their knowledge and expertise to the project.The latter included researchers from the National Forestand Agricultural Research Institute (Mococha, Yucatan);the Earthworm Production Company (Ecuador); theWater Technology Institute (Cuernavaca, Morelos); theMonterrey Technology Institute; local irrigation andenvironmental consulting companies; the National WaterCommission; and the Rural Development Department ofthe government of the state of Yucatan.


The action described here can be considered original andinnovative, since it is based on elements that had neverbeen brought together before in a hog farming project. Inthis project, water and the waste stream are viewed as an


integral part of the production process and not asexternalities. A sustainable model of agriculturalintegration was introduced, which combines the triple Rprinciple (reduce, recycle and reuse), with the principlesof sustainability (economic feasibility, socialresponsibility, and respect for the environment).

A typical approach to intensive hog production has beento view water and waste management as simply amaintenance issue and not central to the productionprocess. This philosophy means that hog production isheavily subsidized by the environment in the form ofoveruse of water and groundwater pollution fromimproperly treated waste. The major innovation in thisproject has been the change in producers’ thinking,shifting from a narrow focus on finding a cheap andefficient treatment system which will magically solve alltheir problems, to consideration of the potential to makemajor adjustments in the entire production system.

In the past, an important obstacle to changing hogproducers’ view of water use efficiency has been awidespread lack of awareness. Therefore, a strongtraining and education component has been included inthe project.

Given the successes realized on the pilot farms, thelivestock farm water users, through their spokespersonon the Yucatan Watershed Council, proposed that theprogram be copied throughout the entire hog productionarea of the state of Yucatan. The proposal was presentedto the Watershed Council Monitoring and EvaluationGroup, which submitted it to the Sanitation Group forconsideration. After it was approved by both groups andusers had made a commitment to support it, the proposalentitled “Promotion of Sustainable Hog Farming(PORSUS)” was included in the 2002-2006 regionalwater plan of the state of Yucatan. More than 30 follow-up actions have been carried out and information on theprogram has been provided for senior officials in thefollowing agencies:

the Department of Rural Development andFisheries,

the Department of Ecology, and

the Strategic Projects Office of the stategovernment,

local hog producers’ associations,

national hog producers forums,

the consultation forum of the federal SenateWater Resources Committee, and

the national Department of theEnvironment and Natural Resources,

Specialized journal materials have been produced andvisits made to producers, educators, directors andofficials of different kinds to describe the pilot projects.

Evidence of Success

Environmental

Waste treatment has had a large environmental impact.What was once a degraded landscape with intermittentcover and accumulations of solid waste has become alandscape with cultivated areas (fodder and maize) in amodular plan with the inclusion of belts of nativevegetation. The perimeter of the area has been reforestedwhich provides live fencing and enhances biodiversity.Monitoring of the treatment process has shown that theequipment is working efficiently and that sustainableamounts of waste are being applied to the land. Over-application is not occurring.

Social

With the adoption of comprehensive planning, theproject has had significant social impact by improvingthe working conditions inside the barns. Reduction ofhumidity and odour levels in the barns has made thework environment less harmful for both people andanimals. The operation of these systems requires thelabour of agricultural workers to perform the tasksinvolved with cropping and fertigation, pasturing andcomposting of manure. Indirectly, the project has had asignificant impact on migration away from the area,family stability, and the quality of life, since jobopportunities were provided in the zone.

Economic Benefits

Major investments, totalling approximately $5 millionpesos, have been made in the project:

investments in training,

administration,

procurement, installation, operation, andmaintenance of equipment,

crops and livestock infrastructure,

purchase of animals;

technical studies and advisory services,

wages,


Major savings have been achieved through reductions inwater use and waste volumes and money obtainedthrough sales of beef and earthworm humus made itpossible to recoup the investments and cover theoperating costs of the system.

Limitations

Despite the successes and the enthusiastic participationof the various participants in the project, the response ofthe local institutions has not been sufficiently clear andthey show little understanding of the magnitude of theproblem which limits the effectiveness of response andpolitical commitment to the project.

Figure 15. Effluent has been converted from a waste management problem into a valuable

agricultural resource.

References

Doehring, D.O.; Buttler, J.H. 1979. Hydrogeologicconstraints on Yucatan’s development. ThePeninsula’s water resource is threatened by man-induced contamination. Science 186 (4164): 591 -595

Marín, L.E., and E.C. Perry. 1994. The hydrology andcontamination potential of northwestern Yucatan,Mexico. Geofísica Internacional. 33:619-623.

Graniel C. E. H., Villasuso P. M. y Morris B. 1994.Efectos del desarrollo urbano sobre los recursos de

agua subterránea de Mérida, Yucatán, México.Boletín académico de la facultad de ingeniería Nº24. p 17.

Pacheco AJ, Cabrera SA. Groundwater contamination bynitrates in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.Hidrogeology J 1997;(5):47- 53.

Jasa, P., S. Skipton, D. Varner, and D. Hay (1998)Drinking Water: Nitrate-Nitrogen, Nebraska CooperativeExtension Bulletin G96-1279-A.


Vázquez, B.E.; Manjarrez, R.A. 1993. Contaminacióndel agua subterránea por la actividad porcícola.Tecnología del Agua. España. 109: 38 - 43

Pacheco, A.J.; Cabrera, S.A. 1993. Efectos de lasactividades humanas en la calidad del aguasubterránea de Yucatán. Boletín Académico,Facultad de Ingeniería. Universidad Autónoma deYucatán. 23: 11 - 18.

Pacheco, A.J.; Vázquez, B.E. 1992. Impacto de laporcicultura en el contenido de nitratos del aguasubterránea. Memoria del VIII Congreso deIngeniería Sanitaria y Ambiental.

Magaña, M.M.A. 2000. Rentabilidad y efectos depolítica en la producción de carne de cerdo en elestado de Yucatán. Tesis Doctoral en la Especialidadde Economía. Colegio de Postgraduados,Montecillo, Edo. de México. 170 p.

AMEPA (Asociación Mexicana de Productores deAlimentos A.C.). 2004. Exigen productores aperturade mercado. Noticias nacionales. [email protected]

Voermans, J.A.M.; Verdoes, N.; den Hartog, L.A. 1994.Environmental impact of pig farming. Pig News Inf.15. 51N - 54N.

Adeola O. 1999. Nutrient management procedures toenhance environmental conditions: An introduction.J. Anim. Sci. 77: 4227 - 429.

ASAE Standards.1991. Standards, engineering practicesand data. R.H. Hahn; E.E. Rosentreter (Ed.) Amer.Soc. Agr. Eng., St Joseph, MI. USA. 745 p.

Taiganides, E.P. 1992. Pig waste management andrecycling. The Singapore experience. InternationalDevelopment Research Center. Ottawa, Canada. 368pp.

Jongbloed, A.W.; Lenis, N.P. 1992. Alteration ofnutrition as a means to reduce environmentalpollution by pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 31: 75 - 94.

Chará O.J.D. 1998. El potencial de las excretas porcinaspara uso múltiple y los sistemas dedescontaminación productiva. Centro para laInvestigación en Sistemas Sostenibles de ProducciónAgropecuaria (CIPAV). Cali, Colombia.www.cipav.co/confr/ichara1.htm.

De Rouchey J. M., Goodband R. D., Nelssen J. L.,Tokach M. D., Dritz S. S. and Murphy J. P. 2002.Nutrient composition of Kansas swine legoons andhoop barn manure. J. Anim. Scie. pp 2051-2061

Prats, I.Ll. 1996. Manual de gestió dels purins y de laseva reutilizació agrícola. Segona edició. Generalitatde Catalunya. Barcelona. 128 pp.

Miner, J.R. 1999. Alternatives to minimize theenvironmental impact of large swine productionunits. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 440 - 444.

Sanginés-García, J.R., J. Ku-Vera, and F. Corzo-Jimenéz. 1999. Use of swine lagoon effluent on stargrass (Cynodon nlemfuensis) production in litosoilsat different age of regrowth. The fifth InternationalSymposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores. Texas,USA. http://cnrit.tamu.edu/conf/isnh/post-online/post0111/

Sanginés, G.J.R; Borges, G.L.; Rosado, A.M. y Lara,L.P.E. 1997. Uso de los purines en la biofertilizacióndel Cynodon nlemfuensis en litosoles de origencalcáreo. VII Jornadas sobre Producción Animal.ITEA. Tomo II: 221- 223

Guerra, M.R.R., Lara, L.P.E. y Sanginés, G.J.R. 2002.Abonado del pasto tanner (Brachiaria radicans) conpurines: Rendimiento y extracción de nutrimentosTec. Pecu. Mex. 40 (3): 265 – 274.

Sanginés García, J.R. Kú Vera, J.C. 2002. Producciónovina y productividad del pasto estrella de Áfricavariedad santo domingo (Cynodon nlemfuensis)abonado con agua residual de origen porcino.Tropical & Subtropical Agroecosystems. 1: 42 – 44.

Sanginés-García, J:R., Ku-Vera J.C., González-ValenciaC. and Ramón-Ugalde J.P. 2003. Sheep productionin star grass (Cynodon nlemfuensis) fertilized withswine lagoon effluent. Small Ruminant Research 49:135-139.

Lady Diana Sierra May, José Roberto Sanginés García,Ángel Carmelo Sierra Vázquez, Juan Antonio RiveraLorca, Benjamín Ortiz de la Rosa; Miguel ÁngelMagaña Magaña. Comercialización y comportamientode precios de la carne ce cerdo en Yucatán 1990 –2003. Tec. Pecu. Mex. 43: 347 - 360.

Ramos, T.O.; Lara, L.P.E.; Rivera, L.J. and Sanginés,G.J.R. 2002. Mulberry production with swine lagooneffluent. In. Sánchez, M.D. (ED.) Mulberry for animalproduction. FAO Animal Production and HealthPaper. No. 147: 261- 270. ISBN: 92-5-104568-2

Sanginés G.J.R. 2003. Manejo sustentable del aguaresidual de origen porcino: Producción de forraje. In:Solís S., Zamudio M., Rivera G., Toledo V., Ramón J.Robledo D. Santamaría J. y Cahue A. (ED) Secuelasdel huracán Isidoro: Oportunidades de vinculaciónEstado – Academia – Industria. Sociedad Mexicana deBiotecnología y Bioingeniería A. C. pp 53 – 67. ISBN:968-5480-23-0

Sanginés GJR Producción ovina y productividad delpasto estrella de África variedad Santo Domingo(Cynodon nlemfuensis) abonado con agua residualde origen porcino [tesis doctoral]. Mérida, Yucatán.Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán; 2000.


U.S.A.: Agricultural Water Quality Alliance (AWQA)-A California central coast

agricultural water quality coalition. www.awqa.org

Introduction

The Agriculture Water Quality Alliance is a regionalcollaboration of agriculture industry groups, federal,state, and local agencies, technical experts,environmental organizations and university researchersworking to carry out the Monterey Bay National MarineSanctuary’s Agriculture and Rural Lands Plan.

With a mix of federal, state, and private funding, AWQAis coordinating efforts to protect regional water quality,working in many watersheds throughout the six-countyarea. The effort is guided by a Steering Committee basedon input from farmers, ranchers and agriculture industrygroups.

Agricultural Systems and Environmental Risks

California's Central Coast is home to rich agriculturallands. The region supports a 3.5 billion dollaragricultural industry, produces over 200 types of crops,and employs more than 60,000 people. Crops range fromnurseries and brussel sprouts along the fog-shrouded SanMateo coast to the diverse row crops, berries and appleorchards of the warm Pajaro Valley. Rolling grazinglands, vineyards, and forests occupy the slopes of thesevalleys. Farmers range from small ethnic minority land

renters to large landowners and operators with averagefarm sizes of 500 acres. Some properties are rented bymultiple operators in a single year.

Agricultural concerns for the sanctuary include sediment,pesticides, nitrogen and phosphorus, and irrigationefficiency.


Working to protect water quality within the watershedsthat drain to the Sanctuary, farmers and ranchers areusing management practices on their properties to reducerunoff in the form of sediments, nutrients and pesticides.

The coalition website has 70 individual conservationpractice fact sheets explaining erosion control methodsof tillage, vegetated buffer strips and waterways, nutrientand pest management practices, and irrigation efficiencyimprovements. Nine of the fact sheets have extensiveeconomic analysis of costs and benefits. Some of thefact sheets have been translated into Spanish. Manyhave been adapted to the nearly 200 specialty crops, aswell as cattle grazing management and rural roadmaintenance.

Figure 1. The central coast area of California is used for intensive production of a wide range of

crops.


Case History

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is thelargest marine protected area in the United States andincludes over 5000 square miles of water off California'sCentral Coast. Spanning from Marin to Cambria, theSanctuary boasts the greatest biodiversity in temperateregions of the world. It is home to numerous plant andanimal species, including 33 species of marine mammalsand 345 species of fish, 24 of which are listed asthreatened or endangered. A 5 part strategy to protectthe sanctuary began in 1999, including one strategyfocused on agriculture.

Agriculture and the Sanctuary's plants and animals arelinked by the drainage patterns of the local watersheds aswater flows from the mountains to the flood plains andrivers, and out to sea. The Sanctuary’s Water QualityProtection Program (WQPP) works in over 7500 squaremiles of watersheds that drain into the ocean. TheAgriculture and Rural Lands Plan, with 24 voluntarystrategies to reduce agricultural runoff, was developed

with extensive input from agriculture industry groups,resource agencies, and environmental groups.

The Agriculture and Rural Lands Plan started in 1999and lays out voluntary strategies to increase technicalassistance and education, identifies funding forconservation projects, coordinates and streamlines theexisting permitting system as it relates to implementingerosion control practices, and improves maintenancepractices for rural roadways and public lands.

The agriculture industry plays a leadership role inprotecting water quality in the area. The AgricultureWater Quality Coalition represents six County FarmBureaus whose watersheds drain to the Sanctuary. TheCoalition has been organizing Watershed WorkingGroups comprised of agricultural landowners andmanagers along local streams and rivers. These groupswork together to identify local water quality issues andimplement conservation projects. Approximately 2500farmers operate in the region with 20 percent activelyparticipating in the project since its beginning in 1999.

Figure 2. Monterey Bay Marine sanctuary Agricultural and Rural Land Focus



Many federal, state and local organizations participate inoutreach to farmers and ranchers as listed below.Information includes publications, training sessions suchas a Farm Water Quality Short Course offered throughthe local university extension, field demonstrations andfarm tours, a website, and Spanish language translationsas needed. On-farm technical assistance is availablefrom the US Department of Agriculture and localconservation districts as well as trained technical serviceproviders. Farmers and ranchers have been organizedinto 23 watershed working groups, including oneSpanish language group, to focus attention on specificstate priority water standards.

The following list includes local partner members thatcan be accessed from the website.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Central Coast Agriculture Water Quality

Coalition ([email protected]) Natural Resources Conservation Service Resource Conservation Districts Resource Conservation District of Monterey

County Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation

District University of California Cooperative Extension Regional Water Quality Control Boards ALBA: Agriculture Land-Based Training

Association (Latino outreach) Central Coast Vineyard Team Community Alliance of Family Farms University of California Santa Cruz: Center for

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems CSU Monterey Bay: The Watershed Institute Agriculture Commissioners County Farm Bureaus Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Inc.

Sustainable Conservation The Coastal Conservancy Monterey County Water Resources Agency

The Agriculture and Rural Lands Plan started in 1999and lays out voluntary strategies to increase technicalassistance and education, identifies funding forconservation projects, coordinates and streamlines theexisting permitting system as it relates to implementingerosion control practices, and improves maintenancepractices for rural roadways and public lands.

The agriculture industry plays a leadership role inprotecting water quality in the area. The AgricultureWater Quality Coalition represents six County FarmBureaus whose watersheds drain to the Sanctuary. TheCoalition has been organizing Watershed WorkingGroups comprised of agricultural landowners andmanagers along local streams and rivers. These groupswork together to identify local water quality issues andimplement conservation projects. Approximately 2500farmers operate in the region with 20 percent activelyparticipating in the project since its beginning in 1999.

Funding assistance is available from federal, state andprivate sources and posted on each county website.Information on funding is included in all field days andtraining sessions. To date, nearly $4 million of privatefarm funding has been matched with $4 million of publicsupport.

Rural road maintenance was identified as a need toreduce rural erosion. Rural road management standardshave been developed and training workshops for ruralroad employees are offered. A 70 page booklet toexplain private road management was also developed,along with a road management newsletter.


Figure 3. Closeup of Agricultural Watershed Groups

Evidence of Success

Since 1999, 500 of the 2500 farmers and ranchers in the6 county area have participated in the 15 hour waterquality short course and joined watershed groups. Over200,000 acres of conservation plans have beendeveloped, with 157,000 acres already implemented. Anestimated 450,000 tons of sediment were prevented bymanagement practices. Nearly 450 acres have improvedirrigation practices that conserve water and preventrunoff and leaching. Over 2,200 acres of grassed buffershave been installed to reduce runoff. Over 175,000 acresof grazing management practices prevent overgrazingand erosion. Farmers and ranchers are performingvoluntary water monitoring to identify issues andevaluate conservation practice performance. Nitratequick tests and a mobile irrigation laboratory provideassistance on nutrient management and water useefficiency.

Limitations

Permit coordination and regulatory streamlining wereidentified as major barriers to implementing conservationpractices. As many as seven agencies may havejurisdiction at the federal, state and local level forinstalling a conservation practice. Efforts to develop asingle permit are underway to speed up the approvalprocess, and training is provided to navigate the permitprocess.

Funding shortages to meet additional farm and ranchdemand will limit implementation. In some cases, shortterm rental land does not provide incentives to invest inlong term conservation practices. Cultural and languagebarriers for some ethnic minority and small farmers andranchers have also limited implementation. In somecases they are renting the poorest land with the highestrisk of erosion.


U.S.A.: Drainage Water Management in the Mississippi River Basin

Introduction

In late 2002, scientists from the USDA AgriculturalResearch Service (ARS), the USDA Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS), and Midwestern landgrant universities interested in drainage issuesrecognized the potential of implementing this practice inthe Midwest for water quality improvement and as aresult, formed the Agricultural Drainage ManagementSystems (ADMS) Task Force. Recognizing thecontributions to the science by researchers in NorthCarolina where drainage water management wascommonly accepted and practiced, scientists from NorthCarolina were invited to participate. In addition,researchers from McGill University, located in Quebec,Canada are participating in improving and understandingthe science because of similar conditions in Canada andsome Midwestern states. The primary goal of the ADMSTask Force was/is to develop a national effort toimplement improved drainage water managementpractices and systems that will enhance crop production,conserve water, and reduce adverse off–site water qualityand quantity impacts, with the initial focus in theMidwest. Shortly thereafter, the partnership grew toinclude other federal, state, and local governmentagencies, non-profit organizations (NGOs), and industryrepresentatives. Recognizing opportunities to increasethe support of this effort, the drainage, environmental,and agricultural groups and industries formed theAgricultural Drainage Management Coalition (ADMC),for the purpose of promoting new, cost-effective andbeneficial subsurface drainage water managementtechnologies and complementary practices (collectively“drainage water management systems”) to agriculturalproducers. The collaborative efforts of both the ADMSTask Force and the ADMC have brought nationalattention to the potential of drainage water management,that, when combined with other Best ManagementPractices (BMPs), produce environmental andproduction benefits.


The focus of the partnership in promoting the adoption ofdrainage water management and associated practices isin the Mississippi River Basin, primarily in the States ofMinnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, andto some extent, Michigan and Wisconsin. Historically,much of the science documenting the success of drainagewater management has been carried out in NorthCarolina. Researchers in North Carolina have provided

information on the economic, social, and environmentalbenefits of the drainage practices, and, as importantly,lessons learned from implementation, including publicconcerns, resistance, and acceptance. Additionally, theyare assisting with modeling efforts that account for verydifferent Midwestern conditions with respect to climate,soils, and cropping systems. Louisiana, located at themouth of the Mississippi River, is on the receiving end ofthat which originates upstream. Drainage researchers inLouisiana are working to provide information on theapplication of drainage water management in the lowerreaches of the Mississippi River Basin. The locations ofpartners within the United States are highlighted inFigure 1.

What is the common thread that joins these locations

to work on an effort of mutual interest? Millions ofacres of these areas have been subsurface drained (tiledrained) and are some of the most productive agriculturallands in the Nation. The topography is relativelysmooth, uniform, and level to gently sloping and soils areclassified as poorly drained or very poorly drained. Anexample of a tile drain on a smooth landscape is shownin Figure 2.

What is the common interest in drainage water

management? In both North Carolina and in theMidwest, much of this acreage is located near sensitivelakes, estuaries, rivers, or streams. Pollutants, such asnitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment are easilytransported into these bodies of water through surface orsubsurface flow. The nitrate nitrogen loadings fromthese key states in the Midwest are considered to besignificant contributors to the hypoxic zone in theNorthern Gulf of Mexico, which is a concern to thepublic and to regulatory agencies that are focusingefforts on how to address agricultural non-point sourcepollution (Figure 3). And, perhaps as important - to theMidwestern farmer - the economic and conservationbenefits of managed drainage systems are noteworthy.

With less nitrate loss from cropland indrainage discharge, smaller amountsof fertilizer can be applied, whichresults in reduced production andenergy costs, and

During dry growing seasons,controlling the drainage water allowsfor the conservation of soil-water forcrop use, thus improving potentialyields.


Figure 1. Area of the Drainage Water Management activities in the Midwest and location of

associated partners (Map courtesy of ADMS Task Force).

Figure 2. Tile drain on a flat landscape in the Midwest. (Map courtesy of ADMS Task Force.)


Figure 3. Average annual nitrogen yield of streams for 1980-1996. (Map courtesy of ADMS Task

Force.)

Nature of the environmental or water

quality problem

In the past, surface and subsurface drains were used toremove excess water from the soil on agricultural landsto provide conditions that are more favorable for cropproduction. In recent years, science has shown thatimproved drainage water management is the key to:

reducing nutrient and pesticide losses tosurface and ground waters,

designing and operating more efficientwetlands and conservation buffers,

improving fish and wildlife habitat, and reducing problems associated with invasive

plants in wetlands and water ways.

A high percentage of agricultural cropland is sub-surfaced drained (tile drained). Drainage flow fromthese systems carry high concentrations of plant nutrientsand other chemicals, with nitrates being the mostprominent. Practical experience has shown thatmodifications to existing drainage management systemsor improved designs of replacement or new systemsallow for better management of quantities and timing ofwater releases. Producers are finding that thesemodifications will reduce losses of nutrients, such asnitrates, and additionally conserve water in the soil forcrop uptake and use during drier periods. Reducingnitrogen losses results in the need for fewer fertilizers,

increasing energy savings to the producer. In addition,drainage water management can improve water qualityby reducing the quantity of nutrient drainage leavingfields, and may improve production benefits byextending the period of time when soil water is availableto plants.


The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)has developed, tested, and documented conservationpractice standards, which are key in putting conservationon the ground. Practice standards are based on researchand are piloted for use and effectiveness before they areadopted. Practice standards, along with other technicalinformation, maps, etc. are located in the Field OfficeTechnical Guide (FOTG). The FOTG is the primaryscientific reference used by NRCS and partners inconservation activities. Conservation practice standardscontain information on why and where practices areapplied, and set forth the minimum quality criteria thatmust be met during the application of practices in orderto achieve intended purpose(s)(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/efotg/index.html .))

A suite of conservation practices have been adopted, orare in the process of being adopted, by states in theMidwest where tile drainage is extensive. The concept


of placing a control structure on a tile system, just as it iscommonly used for tile and ditch systems in EasternNorth Carolina, is gaining acceptance in the Midwest asproducers recognize the environmental, production, andeconomic benefits. .Drainage water management is mosteffective when it is used in conjunction with otherconservation practices, including buffers and nutrientmanagement, and considered a bonus when used forshallow water development and management to providehabitat for wildlife.

Drainage Water Management

The management of the structures is key to a successfuldrainage water management system. Structures can beadjusted manually or can be automated. Regardless ofthe mechanism used to adjust the height of the watertable, proper management is critical. In addition, usingcompatible Best Management Practices (BMPs) arerecommended. (ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/554.pdf )

Drainage water management (Conservation PracticeStandard 554) consists of installing a structure, such as aflashboard riser, in a drainage outlet. As boards areadded to the riser, the water level rises in the drainageditch, and subsequently, in the adjacent fields. Boards areremoved during wet periods to encourage more rapiddrainage, which improves trafficability in agriculturalfields. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the concept ofconventional drainage and drainage water management.Conventional drainage permits water to flow freely fromthe tile line, while controlled drainage restricts free flow,allowing the producer to manipulate the water level forboth environmental and production benefits.

Nutrient management

Managing the amount, source, placement, form, andtiming of the application of plant nutrients and soilamendments is critical and is a BMP used in conjunctionwith drainage water management. Some of the reasonsfor practicing nutrient management are to budget andsupply nutrients for plant production, to properly utilizemanure or organic by-products as a plant nutrient source,to minimize agricultural non-point source pollution ofsurface and ground water resources, and to maintain orimprove the physical, chemical and biological conditionof soil. Nutrient planning is be based on current soil testresults developed in accordance with Land GrantUniversity guidance or industry practice if recognized bythe Land Grant University . Soil amendments shall be

applied, as needed, to adjust soil pH to the specific rangeof the crop for optimum availability and utilization ofnutrients based on realistic yield goals and associatedplant nutrient uptake rates.

In areas with identified or designated nutrient-relatedwater quality impairment, an evaluation should becompleted to determine the potential for nitrogen and/orphosphorus transport from the field. The Leaching Index(LI) and/or Phosphorus Index (PI), or other recognizedassessment tools, may be used to make theseassessments. The results of these assessments andrecommendations should be included in the nutrientmanagement plan. (ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/590.pdf )

Riparian Buffers

Riparian buffers form an important transition zonebetween upland landscape positions and lower-lyingbodies of water. This transition zone usually has soilsthat are somewhat poorly to very poorly drained.Riparian buffers have a recognized role in regulating themovement of pollutants, such as nitrogen, sediment, andphosphorus from upland surface and/or subsurfacegroundwater (Hill, 1996). Most researchers agree thatdenitrification and plant uptake are the primarymechanisms for nitrate (NO3

-) removal fromgroundwater in riparian buffers.The most important factor controlling the ability ofriparian buffers to reduce nitrogen is hydrology (Gilliamet al., 1997). Nitrate is very mobile and is easily leachedthrough the soil profile. Nitrate generally enters surfacewaters through subsurface flow. Much of the researchon riparian buffers has been on similar geophysicalregions in the Mid-Atlantic States and in the Southeast.Generally, soils in these areas have a restrictive layerwithin the profile that forces groundwater to flowlaterally, rather than downward. Consequently, nitrate ingroundwater enters surface water via this route. Theinteraction of this laterally flowing groundwater and theriparian buffer is extremely critical. Denitrifyingmicroorganisms require an energy source, such ascarbon, for this nitrogen transformation to occur.Riparian vegetation provides the denitrifyingmicroorganisms a source of carbon, which becomesavailable from plant or root decomposition.Groundwater that flows too deep in the soil profile maybypass the strategic zones where riparian soils andvegetation exist, thus eliminating the possibility of theoccurrence of denitrification.


Figure 4. Conventional drainage. (Photo courtesy of ADMC).

Figure 5. Schematic of controlled drainage. (Photo courtesy of ADMC.)


Figure 6. In Iowa, a crop consultant draws a soil sample early in the crop year to test nitrogen

availability in the soil. This late spring nitrogen test is used to determine nitrogen needed for

optimum production. Only the amount of nitrogen will be applied. (Photo courtesy of USDA

NRCS.)

Figure 7. Multiple rows of trees and shrubs, as well as a native grass strip, combine in a riparian

buffer to protect Bear Creek in Story County, Iowa. The buffer is a nationally designated

demonstration area for riparian buffers. (Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS.)


If the purpose of the buffer is to improve and protectwater quality by reducing the amount of sediment andother pollutants, such as pesticides, organic materials,and nutrients in surface runoff or nutrients and chemicalsin shallow ground water flow, then the control ofconcentrated flow erosion or mass soil movement shouldbe continued into the up-gradient area to maintainriparian function. Buffers installed for this purpose aresuccessful if a maintenance plan is carefully executedand followed. Further information on these BMPs,known as Forested Riparian Buffers and RiparianHerbaceous Cover, are located at

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-

standards/standards/391.pdf and


standards/standards/390.pdf, respectively.

Shallow water development and management

On lands where water can be impounded or regulated bydiking, excavating, ditching, and/or flooding, such asconditions imposed by a water control structure, shallowwater development and management is a BMP that canbe used to provide habitat for wildlife such as shorebirds,waterfowl, wading birds, mammals, fish, reptiles,amphibians and other species that require shallow waterfor at least a part of their life cycle (ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/646.pdf.) This BMP is consideredone of the benefits of practicing drainage watermanagement and is one of many reasons for broadsupport of this practice by producers, environmentalists,and wildlife groups.


Numerous activities to provide outreach and educationhave taken place during the last three years. Each of theparticipating Land Grant Universities have drainageresearchers and associated staffs that have held fielddays, training courses, and posted educational websites.The ADMC has worked with producer groups andindustry to educate their memberships on the benefits ofadopting drainage water management andcomplementary practices. The ADMS Task Force hasdrafted educational materials, sponsored a bus trip tovisit farms that practice drainage water management, andsponsored symposia at professional meetings. Websitesfor the ADMS Task Force and the ADMC, each withinformation on outreach and educational efforts, as wellas links to related drainage water management websitesare located at http://www.ag.ohio-

state.edu/~usdasdru/ADMS/ADMSindex.htm andhttp://www.admcoalition.com/ , respectively.

A Multi-state Research Committee known as “NCR:207- Drainage design and management practices toimprove water quality” was in late 2004.(http://lgu.umd.edu/lgu_v2/homepages/home.cfm?trackID=5434). Participants include university andgovernment researchers and scientists interested indrainage water management systems. The objectives ofthis group include:

To provide coordinated research efforts inthe North Central to develop and testdifferent drainage design and managementsystems. In addition, they meet regularlyfor information exchange.

To assess the impact of various soil andcrop management practices on reducingnitrate-N loadings to subsurface drains, ondifferent soils and climates within theregion.

To assess the need for further research inother aspects of water quality from drainedagricultural lands, including the emergingissues of pathogens and phosphorus frommanure applications.

Develop drainage guides and otherextension materials, and work with stateand federal action agencies, and to assist inimplementation of improved design andmanagement practices for subsurfacedrainage systems.

The ADMS Task Force, the ADMC, and NCR-207 meetjointly throughout the year for informational exchanges,field days, and planning efforts.


Figure 8. Flooded croplands in Louisiana attract thousands of geese in the winter. Photo

courtesy of USDA-NRCS.

Figure 9. Drainage water management installation in Minnesota included producers,

environmental groups, contractors, Federal, State, and Local government agencies.


Evidence of success

The partnership has worked diligently to raise the levelof awareness about the benefits of drainage watermanagement systems on water quality and wildlifehabitat in the Mississippi River Basin.

Conservation Practice Standard 554 (DrainageWater Management), which is used for the controlof water surface elevations and discharge fromsurface and subsurface systems, has now beenadopted in all but two of the participating States,making the practice eligible for cost share.

40% reduction in annual drain outflow and 45%reduction in annual nitrate load in the drainage waterhave been documented by research scientists in thepartnership.

Research and demonstration projects have beenfunded by Cooperative State Research, Education,and Extension Service (CSREES), AgriculturalResearch Service (ARS), Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) -NRCS, and the Sand CountyFoundation due to elevated interest in this strategyfor improving waters in the Mississippi River Basin.Projects are located throughout the States in thepartnership.

Three USDA Conservation Programs provide fundsfor implementing drainage water management:

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP) provides cost share funds in Stateswhere the practice has been adopted.

The Conservation Innovation Grants Program(CIG) has funded two drainage watermanagement projects for the purpose ofdemonstration the practice in Minnesota andIllinois.

In 2006, the Conservation Security Program(CSP) will recognize drainage watermanagement as an enhancement, which willprovide for funding. Drainage researcherswere instrumental in confirming the validityof the Index that will be used to assessbenefits to ensure it is based on the best andmost current science.

Demonstration projects, such as the UpperBrushy Creek Watershed in Illinois and theCIG in Mower County, Minnesota have beenestablished as showcase demonstrations for

drainage water management and otherenvironmentally friendly drainage practices.

Limitations

Because drainage water management is a relatively newBMP being implemented in the Midwest, legitimatequestions have been raised that need to be addressed.The research communities have formed a working groupto address research issues and are either currentlyconducting research or seeking funding for research onthe following issues:

What are the impacts of drainage watermanagement on liquid manure from drainedcropland? Liquid manure has been show to moveinto tile lines through micropores, includingwormholes. Control strategies to reducemovement are needed.

What are the effects on earthworms and otherbiological microorganisms?

What are the greenhouse gas implications? Is oneproblem (nitrates in groundwater) beingexchanged for another (nitrous oxide emissionsdue to denitrification)?

How can nitrogen savings be quantified for use inmarket-based approaches and what are theuncertainties?

How will it affect flooding?Barriers to adopting the use of drainage watermanagement include:

Uncertainties about how drainage watermanagement actually works and how muchland is needed for the control structures.This illustrates the importance of pilots anddemonstration projects in each of theparticipating States. Success stories byproducers have merit among their owncolleagues.

Concerns about the time and managementefforts needed to operate the system.

The benefits and costs of drainage watermanagement – are production benefits andcosts more important? How important arethe environmental benefits? Themisconception that drainage watermanagement is “draining wetlands”. Thepractice of drainage water management iscomplementary to wetland protection.


References (In order of appearance)

USDA NRCS Electronic Field Office Technical Guide:http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/efotg/index.html

Conservation Practice Standard 554 – Drainage WaterManagement:ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/554.pdf

Conservation Practice Standard 590 – NutrientManagementftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/590.pdf

Gilliam, J. W., D. L. Osmond, and R.O. Evans. 1997.Selected agricultural best management practices tocontrol nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin. NorthCarolina Agricultural Research Service TechnicalBulletin 311, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,NC.

Hill, A. R. 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparianzones. JEQ 25:743-755.

Conservation Practice Standard 391 - Forested

Riparian Buffers


standards/standards/391.pdf

Conservation Practice Standard 390 - Riparian

Herbaceous Cover


standards/standards/390.pdf

Conservation Practice Standard 646 - Shallow waterdevelopment and management(ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/standards/646.pdf

Agricultural Drainage Management (ADMS) Task Forcehttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~usdasdru/ADMS/ADMSindex.htm

Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition (ADMC)http://www.admcoalition.com/

NCR-207 “Drainage design and management practices toimprove water quality”http://lgu.umd.edu/lgu_v2/homepages/home.cfm?trackID=5434


Canada: Overview

Only 7% of the land mass of Canada is suitable foragriculture. Cropping is restricted to one crop per year.Eighty percent of agricultural land is in the prairieregion. Although the soils of this region are generallyvery fertile, the range of crops that can be grown isseverely limited by the climate. The prairies is one ofthe driest regions of the country receiving an average ofonly 300 to 500 mm of precipitation per year and theregion is characterized by a continental climate with coolsummers and very cold winters.

Outside the prairies, prime agricultural land isconcentrated in pockets in the valleys of BritishColumbia, the Niagara peninsula in southern Ontario, thelowlands of the St. Lawrence River in Ontario andQuebec, and some valleys and coastal areas of theAtlantic region. Most of the productive agricultural landin the country outside the Great Plains is in the southernregions. These are also areas of high population densitywhich is placing extreme competing land use pressure onfarmland from urban expansion. The coincidence ofhigh population densities and agricultural land can beseen by comparison of Figures 1 and 2.

The Canadian economy is largely driven by exports.Roughly 7% of exports are agricultural and fish products.Of this 7%, about 7% is wheat. Beef is second,contributing roughly half this amount. Despite afavourable balance of trade, Canada imports many goodsand services. Approximately 6% of imports areagricultural and fish products. The United States isCanada’s primary trading partner. Eighty-five of exportsand 75% of imports take place annually with the U.S.(Statistics Canada, 2001)

Farming in Canada has become highly mechanized sinceWorld War II with a major shift in the labour force toother sectors of the economy. The period between 1940

and 1970 contained the largest decline in the agriculturalsector. In 1941, about 26 percent of Canada's labourforce worked in the agricultural sector. Thirty years later,in the late 1960s, the agricultural sector accounted for nomore than 6 percent of the labour force (Ostry and Zaidi,1979, Table V-1). The accompanying trend has been forthe number of farms to decrease and the average farmsize to increase dramatically. Individual farm familiesare managing increasingly large holdings. There is alsoa trend toward the creation of corporate farms which maybe comprised of extended families or unrelatedindividuals.

Cropping Systems

The major agricultural regions of Canada can becharacterized very generally in terms of the types ofproduction that dominate and some of the environmentalrisks that are associated with these farming systems.

Fraser River Valley and Vancouver Island

This region is characterized by intensive production of avariety of high value crops on the flood plains of themajor rivers. Winters are mild and summers are coolwith high levels of precipitation (>1000mm per year)which falls mostly in winter. Agricultural land mustoften be drained to permit planting in spring and irrigatedin the dry summer months. Production is diversified butthere are significant concentrations of dairy, poultry,vegetable, berry, and ornamental production with highlevels of inputs. Highly concentrated livestockproduction produces volumes of manure that are appliedto a small land base. The most significant environmentalissues are water erosion and nutrient and pesticideloading of surface waters and shallow ground water.


Figure 1. Distribution of Agricultural Land in the Canadian Prairies

Figure 2. Population Density in Canada 2001


Figure 3. The Fraser Valley produces a wide range of horticultural crops.

Interior Valleys of British Columbia

The Okanagan region is characterized by intensiveproduction of tree fruits and grapes in the valley bottomsand extensive beef production in the native grasslandsbetween the valleys and the tree-line. The area has mildwinters and hot summers with annual precipitationranging from 200 to 800 mm with most occurring insummer storms. Irrigation is essential to all valleyproduction and high fertilizer and pesticide input levelsare typical. Significant environmental problems areresulting from nutrient and pesticide loading of lakes andrivers both from runoff from orchard and vineyards inupland areas and free-ranging cattle in streams.

Prairies

The Great Plains region is distinguished by large areas offertile soils on level topography. Winters are extremelycold and summers are short and cool. Annualprecipitation ranges from 300 to 800 mm per year andmoisture is generally limiting to dryland production.Much of the region is used for extensive production ofcereals, oilseeds and pulses, and cow-calf beefoperations. Due to the ready availability of feed grainsbeef finishing and intensive hog production are importantsectors of the agricultural economy. In irrigated areas,sugar beets, potatoes and specialized forages areeconomically important. Generally, inputs per hectareare low in this part of the country but due to the vastareas under cultivation, the absolute quantities offertilizers and pesticides used are significant. The mostimportant environmental risks are wind and watererosion, soil salinization, and nutrient loading of surfacewaters.

Atlantic Canada

The region of the Niagara peninsula and St. Lawrencelowlands produces a significant proportion of Canada’sagricultural output value. The area receives about 1000mm of precipitation per year. Much of the productiontakes place on moderately fine-textured lacustrine soilsthat require extensive drainage to ensure arability. Muchof the lowland areas are cropped to corn, soybeans,vegetables, fruit, tobacco and other special crops. Muchof the upland areas are used for intensive dairy, hog, andpoultry production. The major environmental risks arefrom phosphorus loading of surface waters, mostimportantly the Great Lakes, nitrogen loading ofgroundwater, soil compaction and soil acidification.

The Atlantic region experiences cool winters and coolsummers. The area receives more than 1000 mm ofmoisture per year. Many of the soils of this region arenot well suited to agriculture but where the soils arebetter, intensive potato and tree fruit production is animportant part of the agricultural economy. Somecereals and forages are grown and there are pockets ofintensive hog and poultry production. Water erosion is aserious environmental risk in this region, particularlywhere low residue crops such as potatoes are grown andsoils have limited winter protection. In some areas,sediment and nutrient transport from annual croplandposes a serious threat to shellfish beds and oceanfisheries. Nitrogen loading of groundwater and soilacidification are also issues of concern in this region.


Figure 4. The Okanagan Valley is highly suited to the production of tree fruits and grapes.

Figure 5. Prairie farms are typically large operations growing grains and oilseeds.

Central Canada


Figure 6. Agriculture in central Canada produces a wide range of crops but corn and soybeans

are a common rotation.

Figure 7. Atlantic Canada is a very large producer of table potatoes.

References

http://www.canadainfolink.ca/charteleven.htm

http://www11.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/hrsdc/arb/publications/research/2000-002533/page05.shtml (Ostry and Zaidi, 1979,Table V-1)


Canada: South Tobacco Creek

Introduction

South Tobacco Creek watershed is a small agriculturalcatchment in southern Manitoba, Canada. In response toflooding and water erosion problems, a group ofagricultural producers formed an organization to managedrainage issues. Over the course of two decades theorganization has partnered with several governmentagencies, universities, and non-governmental agenciesand evolved into an important national, agriculturalresearch site.


The South Tobacco Creek watershed is located on theupper reaches of the Pembina Escarpment and drains intothe Red River in southern Manitoba, Canada. The RedRiver flows north from North Dakota, U.S.A. intoCanada, through Lake Winnipeg and finally dischargesinto Hudson Bay. The dominant land use on both sidesof the international border is agriculture. Figure 1 showsthe location of the South Tobacco Creek within the largewatershed of Lake Winnipeg.

Within the South Tobacco Creek watershed there is anelevation difference of approximately 183 metres (600 ft)in 11.3 kilometres (7 miles). The Escarpment is

characterized by glacial moraine deposits with moderateto strong slopes and highly variable soil textures. Themid-land area has loam-textured soils and gentler slopesas the escarpment meets the floodplain of the Red River.The eastern lowland area is part of the Red River plainand is flat with clay-textured soils. Annual precipitationvaries from 586.8 mm (23.1 in) on the escarpment to498.9 mm (19.6 in) below the escarpment.Approximately 75% of the annual precipitation falls asrain between the months of April and October. Theremaining 25% of annual precipitation falls as snowduring 5 months of winter from November throughMarch.

Ninety percent of the area of the watershed is highquality agricultural land. The dominant cropping systemis dryland production of grains and oilseeds in rotation.The region produces some corn, soybeans, sunflowersand buckwheat and there are cow-calf ranchingoperations and some intensive hog operations in the area.

Runoff from the upland area has always caused watererosion on the escarpment. With European settlement,land-clearing and cultivation, erosion problems becamemore severe and downstream impacts of flooding,sedimentation and nutrient transport became moreserious.

Figure 1. Diagram of Manitoba/North Dakota showing the location of the South Tobacco Creek

watershed


Figure 2. Spring meltwater from the Manitoba escarpment can cause serious damage to roads

and infrastructure.

Figure 3. The flood of 1997 flooded thousands of hectares of agricultural land in the Red River

Valley

Because the Red River flows north, the spring melt in theheadwaters occurs before downstream melting takesplace there is a very high risk of flooding in springthroughout the entire Red River system. The problem isexacerbated by the flat topography of the Red River plainLake Winnipeg is the tenth largest freshwater lake in theworld with the second largest watershed area in Canada.It is shallow and has a relatively short residence time.

Man-made controls on the outflow have reduced theability of the lake to be ‘flushed’ at times of high flowand the accumulation of nutrients in the lake has led toserious water quality problems and accelerated algaegrowth. South Tobacco Creek is part of the Red Riverdrainage system and is therefore a minor contributor tosome of the phosphorus loading problems that have beenidentified in Lake Winnipeg. (Bourne et al. 2002).


Figure 4. Algae bloom in Lake Winnipeg

In 2000, an international body called the InternationalRed River Board was created with equal representationfrom both the U.S. and Canada to develop strategies forflooding and water quality issues as well as to identifyand resolve emerging trans-boundary issues.


A range of agricultural practices have been put intoeffect in the South Tobacco Creek watershed to bettermanage and protect water soil. The first activitiesundertaken were related to flood control. These included

dry dams for short-term peak flow retention, backflooddams for flow retention and soil moisture improvement,and multi-purpose dams for peak flow control andstorage for summer use. Other practices have beenadopted under soil and water conservation programs suchas residue management: shelterbelt establishment,rotational grazing, gully stabilization, grassedwaterways, and wildlife habitat enhancement activities.Most recently research projects have been initiated toevaluate the effects of practices such as croplandconversion to forage, zero-tillage, riparian management,and runoff containment from livestock confinement areason water quality and quantity.


Case HistoryBecause of the low grade of the plain, the streamsflowing from the escarpment did not have continuouschannels to the Red River and formed natural wetlandareas, particularly during the time of spring flooding.

As a result of perennial flooding, early Europeansettlement placed a high priority on drainage in order tobring land into agricultural production. From 1895 to1935, 900,000 ha (2 million acres) of wetlands weredrained in the Red River valley. On-going disputes overflooding and the perceptions that upstream activitiesexacerbate downstream water problems, very early onled to several provincial government appointedcommissions of inquiry (Sullivan Commission (1918-1921), Finlayson Commission (1935-1936) and LyonsCommission (1947-1949)). Conclusions drawn by thesecommissions led to two important results:

the transfer of much of the financialresponsibility for flooding frommunicipalities to the province, and

the enactment of legislation permitting aholistic approach to water management.The latter led to early acceptance of theconcept of watershed level management.

The formation of local organizations to address theproblems of water management was promoted by theManitoba government and in 1984 the Deerwood Soiland Water Management Association was formallyestablished by a group of 150 landowners in the SouthTobacco Creek and Graham Creek watersheds. The areaserved by the Deerwood Association is 875 squarekilometers (342 square miles), most of which is privatelyowned, agricultural land. Eighty-three percent of thewatershed was in annual crop in 1994. Initially,Deerwood worked with Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada- PFRA to build small-scale headwater retentionstructures in the upper reaches of three catchments in the

watershed. Between 1985 and 1996, a network of smalldams was installed to control downstream erosion andflooding. In 1991, the South Tobacco Creek Pilot projectwas initiated under a federal-provincial soil conservationprogram. The project included an evaluation of theeffectiveness and efficiency of the retention structures.The project monitored runoff into and out of four smallreservoirs. The monitoring data has been used tocalibrate a hydrologic model. The twenty-six small damsconstructed in the South Tobacco Creek watershed nowcontrol approximately 30% of the 75 km2 drainage area.The hydrologic study indicated that collectively the 26small dams can reduce peak flows from 5% to 25%,depending on the season and severity of the flooding(PFRA 1995).

In addition to flow monitoring, the 1991 agreement had acomponent that also addressed water quality and anumber of farm practices:

residue management zero tillage shelterbelt establishment rotational grazing, gully stabilization grassed waterways, and wildlife habitat enhancement.

In 1992, a twin watershed project was establishedcomparing water quantity and quality (sediment andnutrients) from adjacent fields under conventional andzero-till management. The project was a collaboration ofthe federal government departments of Agriculture andEnvironment, and the Deerwood association, withresponsibility for data analysis belonging to governmentresearchers and the maintenance of field equipment anddata collection assumed by Deerwood. This part of theproject continues in 2006.


Figure 5. Topographic image of watershed

Figure 6. Multi-purpose dams control runoff and provide storage for summer use


Figure 7. The Twin Watersheds research project compares the runoff from zero-till and

conventional tillage fields

The scope of research activities in the watershedbroadened in the early 1990’s. Data collection began forthe construction of an agronomic database of croppingpractices for all the producers in the watershed, includingtillage type and timing, and fertilizer and pesticideapplications. Monitoring of water quality in a woodedarea of the watershed was added to provide baseline datafrom a ‘natural’ area. More partners were drawn into theproject as a result of this expansion. The University ofManitoba became involved and thesis research projectsfocusing on pesticide transport, tillage erosion, streambiota, and integrated resource management wereundertaken at the site.

As the wealth of data from the watershed has grown andthe collection of baseline data continues, researchershave recognized opportunities to initiate a range of newprojects. A collaboration of producers, the Deerwoodassociation, the provincial Department of Agricultureand Stewardship, with hydrologic and climate datacollected by a federal agency, have conducted a study tocompare surface water quality runoff characteristicsbetween fields receiving inorganic fertilizer and thosereceiving hog manure. The federal department ofFisheries and Oceans has conducted a study examiningthe impact of the retention structures on theconcentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in streamrunoff. The Deerwood association has acted as a liaisonbetween the various government and non-governmentagencies and the local producers to address local issues.For example, in response to a serious problem ofnuisance flies, the association contracted a consultingcompany to conduct a surveillance program.

The most recent research project located in the watershedis the Watershed Evaluation of BMPs project (WEBs).The site is one of seven across Canada, which are

examining the environmental and economic impacts ofBMPs at a watershed scale. Water quality is beingassessed and will be used as an indicator of the relativeperformance of the BMPs. The South Tobacco Creekproject is largely funded by the federal department ofagriculture with further in-kind or financial support fromfour other federal government departments, DucksUnlimited, a private non-governmental agency, theprovince of Manitoba and the University of Manitoba.The site was chosen because of several factors:

The existing water quantity, waterquality, climate, and agronomicdatabases.

The presence of the Deerwoodassociation who are able to providefield management and expertise andwork with local producers.

The BMPs being evaluated by the project are: Zero-tillage vs. conventional tillage Retention ponds to contain runoff from

livestock confinement area Conversion of annual cropland to

forage Management, development and

enhancement of riparian areas Retention ponds to reduce downstream

runoff


Figure 9. Each year hundreds of students visit the watershed to learn about soil and water

conservation.


In addition to managing a major agricultural researchsite, the Deerwood group is committed to using thewatershed for continuing support of “on-farm” soil andwater conservation demonstrations, providingeducational programs to hundreds of students every year,and communication and extension activities to rural andurban communities. The group has recently initiated aproject to publish research results in brochure format andon the Internet.

Another new initiative to emerge from the watershed isthe Tobacco Creek Model Watershed project. Theinitiative is a partnership between the Deerwoodassociation and five municipal governments that arewithin the watershed. The aim is to providecomprehensive extension support to landowners,municipalities, planning districts, conservation districts,and First Nations to facilitate their implementation ofeffective watershed actions and community benefits.

Evidence of Success

Several factors can be identified as integral to the successof the South Tobacco Creek watershed managementexperience:

Establishment largely through the initiative oflocal landowners interested in soil and waterconservation.

Provision of volunteer leadership andorganizational maintenance by a core ofcommitted individuals.

Development, support, and maintenance ofstrong partnerships with federal, provincial andprivate agencies.

Availability of a committed person forfacilitation, coordination and communicationsupport.

Development of realistic workplans with highlandowner participation.

Strong emphasis on evaluation of soil and watermanagement initiatives.

Limitations

Despite the long-term success of the South TobaccoCreek project, stable long-term funding continues to be aproblem. The site has become the site of field-scaleresearch projects that are inherently long-term projectsthat require several years to complete. In order to attractcontinued interest in new projects, researchers must beconfident that the infrastructure will be maintained forthe duration of the research.


Canada: Cows and Fish

Introduction

Cows and Fish is a non-governmental organization thatdelivers watershed programming through a voluntary,local, community-based process. It enables producersand local communities to recognize riparian values,measure riparian health, consider management optionsand implement change. Cows and Fish began insouthern Alberta, Canada but it was not long before wordof mouth had created an interest in the rest of Alberta.The close connections with producers from the outsetgained the support of producer associations. Requestsfor workshops have come from several Canadianprovinces; British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Yukon, as well assome western U.S. states; Montana, North Dakota andColorado. Outside of Canada, awareness materialsproduced by Cows and Fish have been used in severalU.S. states, at the federal level in the U.S., and inAustralia and New Zealand. The organization hasreceived expressions of interest from some CentralAmerican countries.


Southern Alberta is a mixed grassland landscape. It is aregion of cold winters and warm summers. Precipitationranges from less than 300mm to 400 mm per year. Mostprecipitation falls as summer rain. Warm winds called‘chinooks’ are common during winter. Due to highmoisture deficit, agriculture in the region is characterizedby annual dryland farming with summerfallow periods inrotation, irrigated corn, hay and sugar beet production,and natural pasture land. The grasslands are animportant component of the beef industry.

Beef production is an important part of the economy ofWestern Canada and the industry has become veryspecialized to provide finished beef at market weight.Southern Alberta has developed a large beef meat-packing industry. The ‘cow-calf’ and ‘backgrounder’

operations are critical elements of this productionsystem. For the most part, calves are born in the springand spend their first summer with the cows, grazing onpasture lands usually near the ‘cow-calf’ farm. It iscommon for the weaned calves to be sold in the fall tofeeder or cow-calf stocker operations but cow–calfoperators may choose to hold some or all of the animalsto sell as yearlings the following spring. The calves arefed a forage and silage diet over the winter and thenreturned to pasture for the second summer as yearlings.This step in the production system is referred to as‘backgrounding’. The animals are then usually soldagain in their second year to be brought to market weightor ‘finished’ on high energy feed. In Western Canadathe feed is most often barley and hay.

Pasturing livestock are often watered by allowing themdirect access to streams, lakes, and rivers. It has alsobeen common to construct wintering areas that permitfull access to fresh water. These practices have alwaysmade good economic sense to ranchers but direct accesswatering is now being questioned on the basis of impactson water quality for downstream users as well as directeffects on the health, safety and productivity of theanimals. Cattle feces potentially contribute nitrogen andphosphorus and disease-causing organisms to surfacewater. Direct access watering may also lead to over-grazing and trampling of streambanks and riparian areaswhich may increase the runoff of sediment. Sedimenttransport often leads to the destruction of fish habitat andspawning areas.

A natural focus for ranchers’ and public concern aboutwater quality and grazing systems is the riparian area.Riparian areas are disproportionately more important to ahealthy landscape than their size would suggest. It iswidely recognized that healthy, well-managed riparianareas can protect downstream areas from flood damage,deteriorating water quality, destruction of wildlifehabitat, as well as preserving the economic viability ofthe ranch.


Figure 1. Direct access to watering can cause damage to streambanks, impair water quality and

pose health risks to the animals.

Inventory and description of practices

Cows and Fish does not offer simple recipes for change;what is promoted is an understanding of the underlyingprinciples of management. An appropriate, adoptedpractice is based on the geographic region, the individualfarm or ranch operation, and the ability of the livestockproducer to translate the principles of range managementinto action. The principles of range and riparianmanagement reflect considerable investigation, trial,error and eventual success at determining how tosustainably raise livestock without harming thelandscape. These principles are simple but provide thefoundation of good range management:

1. Balance animal demand with available foragesupply. Understanding carrying capacity and

setting annual stocking rates that do notexceed forage. No practices can correct foran imbalance.

2. Distribute livestock evenly. Prevent livestock from lingering and over-

using an area (especially riparian areas)3. Avoid grazing or using the range during

vulnerable times (either soil or plant species).4. Provide effective rest for plants after grazing.

Roots are the plant’s battery and a drainedbattery can’t rebound.

A number of specific management practices are beingimplemented by cattle ranchers to bring these principlesinto action on their lands. Some of these practices are:

Altering livestock distribution throughthe use of temporary fencing andplacement of salt and water

Providing off-stream watering sites Controlling the timing of grazing in

riparian areas to avoid particular stresson some plants

Increasing the rest periods betweengrazing of riparian areas

Controlling intensity of grazing Implementing pasture management

plans and rotational grazing systems Exclusion fencing

Case History

The Cows and Fish program is a partnership that wasestablished in 1992 as the ‘Alberta Riparian HabitatManagement Project’, although this initiative waspreceded by two decades of streambank fencing andstream restoration. In the late 1980’s, Alberta’s livestockproducer community undertook an environmental riskanalysis of their industry. Two of the things that cameout of that study were concerns about water and riparianarea management. There was a recognition thatproblems of this nature were arising on both sides of theborder. In Alberta, the result was a workshop in 1993,focused on riparian form and function and rangemanagement principles. The workshop attracted three


times the expected participants and was highlysuccessful. Funding for the first workshops came fromfederal and provincial governments, and the conservationcommunity. Shortly after, the name ‘Cows and Fish’was coined.

In 1995, a book “Caring for the Green Zone: RiparianAreas and Grazing Management” was produced by the‘Cows and Fish Project’ to provide understanding abouthow grazing management practices can affect riparianareas and their productivity. Support for the book camefrom the Alberta Cattle Commission, the CanadianCattleman’s Association, Trout Unlimited, and severalprovincial and federal government agencies. The book isnow in its third edition and there are more than 50,000copies in circulation. There are many other awarenessmaterials on riparian area awareness and healthavailable. All of these materials have been developed inextensive collaboration with ranchers, stressingappropriate language, messages and format. Thesematerials are used strategically as part of workshops andpresentations. Cows and Fish maintain that the extensionmessage has more value and is longer lasting whenpeople have been sensitized to the information in a groupsituation prior to making use of written materials asfollow-up and as reinforcement of the messages.

A ‘community-based action’ approach has evolved overseveral years. The philosophy is based on therecognition that communities and agricultural producersare in the best position to assess the need for change,make the changes in management, and benefit from thosechanges. In many cases they “own” the problems andwill benefit most from the solutions.


Many problems and issues confront people in ruralcommunities. Where to start to resolve those issues isnot immediately clear. The Cows and Fish community-based process provides a pathway to start to understandcomplex environmental issues, to prioritize them and togive people a sense of how they might to approach them.This is not a theoretical approach but has been tested andshown to have utility in dozens of rural communities inseveral Canadian provinces.

The program is built on a clearly defined processcomprised of five elements

Awareness

Awareness is the first part of the process. It helps peopleto recognize riparian areas, how they function and howthey contribute to the health of a landscape. It alsocontributes to an understanding of how people useriparian areas and the options available to improve,

protect and sustain these areas. Awareness builds acommon language between producers, resourcemanagers, communities and the public. Information isprovided in the form of presentations, workshops, fielddays, videos and written materials.

Team Building

Team building links producers, community residents andresource managers to address riparian and watershedissues. A team may consist of farmers or ranchers,someone from the municipality or county, someone witha technical or professional background in biology, rangemanagement or engineering and someone from aconservation group or agency. Once a team has formed,they work with direction from the local community toorganize a riparian awareness program, to initiate awatershed evaluation and to link the community withtechnical and financial resources.

Tool Building

‘Tool-building’ is the phrase the Cows and Fish uses todescribe the process of putting technical andmanagement information into the hands of producers andresources managers through written materials,presentations, on-ranch/farm demonstration sites, andworkshops. Practical examples of riparian management,such as local demonstration sites, provide a venue tocustomise, apply and document riparian grazingstrategies that have been used elsewhere, and to providea regionally applicable testing ground for suchtechniques. They are important 'hands-on' areas forproducers to share their experiences and insights.

Community-Based Action

Cows and Fish emphasize the importance of communityinvolvement in the process. They act primarily asfacilitators for action by partnerships that form aroundriparian issues. The process is voluntary, and theyrespond by invitation only. Their role is to ensure thatthe process pathway is followed, consistent messages aredelivered, riparian information is shared and thecommunity owns the process and its outcomes. Theorganization has adopted the philosophy that change willoccur most easily when it originates with those who havethe most influence on the landscape. They alsoacknowledge the effectiveness of peer pressure andgroup dynamics to bring about change withoutregulation.


Monitoring

Cows and Fish stress the need for re-evaluation ofactions taken to measure success. Partnerships areencouraged to make baseline assessments of riparianhealth in make re-assessments in three to five yearintervals to monitor progress. Feedback about theeffectiveness of action can provide insight into ways toimprove the process and to add or modify the tools used.

Cows and Fish have identified some of the reasons fortheir success:

Encouraging ‘environmental literacy’ buildscapacity for change and develops a commonlanguage to move from disputes over landscapehealth to agreement about what needs to bedone

Linking sustainable environmental actions withpragmatic economic ones

Creating allies through shared concerns –‘changing “what you must do” to what we cando together’

Moving from management of localizedproblems to solutions for larger ecologicallandscape issues

Measuring landscape health to provide abenchmark against which future managementchanges can be assessed

.

Figure 2. Elements of the Cows and Fish Process


Figure 3. Environmental awareness is an important step in the Cows and Fish process.

Figure 4: Producers find the tools that best fit their needs.


Figure 5. Fifty-eight percent of people interacting with Cows and Fish have made changes in

their management practice.

Evidence of Success

Cows and Fish have evaluated their progress byquestioning their audience. They have drawn importantconclusions about the effectiveness of their approachwhich can be used as lessons for education/extensionactivities. First, people who engaged in the workshopsas part of a community group were much more likely tochange both their attitudes and their behaviour than thosewho felt they were not members of a group. Cows andFish feel that there is a synergy or a dynamic that seemsto facilitate awareness of environmental issues andadoption of new management techniques when peopleapproach them as a group. The difference wasnoteworthy between these two broad groupings of peopleand was statistically significant.

Overall, 82% of respondents reported increasedawareness from the workshops. Increased awareness wasreported by 90% of the community group members and79% of the unaffiliated ones. This pattern extends intochanges in practice. On average, 58% percent of thepeople interacting with Cows and Fish have made achange in management practice. Sixty four percent ofcommunity group members made management changeswhile only 43% of unaffiliated individuals did so. Cowsand Fish believe that awareness is the importantfoundation to begin to motivate individuals and groups tomake management changes that benefit themselves and

the landscape. This is supported by their survey data.Fully, 88% of respondents said that they usedmanagement principles to plan and implement practiceson the land. This is not always a rapid process however.From the time of first contact to the enactment of the firstmanagement change is estimated to be from 3 to 5 years.Investment of time and money in the process of raisingawareness is identified as critical to encouraging peopleto make a significant management change. This is notconsistent with a common notion that it is only cost thatprevents producers from adopting BMPs. In the Cowsand Fish survey, 95% of respondents said thatgovernment funding was not the factor that motivatedthem to make changes.

Cows and Fish have identified two importantcharacteristics of the effective ‘message-deliverer’.First, that the person must be well-grounded in, not onlythe theory but also the practice of the subject, andsecond, must be able to determine what managementpractices will be most effective in a specific situation.The message must also be provided consistently overtime. People learn things in different ways and responddifferently to various methods of teaching but success isalways dependent on continuity of the message.

Limitations


Government funding in the form of programs is veryoften short-term and insecure. In light of the length oftime that may pass between awareness and changes onthe landscape, these programs may often be lesssuccessful than expected. Cows and Fish maintain thatthe most effective methods of extension can be providedby an ‘arm’s length’ organization with stable, long-termfunding coupled with institutionalization of awarenessbuilding methods, like the Cows and Fish process, into

government agencies. They see these as the mosteffective ways to provide continuity and persistence incommunicating environmental messages to agriculturalproducers. Effective delivery of the message isconsidered to be the capacity building that is necessaryfor land and water stewardship to occur.

References

Plourde, Robert. 1999. The North American beef market:competition keeps it lean (Online). Available:http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/agric/beef.htm(December 8, 2005)

Fitch, Lorne, January 2006, personal communication.Provincial Riparian SpecialistCows and Fish, Alberta Riparian Habitat ManagementSociety, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.


Conclusions from an evaluation of the six case studies

The six case studies described in this paper were chosenbecause they represent ‘success stories’ in that they haveled to real and significant change in agricultural practice.Although each case is distinct in many ways, there arealso many similarities. From the histories that have beenpresented a number of common threads are evident.

Several of the organizations described in the case studiesbegan with agricultural producers getting together toaddress a specific problem. In the ‘Alternativas’case inMexico, farmers who had been repeatedly plagued bydrought and crop failure, sought solutions to problems ofwater shortage. The producers in the DeerwoodManagement Association in Manitoba, Canada initiallygot together to try to solve the problems of springflooding through drainage projects. Similarly, theranchers of southern Alberta, Canada became aware ofthe possibility that their ranching practices were havingan effect on riparian health and fish habitat. Althoughthese organizations have evolved into complexpartnerships, the initial involvement of the producers inplanning and decision-making seems to be a key factor intheir success.

It is often very difficult for small groups of people, nomatter how dedicated, to maintain an organization in thelong-term. Although it seems to be important for groupsto have strong leaders at the outset, the cases examinedhere indicate that the creation of a broad base of supportis required. Both American case studies demonstrate theevolution of a very extensive network of partners. TheAgricultural Drainage Water Management Coalition hasgrown to include three levels of government, non-governmental agencies and industry representatives ineight mid-western states. The initiative has gainednational attention and managed to establish financialsupport through government conservation fundingprograms. Similarly, the Agricultural Water QualityAlliance in California has organized a broad base ofwatershed groups, producer groups and governmentagencies to address some of the conservation issues inthe Monterey Bay area. In Canada, a group of producerscalling themselves the Deerwood ManagementAssociation initially formed to address issues offlooding, has become the foundation of a major researchand demonstration facility with partners from all levelsof government, universities, private foundations, andprivate industry.

The issues of environmental awareness are central to allthe case studies. Real changes in the agriculturallandscape can only be made by the people who work theland. In order to realize meaningful change, agricultural

producers must become environmentally ‘literate’ in thesense of recognizing environmental risks andunderstanding that changing their behaviour will reducethe risks. Creating awareness-raising materials is animportant element of each one of the case studies. TheAgricultural Water Quality Alliance has produced 70individual conservation practice fact sheets for theirmembers. Some have been produced in Spanish to moreeffectively reach a specific target audience and othershave been specifically written for producers of specialcrops. It is important that the informational materials aresupplied where and when the information is required.Cows and Fish stress the need for materials to bedeveloped in collaboration with the audience to ensurethat not only the content but also the language and theformat are appropriate.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact thatagricultural producers are earning their livelihood.Linkages between environmental and economicobjectives are essential. The clearest examples of thisare the ‘Alternativas’ and Yucatán cases. The people ofthe Mixteca region realized that soil and waterconserving practices could also lead to larger and moresecure supplies of water. In regions of water scarcity,secure water supplies lead to greater economic security.Similarly, in the Yucatán hog production case, theproducers learned to combine the issues of wastemanagement with the crop production cycle by makingoptimum use of swine manure. The DrainageManagement Coalition in the U.S. has also clearly tiedthe environmental value of nutrient management with theproduction practice of tile-drainage. Farmers are muchmore receptive to environmental stewardship if it isconsonant with their economic goals. The Water QualityAlliance has seen fit to include extensive economiccost/benefit analysis in a number of its fact sheets.Although the economic situation of the producer mustalways be considered, it is interesting to note that thequestionnaire survey of the Cows and Fish targetaudience revealed that 95% of respondents said that theavailability of public funding was not the main motivatorfor making changes in their operations. This underlinesthe importance of producers understanding the nature ofthe environmental problem and coming to the conclusionthat they might be able to contribute to its solution.

The diversity of the case studies examined heredemonstrates that there can never be simple or singlesolutions to environmental issues. Although basicenvironmental risks may seem similar, they always existwithin a social context and any real, long-term solutionwill have to arise from that context. Groups of peoplewho have common goals will find any number of


different ways to build partnerships and take action tosolve environmental issues. Inevitably, finding thesesolutions takes time and sometimes lots of it. Cows andFish estimate that the time delay between awareness andaction is between three and five years. All too oftenthere are public and governmental expectations thatshort-term programming will produce overnightsuccesses. When the long histories of these case studiesare considered, it can be seen that this view is likelyoverly optimistic. Conservation efforts should considerthe time factor. Workplans need to be realistic in termsof what might be accomplished with the availableresources and goals defined in concrete terms so thatprogress can be measured. It is important forparticipants to see the value of their efforts and celebratetheir successes.

Some of the lessons that are revealed by the local actionsconsidered by this project might be summarized in thefollowing three principles:

1. Successful local actions are established bypeople with common goals, through thebuilding of partnerships and teams which maycontain very different groups, depending on thenature of the problem and the situation.Effective teams need a core of committedleaders for long-term success.

2. Real changes in the agricultural landscape canonly be implemented by agricultural producers.It is important that producers are able to see thelinkages between environmental and economicobjectives.

3. Successful local actions depend on clearly-defined goals, realistic workplans, andrecognition of successes.

tri-national initiative on water quality and agriculture ... · tri-national initiative on water...

Documents