transect points

Intense, low duration grazing builds soil vitality, and increases soil organic matter.

Formulaically, the process described by Manske is very simple; what happens as a result is not.

A rancher chooses three pastures on which to graze the cattle. Starting in the first pasture, the cattle graze for 15 days, and then move on to the next pasture. This is repeated and the cattle find themselves in the third pasture.

Once the cattle leave the first pasture, the soil organisms go to work, converting the organic nitrogen into mineral nitrogen and feeding the plants, building their crude protein.

“Just by changing the management from focusing on dry matter poundage to managing those soil organisms, you can increase the productivity of your land,” Manske said. (Source)

Well observed.

Rhizosperic soil can get awfully puny under long duration grazing. Topsoil pales and topsoil depth is lost, but not to sediment discharge or wind erosion. The in-situ transformation of topsoil to not-topsoil results in the discharge of soil carbon to the atmosphere. The good news is that, unlike wind erosion, water erosion, sheet erosion, or gully erosion erosion, this yet-to-be-named variant of topsoil erosion is reversible.

One of my projects made the front page of the Yakima newspaper. Since the paper tends to paywall these things in short order, I thought the blog would make a handy archive.

The picture here is from the project site. The retaining wall in the picture was placed by the county in order to keep the road apron from impacting what was presumed from USFWS-NWI reconnaisance mapping to be a jurisdiction wetland. That mapping plus the observed standing water and the wetland vegetation seemed to the county to be proof positive that clearing the land was a violation of the county critical areas code. It wasn't.

Published on Monday, September 10, 2007

County learns lessons from fight with farmer
By PAT MUIR
YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

SUNNYSIDE -- Don Young didn't think his neighbor's irrigation water leaking into his property should qualify it as wetland, and after a yearlong fight, Yakima County agreed with him.

The saga, which Young documented in a meticulous inch-thick file he says makes him feel like an attorney, cost him about $6,000 by his count and kept him from using the land until last month. It also forced county leaders to rethink the way they apply the county's Critical Areas Ordinance. The ordinance, which has been under review for five years and is nearly finished, still will be enforced as mandated by state law, county Public Services Director Vern Redifer said.

"But where you can construe the law in the favor of property owners, we'll construe it that way," he said.

That's good news to Young, a self-described "stubborn old farmer" who believes he might not have prevailed in his dispute if he hadn't had the money for a consultant to make his case.

"This is a story that needs to be told, not for my benefit but for the taxpayers and the public," the 73-year-old retired rancher said.

The whole thing began when a county road crew spotted Young pulling up vegetation on the edge of his property. The county issued a cease-and-desist order in May 2006, about seven months after Young bought the 4-acre property south of Sunnyside. To his thinking, the Russian olive trees and other vegetation he removed were just trash like the piles of tires and garbage that were also on the property.

Thinking he was actually improving the land, Young took umbrage to the county's order, which included the possibility of $1,000-a-day fines.

"Nobody ever said anything about it being a wetland," he said.

He also didn't like the way county staff treated him when he disputed the matter. It was clear enough to Young that the land in question wasn't a wetland because the only source of water was the neighbor's irrigation runoff, or what his hired consultant labeled "water trespass." But he couldn't get the county to see it that way.

"The heading of their letter is 'public services,'" Young said. "I told them they need to change that, because there is no way in this world that they are serving the public."

The county's opinion on the matter didn't change until Young received a report he'd commissioned on the matter by wetlands delineation expert Phil Small of Spokane. Small's report, written after a visit to the property during which he drilled holes to measure groundwater levels, found there was no source of water other than the irrigation runoff. The county considered it a persuasive argument and in a July 31 letter lifted the cease-and-
desist order.

"What I want to know," Young said, "is why didn't the county have to hire him to prove it was a wetland instead of me having to hire him to prove it's not."

In the county staff's defense, the property did have signs of being a wetland, such as reeds, bulrushes and the Russian olive trees, Redifer said. The staff was simply following its procedures as laid out in its own policy and didn't err in that regard, he said.

County officials tried to work with Young along the way, planning manager Steve Erickson said. But the county's suggestion that Young "wait and see" if his property was a wetland based on whether groundwater returned even without irrigation runoff didn't fit into Young's schedule, Erickson said. That meant Young had to hire his consultant to force the issue, but that was up to him, Erickson said.

Where things might have been done differently, and will be in the future, is in the way county staff deals with people in such disputes, Redifer said.

Comparing it to baseball, in which "ties go to the runner," he said if there are questions about whether to act on a possible wetland scenario like Young's, the landowner will be "the runner." That is in line with the Yakima County Commissioners philosophy of a more user-friendly Critical Areas Ordinance application, which they have espoused during deliberations on the ordinance.

Staff also might call people in the future or knock on their doors, rather than sending formal letters specifying possible fines.

"I think (the letter) made him feel like a big lawbreaker, and that certainly wasn't the intent," Redifer said.

"That's another lesson learned -- how we go about engaging someone with a potential violation," Erickson added.

While he would be happy to see such changes, Young still isn't sure the county has done right by him. He's contemplating filing a claim to recoup the money he spent fighting the initial ruling. In the meantime, though, he's working the land for the first time in about a year.

He's put manure down and hopes to have the whole thing seeded for pasture by the end of September.

"I lost the production of that land for a year already," he said. "Over a year."

* Pat Muir can be reached at 577-7693 or pmuir@yakimaherald.com.

Crop residue is not a waste. It is a precious commodity and essential to preserving soil quality.

Production systems must be developed so that ethanol produced must be at least C neutral if not C negative. Temptations [to mine soil vitality] aside, biofuels produced from crop residues may neither be free nor cheap.

Harvesting crop residues for use as fodder for livestock, residential fuel for cooking and heating, construction material, and other competing uses is a reality in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, China, and other developing countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that these are also the regions that have been plagued with severe problems of soil degradation.

With a severe decline in physical quality, degraded soils do not respond to fertilizers even if made available at a subsidized price. Adverse effects of none or low rates of applications of fertilizers and other amendments on agronomic production and soil quality have been exacerbated by the perpetual and indiscriminate removal of crop residues coupled with uncontrolled and excessive communal grazing.

The stubborn trends of low crop yields and perpetual hunger and malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa and in regions of rainfed agriculture in South Asia cannot be reversed without returning crop residues to the soil and also supplementing them with liberal applications of other biosolids.

The fact is that our climate is infinitely complex. The models climatologists use to predict the future are incredibly sophisticated, yet blunt instruments. Scientists can never account for all the variables involved - indeed, no one has successfully come up with a mathematical equation to describe the formation of a single cloud. And scientists are often woefully out of their depth in the real world. History is littered with lives and regimes that were wrecked when science was allowed to drive policy with no thought to humanity. Tearing down the global carbon-based economy to - in theory - replace it at a later date with unproven and undeveloped technologies would be a similar folly. It is only by tempering science with economics and the market, which is the most efficient arbiter of humanity's wants and needs, that smart climate policy can be made.

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has posted results of their Natural Resources Inventory (NRI). Depicted are land cover and use, soil erosion, and wetland gains or losses for the 48 contiguous United States.

From 1977 to 1997, NRCS conducted the assessment every five years, in 2000, they began the transition to an annual assessment. The most recent data is from 2003 and reflects only conditions at that point, NRCS Chief, Arlen Lancaster says, "This is a snapshot, this is the number in terms of cropland, this is where we're at in terms of erosion," he says later this year they will be able to provide numbers that reflect the change from year-to-year.

Some findings:

1. The 48 contiguous states cover 1.9 billion acres and 71% of that, 1.4 billion is in non-Federal rural land uses. Of that 1.4 billion acres, 406 million is in forest land, 405 million is rangeland and 368 million is cropland.
2. Cropland acreage decreased 12% from 1982 to 2003. The net decline between 1997 and 2003 was 8 million acres, or about 2 percent.
3. Soil erosion on U.S. cropland decreased 43% from 1982 to 2003.
4. In 1982, 40% of all cropland was eroding above soil loss tolerance rates, that number declined to 28% in 2003.
5. Erosion rates on a per acre basis declined significantly between 1982 and 2003. Sheet and rill erosion on cropland dropped from 4.0 tons per acre per year in 1982 to 2.6 tons per acre per year in 2003; wind erosion rates dropped from 3.3 to 2.1 tons per acre per year.
6. There was a net gain in wetland acres on non-Federal rural lands between 1997 and 2003. Annual net gains between 2001 and 2003 were 72,000 acres per year, of which 44,000 acres per year were on agricultural lands.

A Capital Press article (subscription) by Doug Warnock promotes grazing in riparian buffer areas, saying:

When grazed properly, forage plants in the riparian zone can be stimulated to re-grow and contribute greatly to the health of the ecosystem.
The grazing process helps break up capped soil...

... stimulates the incorporation of plant tissue into the soil resulting in increased organic matter and the animals add minerals to the soil. It also helps control the growth of woody plants, which can shade out desirable grasses and forbs that hold the soil on stream banks and filter out soil particles during high water periods. Grazing animals can also be effective in controlling undesirable plants, if grazed at the proper time.
By excluding this tool (grazing), other tools must be used in to manage the property and most of them are more costly. Herbicides to control weeds, and equipment to cut back brush and trees require out-of-pocket expenditures. Still, probably the most important benefit from grazing is the stimulation of the growth of the grasses and forbs by the removal of part of the plants’ stems and leaves.
The key, in all of this, is to not allow the grazing animals unlimited access to the riparian zone, so that they are kept from overgrazing the plants.

...with soil sampling at a waste water irrigated hay field. The study site has high gravel content which is farly well sorted due to the action of glacial age Missoula floods. In the picture, the AMS tile probe helps locate high gravel content areas to avoid sampling. The AMS mud bucket auger has wide-set teeth that accommodates the smaller gravels. The 0.25 inch screen helps reduce the sample for shipping. The screen also aids in mixing the sample prior to reduction.

Soil scientists at work. In many states, professional soil scientists conduct the septic system site assessments required for permit approval. Soil scientists also get involved in adapting alternative on-site disposal technologies. This brief newspaper interview with Leonard Cornish, owner of Pocono Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc., Wilkes-Barre, PA reveals some of the basic scientific and technical requirements needed in this type of a business. The news article should be of particular interest to soil scientists considering going into the business of environmental consulting or individuals looking to hire on with a soil scientist owned business.

As mentioned here earlier, farm tile drainage is being linked to accelerated wetland loss in Minnesota. A meeting held Saturday, February 5, to discuss wetland loss drew a crowd of 300. One person testified that “99 - 100%” of the wetlands in his county were now gone. Details are reported in the St. Paul MN Pioneer Press article with the headline: “Get tough to protect wetlands, group says”. Reading the tone of the reporting, it confirms my earlier impresssion that the majority of the wetland loss is considered to be due to draining uplands adjacent to wetlands. My read (see pdf addressing MN wetland regs) is that this is normally a legal undertaking. Installing drain tile within a wetland would not be legal. This foreseeable cause of wetland loss, due to activities outside of wetlands, seems to have caught wetland advocates without a workable strategy.

Have you taken soil samples and tested soils to determine the level of plant available nutrients in the soil?

Question No. 1, page 12, Self-Assessment Workbook (pdf)

Most soil lab procedures involve wet chemistry. Dry lab results, in the vernacular, are made-up results, place-holders if you will. Sometimes they serve a legitimate purpose. Dry labbing with the intent to deceive for monetary gain is fraud. This is apparently what USDA-NRCS is accusing 15 unnamed eastern Washington farmers of when they self-qualified for monetary awards under the Conservation Security Program. CSP participants in the top tier receive up to $45,000 per year for a 10 year period for the most environmentally conscious farms. Reading both the linked Seattle P-I article and the original Spokesman-Review article, (subscription required) it looks like a few farmers fabricated a history of soil sampling and lab analysis in order to qualify. The good news is that 131 farmers audited came up clean.

For other CSP news, see also:
Capital Press article (subscription required): “CSP losing momentum”
Delta Farm Press article: “USDA announces cut in CSP watersheds in 2006”

Elton Robinson expands nicely on the previous post by email:

The variable-rate application of inputs is actually well developed and prospering in Mid-South cotton fields. It works for two reasons. One, we have highly variable soils along the Mississippi River Delta, which in turn creates variable yields. Second, the cotton crop demands intense in-season management for plant growth, insects, weed management, disease and harvest preparation.

Infrared aerial photography and electrical conductivity mapping carts can pick up the variation in soil type when the ground is bare and pick up plant biomass when the crop is growing. Geo-referenced maps generated from the imagery allow the farmer to vary applications of plant growth regulator, defoliants and other inputs during the season based on variability in biomass. For example, the poor-yielding parts of the field will receive less plant growth regulator to allow plants to catch up with the better-yielding parts of the field, which in turn will receiver more plant growth regulator, to prevent vegetative growth. The result is higher yield and lower cost.

The cost to the farmer for the imagery, and variable-rate prescription is $7 per acre. Sprayers can be adapted for variable rate applications for $6,000. The cost of producing cotton is about $500 an acre. A conservative savings in input costs of 10 percent plus a 5 percent increase in yield would put $65 an acre in the farmer’s pocket. If he farms 1,000 acres of cotton, that $65,000, more than enough to pay off the cost of the technology in year one.

The technology is not affordable if there is little variability in the soil, or if a crop (corn, soybeans) does not respond as well to in-season management. I did read your previous blog on VR nitrogen, and agree that it's been very difficult for researchers to show a benefit.

Precision ag implies computer mapped lab data and GPS controlled field equipment. Higher yields, less flying blind and easier farming. The reality is that the expense of data collection, analysis and interpretation can quickly wipeout any added value. Reading this article about variable rate management of cotton, it struck me that common sense and curiosity are the missing ingredients. Elton Robinson with Delta Press reports on cotton producer Kenneth Hood, Mississippi, who attributes his success with variable rate agriculture to, among other things, reliance on aerial photo interpretation, an approach not typical of precision agriculture. Hood says that the “... advantage to imagery is that very little data collection is required, according to Hood, “which is unlike most precision agriculture practices.” Put this experience together with the recent cryptic news on the lukewarm record of precision agriculture in Germany, which I touched on earlier, and what do you get? My sense is that Kenneth Hood is going to have lots of company.

As told by Chris Niskanen over at the St. Paul MN Pioneer Press there is a tremendous amount of tile drainage going on in the north central USA: 100 million feet per year or about 19,000 miles by one estimate. Improved flexible drain tile is making this unprecedented rate of installation possible. The article mentions a number of areas of potential concern: loss of duck habitat and increased nitrate levels in surface water. Where no jurisdictional wetlands are being tiled, no permits are needed to perform this work. However the extent of the practice has caught the attention of folks and a community effort to address the impact of farm drainage on wetland habitat is being discussed.
Image source: South Dakota State University – Ag environmental issues page
Tech Tags: farm soil edaphology tile drainage nitrate water environment wetland habitat

I have been following news on a 2600 acre sprayfield on the edge of Tallahassee, Florida. It is suspected of causing environmental problems 10 miles away in Wakulla Springs State Park and the Wakulla River. A recent 1000 Friends of Florida report (pdf) ties excessive hydrilla plant growth to nitrate from the sprayfield. The news this week is that the city, USGS and Florida DEP will be conducting dye tests to better understand how the groundwater beneath the sprayfield moves down gradient. I am reading the report. Striking is the relatively low (1.0 mg/l)nitrate-N needed to control the situation.

Image source: Tallahassee Democrat

In southeast Yakima is a Carpathian walnut tree. It was planted long ago and the trunk is now 3-4 feet thick. It towers over the expansive 1895 farmhouse that it shades. Beneath its spreading branches, four huge picnic tables wait patiently for spring. That is when the neighbors will return, as they have every year since the early 1980's, to work alongside church and trade school volunteers to reawaken the proud building at the corner of Spruce and Union (Union is where 9th St. would be). Others work to rejuvenate the 1 acre of pioneer planting that helped qualify this Estate's placement on the State's Register of Historic Places. Restoring the property to the community is the vision of the South East Neighborhood Improvement Committee (SENIC), a 501c(3) non-profit corporation. SENIC's unofficial motto is "we can do more good with nothing than others accomplish with thousands." In support of SENIC's efforts at the Historic Ida Powell estate, a PayPal donations link is provided below. Please make a donation and please visit this summer to share in the project. Parcheesi players are especially welcome for late summer evening games in the shade of the walnut tree.

(Historic Property Inventory Form for this site - PDF )
(If you have MS Internet Explorer you can get to a nice write up and picture using the query function at the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's WISAARD site, but it takes some doing to get there. "Query" (lower Left) for POWELL HOUSE)

UPDATE: I neglected to mention that the POWELL HOUSE is also on the National Register of Historic Places)





Technorati Tags: Historic preservation Yakima Neighborhood