Report for 2002

SARE Professional Development Program Annual Report for Montana

Project Contact (State Extension Leader for SARE):

Name: Dr. Sue Blodgett

Address: Department of Entomology

Montana State University

Bozeman, MT 59717

Phone: (406) 994-2402

Fax: (406) 994-6029

E-mail: blodgett@montana.edu

Introduction

Agriculture is Montana's largest industry, generating more than $2 billion annually for the last five years and is uniquely situated with similarities in agricultural production to both the Pacific Northwest and the High Plains region. Montana's 59.7 million acres of farmland ranks second in the nation. The average size of Montana's 22,000 farms is 2,714 acres. These farms make up 62 percent of the state's total land. Of this, 66 percent of this land is rangeland and pasture, 29.3 percent is cropland, and 3.3 percent is woodland. Crops accounted for 52.2% of the value of Montana's agriculture products. Livestock production utilizes pasture and range, land not suitable for cropping, converting plant material into high quality protein for human consumption. Pasture and range management include conserving native and beneficial plant species, managing invasive weeds, preventing soil and water erosion. The MSU-ES-WRSARE Professional Development program provides training and exposure to expertise not available within the state. This information through distribution of the annual report and web site disseminate this information to clientele. During FY02 an extensive tour of forage research and demonstration was conducted in the state including visits to the MSU Post Farm, plots located near Three Forks, MT, and a tour to Utah that included visits to USDA,ARS facilities, Caine Diary, Deseret Land Livestock, Sustainable Beef Ranches, Poisonous Plant Lab and other sites in which irrigated pasture management and composting dead livestock were discussed.

Objectives

1. Provide opportunity for County Extension Agents and Specialist to receive in-depth training on annual cereal and legume forages productivity, legume and grass variety and type trials, cereal and legume fertilizer responses, grazing trials, forage kochia, forage grasses for various moisture regimes, long term irrigated pasture management, ranch management, revegetation work, wildlife enterprise development, sustainable beef production, poisonous and noxious plants, managing irrigated pasture for dairy production and composting dead livestock.

2. Training and information about introduced grass fertilizer trial under dryland/rainfed conditions.

3. Agriculture enterprise diversification through Western Rural Landscape Training Workshop.

4. Sustainable Range Management Program planned for May 2003.

Current WSARE-funded PDP State Activities:

In general, Montana SARE-PDP program centers on multidisciplinary issues that bridge agriculture and livestock production. Rangeland conditions and management and forage production issues are key to agricultural sustainability and productivity in Montana. The 2002 program emphasized these issues and provided in-depth, advanced training for 5 NRCS, 2 Extension 22 ag professionals and 5 producers. The 5 NRCS participants were funded by the MT-SARE program.

Each year the MSU-IPM Crop Pest Management School addresses current issues and provides hands on experiences for participants from NRCS, Extension Service and the private sector. An organic Montana wheat producer was the keynote speaker during the 2003 school. Plans are being made to address sustainable agricultural issues in the 2004 school.

The Professional Development Program continues to emphasize training and development for agricultural production that balances food and fiber production, economic viability and environmental and natural resource quality.

Sustainable Range Management Program (planned for May 2003) will include IPM for Rangeland Insect and weed pests, Assessing feeding areas for AFO/CAFO issues and Assessing Water Quality in Eastern Montana Streams, Discussion of Wildfire recovery, and assessing rangeland condition, and ranch tours. The scope of this program is large in that 40 participants are planned for.

2003 Crop and Pest Management School (link to site)

An intensive on-campus school is conducted each year that exposes participants to new technologies (internet, GPS, etc.) and research updates on agricultural topics.  In-depth treatment of all aspects of crop pest management, hands-on laboratory experience and problem-solving is focused on management issues.  The school emphasized laboratory hands-on problem solving and makes use of the greenhouse and laboratory facilities of the Plant Growth Center.

Participants can obtain training in the use of computer software programs including the Stored Grain Advisor, WWW, and other electronic resources.  Facilities have included the Burns Telecommunication Center on the MSU campus.

Four-day workshops are designed for specialized clientele including crop insurance adjusters, Soil Conservation Service personnel, private consultants, Certified Crop Advisors (CCA) and producers.  New County Extension faculty are trained through this program.

Available: http://scarab.msu.montana.edu/cpms/index.htm

General Comments:

- Great school.

- Maybe a session with a panel discussion between notill and organic farming.

-Good school. However, I feel there may need to be two schools. School (#1) for people that are attending for the first year. School (#2) for those that have been here before. The reason is that I am not a farmer and feel too much is assumed! Also, you need to have juice and fruit, not just coffee and donuts. The later it gets, the harder it is to come back to class. Maybe break-out classes would be better. Longer classes in an area you want to know about. Don’t have this class during cabin fever!

- Skip the night programs. Start an hour or ½ hour earlier in the morning and go 1 hour to ½ hour later in the day. I will never understand how you could pick an organic producer as your model producer for an integrated Pest Management School, especially, when this cropping system represents less than 1% of production in Montana and is bias to one system.

- Suggest starting earlier and ending no later than 6:00 p.m. Night sessions, after a long day in class, are not productive! In the organic presentation, the producer did not provide objective science-based information. Too biased to be useful. Always hear claims as to how great and wonderful system is, but never see information on quality of products produced. Would benefit from an unbiased comparison of an alternative from all aspects of different systems. Problem with organic philosophy is that they believe that everything they do is natural and believe it is the best system. “If it’s natural, it’s good,” is the overriding theme you get from different people that participate in this system. Until someone takes the time to put some science behind their approach, it is merely impossible to draw any good conclusions one way or the other. This whole movement tends to make an assumption and point out problems without any sound scientific basis. Bring some good unbiased information and this type of information would then be a basis of discussion. Without it, I don’t believe it belongs in his type of program.

- Excellent seminar. Information and knowledge gained will be very useful.

- This school was very educational and has broadened my perception of crop rotation, disease, and pest management. The computer model education opportunities appear to be heading in the right direction for future use. These classes presented how to access these model programs. I found this school to be very educational and worthwhile.

- Excellent program. Thank you.

- Variation of topics was great. Try to move the screen up about one foot so that people in the back rows can see the bottom of the image projected. I would not be opposed to starting at 7:00 a.m. as long as we can make phone calls during the first break.

- CPMS should continue to provide the courses on the syllabus including classes for irrigated and row crops. Our growing area (Wyoming) is entirely irrigated land. Much of the small dryland grain topics

are relevant, yet they need to include irrigated/row crops exist also. Thank you for accommodating the providers/producers in this area.

- No evening sessions would be nice. Most of us are brain dead by 5:00 p.m.

- Good course. Could have had more time for weed ID. Powerpoint was hard to read when software was

demonstrated. Be sure handouts accompany all demonstrations or you’ll lose the audience. Great snacks. GPS has very little application in spraying animals.

- Good school.

- Very nice sessions, understandable and great information. However, some went a little too deep, but overall it was a learning experience.

Will, pizza was great!

- The limited enrollment in class lent itself to more “hand on” and personal interaction. I really enjoyed that and have retained a better understanding of the subjects covered. The breakout of row crops made the school more diverse. I know that four in a row crop session is hard to justify. The interaction was great and I will take home a better understanding of disease in sugar beets. Will, thank you for putting on this school.

-This was a good course and very well organized. The “hands on” portions were great. The DNA and biotech information was also good.

-Overall, a good set of presentations. Sessions provided good introduction to most of the topics that were covered. If the opportunity presents itself, I would attend again in the future.

Educational/Informational Materials Produced

Introduced Dryland Grass Fertilizer Study

Ron Carlstrom, Gallatin County Extension Agent

Dr. Dennis Cash, Extension Forage Agronomist

Dr. Ray Ditterline, MSU Forage Researcher/Instructor

Montana producers can increase forage production on their limited acres utilizing improved species/varieties and fertilizer programs or a combination of the two. Producers often plant improved species but fail to take the next management step and further increase production with fertilization. The application of fertilizer materials, particularly nitrogen (N), to introduced grasses offers a key management tool to increase production. If economics are favorable, introducing foreign nitrogen into the nitrogen cycle can increase production for several years, thus increasing net return to the producer. Increasing net return to producers will enable them to remain economically viable and sustainable. On smaller acreages, increasing management through grazing practices, fertilizer, and introduced species will lower the possibility of noxious weed invasion, thus decreasing the need for herbicide applications.

Studies in the Northern Great Plains indicate that producers can fertilize once and receive more than one years benefit by adding nitrogen to their introduced grass species. If this practice is feasible, producers could implement a fertilizer program into their management plan. Two types of fertility programs currently used by northern Great Plains producers are:

1. Application of fertilizer to 25% of introduced pastures each year.

2. Purchase and apply fertilizer when fertilizer prices are low and reap benefits for several

years.

This project looked at the agronomic and economic benefits of nitrogen fertilizer application on twelve grass species and three legume species. The project also incorporates the co-learner model where researchers, extension personnel and producers develop research based on the needs of the producers. The group then works together on the producer’s own ground to develop answers to their production questions.

Background:

In the spring of 1997, Dr. Ray Ditterline, MSU Plant Scientist and his research team established dryland grass plots on the Willow Creek Bench approximately 5 miles south of Three Forks, Montana. Species were established in a randomized complete block design with four replications.

The site is semi-arid in a 10 to 12 inch average rainfall. Soil type is Headwaters loam with a profile of 0-7 inches loam, 7-29 inches clay-loam and 29 to 60 inches fractured bedrock.

View of Plot Sites Looking West - July 2002

Approximately fifty percent of average precipitation falls during the months of April, May and June at this site. January, February, and March are normally the driest three months of the year (note table 1).

Average dryland grain production is 30 to 35 bushels on the site utilizing a fifty-fifty cropping sequence of crop/summer fallow. With adequate precipitation and fertility the site has produced crops in excess of fifty bushels per acre.

YEAR / QUARTERLY Precipitation Average

1997 – January, February, March	1.49 inches
1997 – April, May, June	11.51 inches
1997 – July, August, September	6.60 inches
1997 – October, November, December	2.63 inches
	TOTAL = 22.23
1998 – January, February, March	1.99 inches
1998 – April, May, June	7.72 inches
1998 – July, August, September	3.18 inches
1998 – October, November, December	3.07 inches
	TOTAL = 15.96
1999 – January, February, March	.97 inches
1999 – April, May, June	5.95 inches
1999 – July, August, September	2.35 inches
1999 – October, November, December	.51 inches
	TOTAL = 9.78
2000 – January, February, March	1.55 inches
2000 – April, May, June	7.79 inches
2000 – July, August, September	2.07 inches
2000 – October, November, December	4.03 inches
	TOTAL = 15.44
2001 – January, February, March	.61 inches
2001 – April, May, June	4.95 inches
2001 – July, August, September	3.44 inches
2001 – October, November, December	1.26 inches
	TOTAL = 10.26
2002 – January, February, March	1.45 inches
2002 – April, May, June	(0 inches in April) 7.25 inches
2002 – July, August, September	4.95 inches
2002 – October, November, December (not reported)
	TOTAL = 13.65

After establishment in 1997, plots were used in a winter nutrition study completed by Dr. Ray Ditterline and others at Montana State University cooperating with USDA-ARS researchers at Logan, Utah. The Willow Creek Growers group followed Dr. Ditterline’s project and had forage winter wheat plots adjacent to these plots.

Growers Group Tour

From 1997 to 2001 plots were mowed to a four-inch stubble height in the spring prior to spring green up. No fertilizer applications were made during this period.

In the spring of 2001 members of the Willow Creek Growers, MSU researchers and extension personnel met to discuss further use of the plots. It was decided a fertilizer study looking at fertilizer rates, treatment length and increased production would be valuable for producers in the area.

Study:

During the 1997 to 2001 period plots had not been fertilized. In the spring of 2002 initial plots were divided into three sub-plots.. Plots were mowed to a 4-inch stubble height prior to green up. During early spring fertilizer was applied at three rates 0, 50, and 100 pounds actual nitrogen in the form of ammonia nitrate.

After fertilization plots were monitored for visual response to fertilization. The spring of 2002 began very dry, timely June rains helped stimulate grass growth. By the end of June grasshoppers were a problem. Plots were sprayed for grasshoppers when the adjoining fields and roadsides were sprayed.

Plots were monitored through June and July, producers and investigators could see a marked difference between grass growth on fertilized plots and non-fertilized plots. Extreme temperatures in July effectively shut down all grass growth. To minimize the impact of grasshoppers plots were harvested on July 24^th, 2002.

View of Hand-clipping Plots

Plots were hand-clipped individually, dried and weighed on a dry matter basis.

Results were tabulated. Table 2 indicates the yield response to nitrogen for the listed grasses. (Legumes: Remont sainfoin and Windsor Cicer milkvetch were not sampled.)

Table 2. Dry matter yields in 2002 after fertilization with 0, 50 or 100 lb/A N.
	Forage Yield (DM lbs/A)
	07/24/2002
	0	50	100
Luna Pubescent wheatgrass	1272.4	1918.8	2891.8
CD II crested wheatgrass	1032.3	1791.6	2606.1
Trailhead Basin wildrye	1502.3	1810.2	2547.8
Ladak 65 Alfalfa	1794.6	1665.0	2467.4
Alkar Tall wheatgrass	1280.8	1762.2	2376.2
Greenar Intermediate wheatgrass	1285.0	2373.2	2259.1
NewHy hybrid wheatgrass	1035.3	1831.8	2160.7
Volga Mammoth wildrye	1141.0	1565.3	1891.2
Angustus hybrid wildrye	1481.9	1501.7	1817.4
Prarieland Altai wildrye	960.9	1184.8	1632.5
RSH-RS hybrid wheatgrass	792.9	1370.3	1438.1
Bozoisky-Select Russian wildrye	800.7	1035.9	1399.7
Rosana Western wheatgrass	560.6	1103.8	1177.6	<