Montana
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Professional
Development Program
2003 Annual Report
Sue Blodgett
Extension Service
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana
I.
Ag Agent Sustainable Agriculture Training
Camp Needmore
May 20th - 22nd, 2003
5/20 11 AM - Registration
Noon - Lunch served at the camp
1 - 5 PM - IPM for Rangeland Pests - Sue Blodgett; IWM
Weed Prevention Areas - Roger Sheley and Marko Manoukian
6 PM - Steak Fry
7 PM - MACAA meeting
5/21 7 AM - Breakfast
8 AM - 12 noon - Assessing feeding areas for AFO/CAFO issues and Assessing Water
Quality in Eastern Montana Streams - Gene Surber
Noon - Lunch
1 - 5 PM - Tour of Kraft Spring Fire,
Discussion of Wildfire recovery, and Assessing Rangeland Condition
6 PM - Steak Fry
7 PM - On your own, cards, games, whatever
5/22 7 AM - Breakfast
8 AM - 12 noon - Tour of Bannister and Tunby ranches in Fallon and Wibaux Counties
Noon - Lunch in Baker, Head Home
Rangeland
Quality Assessment and Livestock Grazing
Bok Sowell
Two hours were spent conducting
a training session to determine seral
stage of rangelands. A training/update presentation emphasized soil
texture determination and rangeland plant
identification. The group discussed the effects of livestock
grazing on rangeland plant species and soils. /there was a discussion of changes
associated with non-native plant invasions. We concluded with the
implications of prairie dog and sage grouse listings on ranchers in eastern
Montana.
Ground Squirrel Control
Jim Knight and Carolyn Johnson
In April, 2003, the Montana State University Extension Service Wildlife Program began a pilot study to explore the possible economic benefits of controlling ground squirrels in Montana. Based on preliminary results of a survey sent out in March, the average alfalfa producer in Montana has 370 acres of alfalfa or alfalfa-grass, which produced about 2.7 tons/ac in 2002. Producers identified that 27% of alfalfa is occupied by ground squirrels and production is decreased in these areas by an estimated 17%. This equals a $3400 annual loss to the average alfalfa producer in Montana.
Varying degrees of ground squirrel control can be achieved by manipulating timing and application of control treatments. Control methods range from shooting to trapping to application of toxicants. Proper application procedures were demonstrated at Camp Needmore. Control is most effective in early spring, before young are born, and when bait acceptance is highest. As part of MSU’s pilot study, four 1 acre plots were established in an alfalfa field, and one of the following treatments was assigned to each: zinc phosphate treated oats, Rozol treated oats, Ramik Green bait pellets and a control. Effectiveness ranged from 88% (Rozol) to 13% (Ramik Green).
In addition, integrating
ground squirrel control practices includes, small scale baiting, use of burrow
builders and trapping were the primary methods covered. A discussion of fencing methods to exclude
deer and elk from high value pastures and croplands. We are presently testing
fence designs costing as little as $1500 per mile.
Environmental Assessment for Livestock Handling Areas
around the Ranch
Gene Surber
A
hands-on work session was provided with the goal of teaching agents how to do
an Environmental Assessment of the ranch livestock handling area. Agent
learned how to assess drainage from the lot that may affect state waters and
how to prevent run-in from areas outside these facilities. Agents were
given information on how to teach livestock operators the effectiveness of
filter strips, settling ponds, evaporation ponds and diversions.
Potential pollutants from livestock handling areas were discussed and how to
minimize their effect on the environment. Agents were given an assessment
document on a ranch and ask to complete it. We followed that exercise
with a discussion that included the landowner.
Insect Monitoring
Sue Blodgett
A
sweep net can be used to quickly and efficiently sample insects in both crop
and rangeland situations. Participants
were able to gain experience using a sweep net and then identify insects from
alfalfa/grass mixture. Pest management
decision making guidelines and options were discussed emphasizing non-chemical
control measures. The insect and disease
recommendations for Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado are part of the
High Plains IPM guide current maintained on the web
<highplainsipm.org>. These recommendations
include life history and biology, monitoring suggestions, decision-making
guidelines and control measures. Control
measures include biological, chemical, and cultural alternatives.
Dyanmics of fire recovery in eastern Montana
John Clark
John
Clark from US Forest Service updated us on the dynamics of fire
recovery in eastern Montana Ponderosa Pine Forests. A major
fire occurred in the Long Pines area during September of 2003. Of
particular interest were the intense burns in areas where fuel remained
from the burn in 1988. Clark also talked about the recovery of the range
and timber species and how the pines will regrow too
rapidly. Also on the program was Lance Vermeire,
Ft. Keogh LARRL fire ecologist who offered some perspective on recovery after
wildfire and challenged the widely held notion that long term grazing
deferment is necessary after a major fire.
Ranch Tours:
Tunby Ranch
Tunby talked about his project where he will
be looking at the complementarity of sheep and
cattle grazing together. The thought is that sheep and cattle will
share the same range with no noticable change in
range condition. An added benefit will be the control of a small amount
of leafy spurge found in the area.
Banister
Ranch
Bannister shared his ideas as they relate to the intensive grazing program he has employed over the years. He has managed to maintain range condition and utilized many unconventional resources for grazing such as summer fallow ground.
Comments
from Participants:
Camp Needmore
Sustainable Ag/Natural Resources Training
Sharla Sackman, Prairie County
Extension Agent
This training was very helpful to me as an Agent early in my career because it put technical information to practical use in an environment like that of my county.
Vertebrate Pest Control- I learned how to build two kinds of bait stations for ground squirrels and learned the pros/cons of each type. I also learned how to set traps for pocket gophers, a very common pest in my county. I even trapped a few at the fairgrounds when I got home!
Weed Prevention Areas- The discussion on Weed Prevention Areas prompted a new weed prevention/management strategy in the Tri-County Leafy Spurge Project. The Tri-County Leafy Spurge Project has been a cooperative effort to manage leafy spurge in the Cabin Creek area where Prairie, Fallon, and Wibaux Counties intersect since 1989. Progress has been made, but a problem still exists. Consequently, our approach has been revised to include a Weed Management Area focusing on containment of the main infestation, a Barrier Zone to step-up weed control efforts around the WMA, and a Weed Prevention Area surrounding the Barrier Zone to prevent the spread of leafy spurge to un-infested rangeland.
Range- This session was a very hands-on, practical session in the field that helped me improve my range plant identification skills and gave me a more realistic understanding of how to determine range condition.
AFO/CAFO- This session gave us the opportunity to work through the new AFO/CAFO self-assessment tool on a working ranch. This provided good experience on how to best use the assessment with producers and clarified form for me. I am able to use the assessment tool more efficiently and effectively as a result.
Water Quality- This is the first time I have been through a water quality session that demonstrated how to collect stream data. It was very useful to work through each of the monitoring techniques and learn how to interpret the information.
Insect Monitoring- I found the information on alfalfa weevils especially useful to me since a lot of alfalfa is grown in my county and I often get requests for information. The demonstration on how to sweep fields to identify insects present and determine populations was very helpful as well as the follow-up information on economic thresholds and control recommendations.
Forest/Fire- We visited a forested site that had been recently burned. I found it very interesting to observe the difference in the impact that the fire had in areas that had not burned for many years and those areas that had more recent burns. The damage was reduced significantly in areas of recent burn, demonstrating to me the importance of reducing deadfall.
Tunby Ranch- The biggest impression left with me from the Tunby ranch tour was of a fenceline that bordered his neighbor. Tunby’s side of the fence was a pasture that had historical sheep use, the neighbor’s side of the fence did not. The creek in the neighbor’s pasture was solid leafy spurge, Tunby’s pasture had none. It was a perfect visual on how sheep grazing can be an important weed control method in an area where leafy spurge is a very expensive pest.
Bannister Ranch- Bannisters use some grazing methods that may be considered unconventional and extreme. The important thing I learned was that it is not necessarily the grazing time/duration that is important, but how closely it is monitored and how that monitoring information is used that determines the success of a grazing system.
Kent Williams, Custer County Extension Agent:
I learned how the afo-cafo regs and how Montana water quality law may affect small, seasonally used feedlots in Montana and how to assess the water quality of small streams in eastern Montana. I learned better ways to control vertebrate pests, ground squirrels. I learned how to identify and sample for alfalfa pests. This was very important for IPM techniques in alfalfa management. The tours of the ranches showed me ways to use livestock (sheep) to control invasive species and a new method of grazing management.
Mary Rumph, Powder-River County
Extension Agent:
The SARE program
organized by Larry Brence in Ekalaka in May of 2003
was an exceptional learning opportunity. The highlight of the program for
me was the format used to assess a farmstead to determine whether it met
AFO/CAFO regulations. This was done by giving program participants a
short orientation; then we were on our own. The land-owners were avaiable to answer questions and were extremely cooperative
in providing information. It was a valuable learning experience;
the practical application was thought provoking and excellent preparation
as we work with additional land-owners in evaluating feeding operations.
Another topic of great
interest was seeing forested areas that had burned and viewing the regrowth of vegetation in these areas. An interesting
discussion of the political arena surrounding lands owned by the Forest Service
and BLM and grazing permits and decisions affecting leasees
was enlightning. Decisions that lead to an
overabundance of fuel on FS lands were explored.
Specialists provided an
excellent review of vertebrate pest control; crop pest control; water quality
assessment; plant identification and grazing systems. This review and
update was helpful in preparing me for a summer of dealing with pests!
A near lethal game of horse-shoes provided spectator entertainment...the steaks were great...the company even better...heated showers (and cabins) would be a nice improvement!
|
Crop and Pest Management School |
|
|
|
For:
Agencies, Producers, Certified Crop Advisors, County Agents, and
Agribusiness's |
|
January
6 - 8, 2004 |
Presentors:
|
School
Includes: |
Faculty: S. Blodgett, PhD., IPM P. Carr, PhD., Agronomy NDSU E. Davis, MS., L.R. and E. Sciences B. Grey, PhD., Plant Pathology S. Harting, PhD., Ecology G. Johnson, PhD., Ext. Pesticide Spec. W. Lanier, MS, IPM A. Lessen, PhD., Entomology J. Mangold, MS., L.R. and E. Sciences B. Maxwell, PhD., L.R. and E. Sciences P. Miller, Ph.D., L.R. and E. Sciences B. Peterson, PhD., Entomolgy D. Ryerson, PhD., Monsanto J. Sherman, PhD., Plant Pathology |
|
|
|
AGENDA
|
Tuesday,
January 6 |
|
Wednesday,
January 7 |
|
Thursday,
January 8 |
|
8:30 am |
|
8:00 am Perceptions of Risk (Peterson) • Risk Assessment, Perception and Communication
|
|
8:00 am Concurrent session Montana Sustainable Pest Management projects (Lenssen) • Havre, Froid, Moore
|
|
9:00 am |
|
10:00 am Increasing Input Returns (Ryerson) |
|
10:15 am Concurrent session Pathogens in Sustainable Cropland Systems (Grey) • Diseases in Natural and Ag Systems |
|
10:00 am • AgroecoregionsLandscapes
|
|
1:00 pm • Soils: Taxonomy, Sampling and Radiometry (Brown)
|
|
8:00 am Concurrent session |
|
1:00 pm • Multiple Enterprises |
|
3:15 pm Land Use, Rivers and Lakes (Harting) • Global Nutrient Cycling, Erosion, Watersheds |
|
12:00 pm |
|
2:30 pm Adaptability and Cropping (Miller) • The Rotation Game
|
|
4:30 pm |
|
|
|
4:15 pm Cropland Weed Community: (Davis, Mangold) • Noxious and Cropland • Hands on Identification and Biology
|
|
7:00 pm Hands On Computers Crop Sequencing Calculator - Hands on Software (Lanier) • “What if” Rotation Calculation • High Plains IPM Guide |
|
|
|
7:00 pm Alternative Cropland Insect Management (Blodgett, Johnson) • Identification and Biology • Biopesticides, Noesema and Dimlin |
|
|
|
|
|
MSU University News Ethics segment added to Crop Pest School November 19, 2003 An "Ethics in
Agriculture" segment has been added to this year's Crop Pest Management
School at Montana State University - Bozeman. Contact: William Lanier (406)
994-5690 |
2004 Crop and Pest Management School
(Presenter Evaluation)
January 6, 2004
|
|
Name: Roddy Model Producer |
Poor Excellent |
|
Total
pts |
Avg |
|||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
NA |
|
|
|||
|
1. |
Was well prepared and organized. |
|
1 |
5 |
10 |
4 |
4 |
77 |
3.85 |
|
|
2. |
Presentation was understandable. |
|
1 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
79 |
3.95 |
|
|
3. |
Demonstrated enthusiasm for subject. |
1 |
|
4 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
77 |
3.85 |
|
|
4. |
Allowed time for questions and interaction. |
|
|
4 |
6 |
9 |
5 |
81 |
4.26 |
|
|
5. |
Stimulated me to think how to use the information. |
1 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
4 |
4 |
75 |
3.75 |
|
|
6. |
Visual aids were appropriate for presentation. |
2 |
|
5 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
69 |
3.63 |
|
|
7. |
Information presented was of educational value. |
1 |
1 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
73 |
3.65 |
|
|
8. |
My ability to understand subject was improved. |
1 |
3 |
2 |
11 |
3 |
4 |
72 |
3.60 |
|
|
9. |
My ability to make sound decisions was improved. |
1 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
2 |
4 |
68 |
3.40 |
|
|
Comments: - We needed handouts at remote site. - Could have been a shorter presentation. - Not a very dynamic speaker. - Appreciate speakers who are actually getting their “hands in the dirt” and making production agriculture as part of their life. - Page numbers in the handouts would have been helpful since most of the tables looked very similar. |
||||||||||
|
NA = No Answer. This is not included in the average. |
Overall Average |
3.77 |
||||||||
School Average 4.21