Iowa Soybean Review, Summer, 2017

IOWA

SOYBEANreview

®

Summer 2017

EERILY SIMILAR OHIO AND IOWA

WATER QUALITY ISSUES

© 5/2017 NuTech Seed.

DO NOT APPLY DICAMBA HERBICIDE IN-CROP TO SOYBEANS WITH Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® technology unless you use a dicamba herbicide product that is specifically labeled for that use in the location where you intend to make the application. IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW TO MAKE AN IN-CROP APPLICATION OF ANY DICAMBA HERBICIDE PRODUCT ON SOYBEANS WITH Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® technology, OR ANY OTHER PESTICIDE APPLICATION, UNLESS THE PRODUCT LABELING SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES THE USE. Contact the U.S. EPA and your state pesticide regulatory agency with any questions about the approval status of dicamba herbicide products for in-crop use with soybeans with Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® technology.

ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Soybeans with Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® technology contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate and dicamba. Glyphosate herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Dicamba will kill crops that are not tolerant to dicamba.

Pioneer is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship ® (ETS).

Pioneer products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance and in compliance with the Pioneer policies regarding stewardship of those products. Crops and materials containing biotech traits may only be exported to or used, processed, or sold in jurisdictions where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted for those crops and materials. It is a violation of national and international laws to move materials containing biotech traits across borders into jurisdictions where their import is not permitted. Growers should discuss these issues with their purchaser or grain handler to confirm the purchaser or handler’s position on products being purchased. For further information on the approval status of biotech traits, please visit www.biotradestatus.com.

Excellence Through Stewardship ® is a registered trademark of the Excellence Through Stewardship.

Always follow grain marketing, stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. Roundup Ready ® crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup ® brand agricultural herbicides. Roundup ® brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate.

Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible.

Roundup Ready 2 Xtend ®, Genuity ®, Roundup ® and Roundup Ready 2 Yield ® are registered trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC used under license. LibertyLink® and the Water Droplet Design are trademarks of Bayer.

Summer 2017 | Vol. 29, No. 8

10 Expert Perspective:

Technology and Chemistry Stewardship As new traits and

chemistries are approved, practicing good stewardship becomes increasingly important.

26

From the Field: What is the Return on Investment for Cover Crops? Estimates are that 625,000 cover crop acres were planted in the fall of 2016, up from 500,000 acres the year before.

14 Eerily Similar: Ohio and 28 Uncovering the Iowa Water Quality Issues

Phosphorous-driven algae blooms in Lake Erie that threaten public health and a multi-billion-dollar tourism industry in Ohio are the catalyst behind recent tough decisions to improve water quality.

Potential of Cover Crops

Cover crops have begun to blanket the countryside in recent years, but are they making a difference in water quality?

About the Cover:

A chartereal boat makes its way across Lake Erie toward Toledo, Ohio’s fresh water intake.

Photo above: Paul Pacholski, a fishing charter boat captain who lives a stone’s throw from Lake Erie and depends on it for a living, takes to the water. He says water quality issues in the state devastated businesses in 2014.

EXECUTIVE review Kirk Leeds Chief Executive Officer Iowa Soybean Association kleeds@iasoybeans.com Twitter@kirkleeds

‘Are farmers truly serious about addressing Iowa’s water quality challenges?’

I was recently asked that question by a “city friend” who has been watching, listening and reading about efforts underway in Iowa to improve water quality, including the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. He was familiar with the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit against three rural counties and the work of the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) and our Environmental Program and Services. He had read the numerous editorials and press releases put out by ISA and other agriculture organizations.

He had also heard the criticism offered by certain community and environmental activists and challenge the Iowa Legislature’s in finding a longterm and dedicated funding stream to support nutrient reduction efforts.

I shared with him the progress we have seen by farmers. Progress has been made through increased acres in cover crops and installation of bioreactors and saturated buffers, more

President Rolland Schnell, Newton | D5 President Elect Bill Shipley, Nodaway | D7 Treasurer Lindsay Greiner, Keota | At Large Secretary Randy Souder, Rockwell City | D4 Executive Committee Stephanie Essick, Dickens | At Large

efficient use of applied nutrients, and groups of farmers, urban residents and conservation leaders getting together to develop watershed plans in their area.

We can see it in the water quality data ISA has been collecting for 15 years. I also reminded him weather can have a tremendous impact on year-to-year results and we need more time and resources if we’re going to succeed.

He listened but repeated his question, “Are farmers really serious about improving water?”

While working on this edition of the Iowa Soybean Review and the series of articles and photos on the water challenges faced by farmers and residents in Ohio, I thought about the conversation with my friend. Even after sharing the list of things farmers do and making the case that this is a complicated issue, I clearly failed to convince him about the commitment to improved water by Iowa’s farmers. I

Directors Mark Vosika, Pocahontas | D1 Chuck White, Spencer | D1 April Hemmes, Hampton | D2 Wayne Fredericks, Osage | D2 Rick Juchems, Plainfield | D3 Suzanne Shirbroun, Farmersburg | D3 LaVerne Arndt, Sac City | D4 Morey Hill, Madrid | D5 Dave Walton, Wilton | D6 Robb Ewoldt, Blue Grass | D6 Jeff Jorgenson, Sidney | D7 Randy Miller, Lacona | D8 Warren Bachman, Osceola | D8 Pat Swanson, Ottumwa | D9 Mark Jackson, Rose Hill | D9 Brent Renner, Klemme | At Large Tim Bardole, Rippey | At Large

worry my friend is not the only resident who has this concern.

Iowa farmers and the ag organizations serving them do indeed have a clear choice to make. We can either fully embrace the challenge before us or continue to hide behind talking points and policy positions. As much as we appreciate the funding provided, an honest appraisal of the situation acknowledges that a few million dollars sprinkled across the state will not get us fast enough. Additional approaches and new funding mechanisms are needed.

I fear time is not on our side. We must embrace partnerships with cities, small towns, agribusiness, members of the conservation community, universities, government agencies and a broader number of farmers.

I hope you enjoy this month’s magazine and as always, we welcome your feedback.

American Soybean Association Directors Morey Hill, Madrid Wayne Fredericks, Osage Brian Kemp, Sibley John Heisdorffer, Keota Dean Coleman, Humboldt United Soybean Board Directors Delbert Christensen, Audubon Larry Marek, Riverside Tom Oswald, Cleghorn April Hemmes, Hampton

For advertising information in the Iowa Soybean Review, please contact Larson Ent. LLC, (515)440-2810 or dave@larsonent.com.

Comments and statewide news articles should be sent to the above address. Advertising space reservations must be made by the first day of the month preceding publication. In consideration of the acceptance of the advertisement, the agency and the advertiser must, in respect of the contents of the advertisement, indemnify and save the publisher harmless against any expense arising from claims or actions against the publisher because of the publication of the content of the advertisement.

Staff Credits Editor | Ann Clinton Communications Director | Aaron Putze, APR Creative Manager | Ashton Boles Photographer | Joe Murphy Staff Writer | Carrie Laughlin Staff Writer | Matthew Wilde Staff Writer | Allison Arp Staff Writer | Michelle Jones Staff Writer | Easton Kuboushek Sales Director | David Larson The Iowa Soybean Review is published eight times a year by: Iowa Soybean Association 1255 SW Prairie Trail Parkway, Ankeny, Iowa 50023 Phone: (515) 251-8640 Web address: iasoybeans.com E-mail: aclinton@iasoybeans.com Iowa Soybean Association can also be found on these sites:

Policy in Play

By Carol Balvanz, Policy Director This past legislative session, you may have heard that two water quality bills were passed, one in the House and one in the Senate, but neither actually arrived on the Governor’s desk. After two late-night sessions, the legislature adjourned without agreement on water quality legislation and funding.

ISA supported the House bill. Some question why. Our decision was clearly based on policy passed beginning in 2013 and through 2015.

We believe water quality incentives should be effective and efficiently used to initiate longer-term efforts to improve environmental quality and natural resource management . . . We support securing sustainable, long term funding for Iowa’s natural resources, aligning with farmers’ priority resource concerns and at funding levels that address the scope of concerns . . . We support the stated principles of Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy . . . We support collaboration with cities and industries to partner with agriculture producers

to develop and implement accredited nutrient reduction practices that may offset some of the cost for implementing technology at permitted facilities.

When we compared the language of the Senate and House bills, our policy led us to support the collaborative financing of watershed work as outlined in the House bill rather than settle for funding for traditional cost share projects placed without the benefit of watershed planning in the Senate bill.

The House bill included two key provisions we believe are vital for Iowa to meet the goals of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy: 1. A watershed approach which works through local stakeholders to plan and locate practices where we achieve the greatest nutrient reductions for dollars spent.

2. A creative financing component that allows collaboration between city and rural stakeholders to tap into a bigger pool of funding than has been or probably will be available through

the traditional legislative funding process.

ISA’s policy, developed with data from over 15 years’ experience in watershed work, directed our path during the legislative debate and into this summer’s interim. While the House bill isn’t perfect, it includes many of the innovative elements we believe should be included in our state’s future water strategy. Those ideas are a big change from our traditional ways of doing things, and with these bills surfacing very late in the session, we had very little time to sit, talk and think through these new ideas with our traditional partners.

We look forward to talking with many groups, legislators and government representatives over the next few months to help explain the concepts, and adjust the language to help these ideas grow into watershed action across Iowa. If you would like to know more, please call me at (515) 669-9174.

IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION

FARMER RESEARCH CONFERENCE

Save the Date Feb. 6-7, 2018

Guest Speakers:

DR. LOWELL CATLETT

presenting — “Why NOW is the best time to be in Agriculture” and

DR. ELWYNN TAYLOR From Iowa State University presenting — “Weather in Iowa”

Conference is free for all farmers participating in 2017 research projects Conference costs $50 for all ISA farmer members not participating in research projects

Registration opens Oct. 1, 2017 Funded in part by the soybean checkoff

At ADM, everything we do starts with you.

OUR CAREFULLY CULTIVATED SUITE OF TOOLS AND STRATEGIES ARE DESIGNED TO HELP YOU PROACTIVELY MANAGE YOUR GRAIN MARKETING. Whether you like to take an active role in the execution of your contracts, or you prefer to leave it to the experts, our reliable professionals are there for you, giving you the guidance you need to stay competitive for years to come.

© 2017 Archer Daniels Midland Company

Talk to us about our grain marketing or visit ADMadvantage.com to learn more.

ADMadvantage.com

STINE LIBERTYLINK SOYBEANS control our weed issues. After seeing ®

®

our pass with Liberty , we know this is the program we need to keep our fields clean. ®

STINE HAS WHAT I WANT AND WHAT MY FARM NEEDS.

I CHOOSE CONTROL. I CHOOSE RESULTS. I choose what I can count on.

I choose Stine because…Stine has yield.

ANDY POTTER Southeastern Michigan

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE:

TECHNOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY STEWARDSHIP

By Easton Kuboushek

Chris Harbourt, co-founder and chief executive officer of Agrible

The Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) took a deep dive into chemistry stewardship — the careful and responsible management of chemical application — in the February edition of the Iowa Soybean Review. As a continuation on this issue, ISA investigated how digital technology can help farmers improve chemistry stewardship.

As new traits and chemistries are approved, practicing good stewardship becomes increasingly important. Failure to do so may reduce the access and effectiveness of these valuable tools — but technology can help.

“What you do on each individual acre matters,” explains Chris Harbourt, co-founder and chief executive officer of Agrible. “It matters in that waterway, it matters downstream, it matters to the ecology and the health of that ecosystem.”

In addition to leading Champaign, Illinois-based Agrible, Harbourt holds a doctorate degree in agriculture engineering and worked as a consultant for major-use herbicides, insecticides and other chemistries for more than

10 years. Harbourt says stewardship is important because it affects the profitability and sustainability of farming through: • ACCESS TO CHEMISTRIES Farmers need to keep these chemistries on the market. It’s the job of the grower through the label relationship with the manufacturer to use products appropriately.

• OVERCOMING RESISTANCE As resistance builds, it’s important to incorporate different modes of action and residuals to keep the efficacy of chemistries intact.

• WASTE IS A WASTE Applying too much or applying in the wrong place means a chemistry isn’t being applied efficiently and farmers pay for every ounce.

• SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSUMER DEMAND By being good stewards, farmers can go on record and say they are using these products responsibly.

“Technology has a real role to help growers know when conditions are right to apply,” Harbourt says. “Rather than crossing fingers and hoping conditions are right, technology can help farmers know what the weather will do and when to make the most of their application.”

SpraySmart®, a function of Agrible’s Morning Farm Report software,

combines user and other data to forecast hourly field-specific spray conditions — wind speed and direction at boom height — for the upcoming 3.5 days.

The app also calculates inversion potential, which is a big deal for chemicals that easily volatize and drift.

Technology is most useful when planning, Harbourt adds. A quick look at real time and future conditions can determine whether spraying is a good use of time or if another project should take priority.

John Rosenboom farms 2,500 acres of corn and soybeans near Manson.

He started using SpraySmart two years ago and finds the technology extremely useful, especially in the spring.

“SpraySmart is pretty slick,” says Rosenboom. “Since I work a day-job, if I see it’s going to be a windy day and I know because of the hourly forecast I’ll only have a 4-5 hour window, that’s what I’ll plan my day around.”

Rosenboom has fields that are up to six miles apart. Oftentimes, SpraySmart will say conditions aren’t right in one place, but another farm is ready to go.

While apps like SpraySmart® and other technology are useful tools, the onus is still on the farmer to practice good stewardship. Reading labels, implementing different modes of action and even creating a simple plan can improve the effectiveness and profitability of chemistry applications.

Try a complimentary subscription of Agrible’s Morning Farm Report Software by entering promo code IASOY17 at: MORNINGFARMREPORT.COM

AEROPTIC

provides sophisticated Remote Sensing imagery to the Iowa Soybean Association, as well as to Iowa’s agricultural service providers, seed and chemical companies and others.

AEROPTIC

quickly and efficiently provides Remote Sensing imagery in the format that you want.

AEROPTIC

moves precision agriculture to predictive agriculture for making key profit determinant decisions during the growing season.

Soar to a fuller and clearer picture with AEROPTIC! Contact us at www.aeroptic.com or call Business Unit Manager Nate Taylor directly at (814) 441-1867 or email at ntaylor@aeroptic.com

IT’S A SMART DECISION TO

FUEL UP WITH ENERGY THAT COMES FROM THE SOYBEANS WE GROW.

Economic analysis shows biodiesel production contributes an estimated 63 cents to the market value of each bushel of soybeans. Ask for your supplier to fill ‘er up because biodiesel is good for your tractor, good for the environment and good for Iowa.

Funded in part by the soybean checkoff

FCSAMERICA .COM

Jeremy Stangl JDS Farms Soybean & Livestock Producer Manilla, IA View his story at: fcsamerica.com/stangls

WE’D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERY CUSTOMER WITH A BARKING DOG.

ON-SITE VISITS MAKE FINANCING WITH US EASY AND CONVENIENT. We value your time as well as your business – and prove it through the way we work and the tools we offer. Anytime account access and Remote Deposit, for example, will save you more than a trip to town.

Along with convenience, our “driveway greetings” provide a valued opportunity to learn how you work and understand your goals. Call 800-884-FARM.

IOWA SOYBEAN REVIEW EXCLUSIVE

EERILY SIMILAR OHIO AND IOWA WATER QUALITY ISSUES AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT OHIO'S WATER QUALITY, FOCUSING ON LAKE ERIE

By Matt Wilde, ISA Sr. Writer and photos by Joe Murphy, Sr. Communications Manager

P

hosphorous-driven algae blooms in Lake Erie that threaten public health and a multibillion-dollar tourism industry in Ohio are the catalyst behind tough decisions to improve water quality.

“As our state continues to fully implement the voluntary strategies called for in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, having a clearer understanding of what other states have experienced and the approaches they are taking to improve water quality is critically important,” Leeds says. “Fairly or unfairly, the challenges in Ohio have received national coverage and I believe there are lessons to learn from gaining a deeper understanding of how they are moving forward.”

Although Iowa legislators failed to pass a comprehensive water quality bill to provide adequate and sustained funding to support the state’s nutrient reduction strategy, Leeds says Ohio’s efforts can assist in the future.

“ISA’s commitment to addressing Iowa’s water challenges through the voluntary engagement by Iowa’s farmers gives us a unique perspective to help share this evolving story,” Leeds says.

Ohio agriculture at a glance in Number of farms:

Milk cows:

74,500

262,000

Acres farmed:

All cattle and calves:

14 million Average farm size:

1.3 million Hogs:

188 acres

2.7 million

Soybeans:

Broilers:

4.85 million acres

88 million

(average yield 54.5 bushels per acre)

Corn for grain:

3.3 million acres (average yield 159 bushels per acre)

Winter wheat:

580,000 acres

(average yield 80 bushels per acre)

Toledo, Ohio’s fresh water intake in Lake Erie with research bouy floating nearby.

2016

Beef cows:

288,000

Turkeys:

5.8 million Farmers also raise oats, hay, tomatoes, sweet corn, peppers, pumpkins and cucumbers, among other food.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

CATALYST

FOR CHANGE

It takes a serious amount of leadership. We had an administration that wanted to work with people. They also gave us a timeline and the resources needed to understand and fix this issue. We believe a proactive approach and doing the right thing wasn’t the end of the world. Frankly, deciding to understand each other and work together instead of fighting is what makes our situation unique.�

TERRY MCCLURE

Grover Hill, Ohio farmer, Ohio Soybean Council chairman and board member of The Nature Conservancy in Ohio

hio’s wakeup call came late on a Friday.

It was Aug. 2, 2014 and a series of tests of Toledo’s drinking water drawn from Lake Erie revealed heightened contamination.

The leading culprit was microsystin, a harmful toxin produced by blue-green algae called microsystis that had beleaguered the shallowest and warmest waters of the Great Lakes for years.

Some wondered if the results were “false positives.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hadn’t established standard testing protocols, according to media reports. The city’s water plant was one of the largest, most advanced in the region and was always able to provide safe drinking water. Plus, it wasn’t initially clear if other communities using Lake Erie as a source water were experiencing the same issues.

The public health risk, though, was too great not to act. Some tests showed the toxin — which can cause gastroenteritis, skin irritation, allergic responses and potentially lifethreatening liver damage — was more than twice the allowable level at 2.5 parts per billion.

At 2 a.m. the next day, Aug. 3, 2014, Toledo issued its first “do not drink” or boil warning. For three days, more than 500,000 metro-area residents couldn’t get safe water from the tap.

“That devastated businesses around here,” says Paul Pacholski, a recently retired fishing charter boat captain, who lives a stone’s throw from the lake and depended on it for a living. “Bottled water couldn’t be found within a 75mile radius.”

Ohio officials predominantly agree phosphorus runoff from farm fields in the nearly 5-million-acre Lake Erie basin watershed, which encompasses all or parts of 24 counties, is the primary culprit for Erie’s algal blooms. The Maumee River is the main conduit of nutrients from subwatersheds to the lake. Phosphorus feeds the algae, though nitrogen can affect the size, composition and toxicity of the blooms.

Phosphorus from leaky home septic systems and point sources like wastewater treatment plants also

contribute to the state’s water woes.

During dry years, such as 2016, algae isn’t much of an issue in the lake. But if May and June are wet and significant runoff occurs like what happened in 2014, phosphorus-fed blooms explode come July and August. That year, algae happened to form near Toledo Water Work’s intake crib two miles offshore.

“It looks like pea soup when it’s bad,” says Terry McClure, Ohio Soybean Council chairman. “However, I was on Lake Erie fishing last year and it looked great.”

The Grover Hill, Ohio, farmer adds just because there isn’t a problem every year doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

Farmers and residents need to work to improve water quality.

“It’s about doing the right thing because it’s our lakes and rivers,” says McClure, who’s working to limit nutrient runoff from his farm. “We can choose to be part of the problem or the solution.”

Water quality is job one

Improving water quality is an ongoing priority in Ohio, officials say.

The Buckeye State battled Lake Erie algae blooms in the 1970s and early 80s. At the time, research showed phosphorus that feeds algae was delivered to waterways via sediment.

A combination of government conservation incentives and voluntary actions by farmers to prevent erosion such as grass waterways and no-till were widely adopted. Today, 60-

70 percent of the state’s 4.5 million soybean acres are no-till, according to Ohio soybean leaders.

“Folks came together and the problem went away for a long time,” says Kirk Merritt, executive director of the Ohio Soybean Association and Ohio Soybean Council. “Farmers were asked to step up and they did.”

By the mid-1990s, toxic algae started to plague Erie again along with other lakes and rivers. Scientists learned dissolved phosphorus moving through ag drainage tiles to waterways is a contributor. The Western Lake Erie basin —highly productive land that requires drainage tile to be farmed— is known as the Black Swamp.

Grand Lake St. Marys, Ohio’s largest inland lake at nearly 13,000 acres, has a chronic algae problem.

The EPA declared its nearly 60,000acre watershed distressed, which put it on a “pollution diet” or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in 2011, like the Chesapeake Bay. As a result, the state established rules to reduce nutrient loadings in the lake. Nutrient management plans are required for all producers in the watershed and manure/fertilizer application is banned from Dec. 15 to March 1 unless special permission is granted by the state.

Ohio officials assembled the first of two phosphorus task forces in 2007 made up of government, environmental and agricultural stakeholders and scientists to study and come up with solutions for Lake Erie. In response to

MICHIGAN

r ive hR ep s o ek .J Cre St rock Flat St. Ma rys

INDIANA

Tiffi nR iver

O

E AK

k ree nC Swa

L

er ee Riv Maum Auglaize Riv er Blanchard River

Riv er

r a Rive Ottaw r e ize Riv Augla

OHIO

IE

ER

Stay involved in the process and tell your story. The public likes to know where their food comes from and they like farmers. If you tell your story, provide facts and science and connect with consumers in an honest fashion, ag will win the day.”

SEN. BOB PETERSON

Ohio Senate president pro tempore and Sabina, Ohio farmer

early May. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies forecast in mid-July that this year’s western Lake Erie algal bloom will be the third or fourth largest on record since aerial surveillance began in 2002. However, officials in Toledo and other communities that source drinking water from the lake don’t expect algae to hamper those efforts.

Call to action

Merritt says three things became abundantly clear after the Toledo water crisis: • Ohio’s 24,000 soybean farmers contribute to the problem and will be part of the solution.

• Crop, livestock and farm organizations need to unite and be as proactive as possible.

Do everything possible to stay unified in agriculture. What succeeded here is we’ve been collaborative. Another key lesson is being part of the process. You are either at the table or on it.”

KIRK MERRITT

Ohio Soybean Council and Ohio Soybean Association executive director

task force findings, the state formed the Directors’ Agricultural Nutrients and Water Quality Working Group to identify and implement agricultural practices that would reduce harmful algal blooms without curtailing ag production or profitability.

“We were doing good things, but the Toledo water crisis ramped up our efforts,” says Karl Gebhardt, Ohio EPA deputy director for water resources. “It was the catalyst … the wakeup call.”

When public health in Ohio’s fourthlargest city and a multi-billion-dollar tourism industry were threatened, state officials say citizens demanded swift,

bold actions to clean up Lake Erie and all waters of the state and prevent such a crisis from happening again.

“People come here for the beaches and fishing. It’s the walleye capital of the word,” says Pacholski, president of the Lake Erie Charter Boat Association.

“When blooms are bad, you will lose 20-25 percent of your (fishing charter) business.”

Heidelberg University in Ohio, known for its water quality and monitoring work, reported phosphorus loads in the Maumee River were below average in March and April. However, loadings increased due to heavy rains in

• Lawmakers made it clear voluntaryonly efforts to curb nonpoint source pollution in the Lake Erie basin and statewide was no longer effective.

Merritt says Ohio soybean leaders participated in discussions to craft action plans.

“You are either at the table or on it,” Merritt says. “For organizations like ours, water quality is the top priority.”

In the spring of 2010, Ohio soybean started to work with researchers to identify why and how phosphorus was leaving fields. Millions in checkoff funds have been invested to study nutrient movement and develop recommendations to better utilize and retain it on farm fields.

Merritt says soybean farmers supported research and good policy to improve water quality long before Toledo’s water scare.

“That just raised the profile and intensity around the issue,” he adds.

The public wanted the legislature to act, Ohio’s top soybean executive says. Bob Peterson, a state senator and farmer, agrees.

When the health of people and pets were jeopardized, the leaders say some form of regulation to protect them was inevitable.

“It was our job to make sure new regulations were as reasonable as possible and science based,” Merritt says.

ALL ABOARD! COLLABORATION KEY TO

OHIO’S WATER QUALITY EFFORTS A

fter the Toledo water crisis, it was as if general quarters sounded across Ohio.

On a U.S. Navy ship, it’s a call for sailors to man their battle stations. State officials, farmers, environmentalists and tourism officials say Lake Erie’s phosphorus-driven algal blooms threatening public health was their signal to action.

Toledo’s scare motivated citizens to work together and take bold actions to mitigate water pollution.

“It became all-hands-on-deck to find a solution,” says State Sen. Bob Peterson, who also farms near Sabina, Ohio. “One thing that happened, and it doesn’t always, is people didn’t initially point fingers.”

The high-ranking rule maker says stakeholders with a vested interest in

improving water quality and preserving the state’s $105 billion agriculture industry didn’t always agree, but teamwork largely prevailed.

The result: A combination of voluntary and regulatory measures to reduce nutrient loads entering waterways and a plan outlining goals, initiatives and a timeline to do so.

“We attacked the problem as a team,” says Peterson, president pro tempore of the Senate. “We looked for collective solutions, which is pretty unique.”

The Collaborative

The leaders of Ohio, Michigan and the Canadian Province of Ontario agreed to reduce phosphorus loadings in Lake Erie by 40 percent in June of 2015, 11 months after Toledo’s water crisis.

Talks to do so were ongoing prior to that.

Karl Gebhardt, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) director for water resources, says an action plan wasn’t scheduled to be ready until 2018.

“The governor said that’s not soon enough. We have big issues here,” Gebhardt recalls.

Meetings and conversations with various stakeholder groups, including Ohio’s soy organizations, and state agencies kicked into high gear to develop Ohio’s roadmap to achieve the goal. The Western Lake Erie Basin Collaborative Implementation Framework — known as the Collaborative — was approved in February.

The plan calls for a 40 percent load reduction of total and dissolved reactive

Be willing to take reasonable steps. If that’s reasonable regulations, be willing to look at those.

It may not work in every state, but be willing to take steps on your own before they’re mandated.”

JOHN SCHLICHTER

Ohio Department of Agriculture deputy director

statewide. It includes grants, costshare and loans to update wastewater treatment and water plants, fix or replace leaky septic systems, reduce urban storm water runoff and help farmers implement conservation practices and build manure storage structures. An estimate on funding still needed to meet the phosphorus goal isn’t available.

The Collaborative is based on the following principles: • Implementation of point and nonpoint nutrient reduction practices.

• Verification of targeted practice implementation and effectiveness.

• Documentation of water quality changes.

• Adaptability to allow for modification of programs, practices and policy.

Be at the table, be proactive and be willing to adapt. It’s a long process. The sooner you get started the better.”

KIRK HINES

Ohio Department of Agriculture Division of Soil and Water Conservation chief

phosphorus entering Lake Erie’s western basin by 2025 with an aspirational goal of a 20 percent reduction by 2020.

Nutrient loading data from 2008 serves as the baseline from which progress is measured.

The ultimate goal is to limit the number of “significant” algae blooms to one every 10 years. This allows for an occasional very wet year that spurs algae growth, according to the Collaborative.

State officials and farmers say it’s an aggressive goal. Weather and legacy phosphorus will always be a challenge, experts contend, especially with rain

events increasing intensity.

“There are milestones set and we think they are achievable, but there will be a cost,” says Kirk Hines, Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) Division of Soil and Water Conservation chief.

“We can’t control the weather, which is a driving force behind the algal blooms,” John Schlichter, ODA deputy director, adds. “But we can implement practices to make things as stable as possible.”

Gebhardt says almost $3 billion in state and federal funds have been spent since 2011 to improve water quality

• Accountability to ensure clear areas of responsibilities and the commitment to achieve goals.

“The state’s approach is not pointing fingers at any one source but all sources,” Gebhardt says.

Ohio EPA focuses on reducing phosphorus loads from point sources.

The Ohio Department of Health is responsible for curtailing home septic system leaks and beach monitoring.

ODA oversees the nonpoint side.

Twenty-six priority watersheds were identified in the Collaborative to curb nonpoint source pollution, Gebhardt says.

“It’s like fire prevention,” he continues. “You talk about ways to prevent fires and spend money to educate people; but if there’s a fire, that’s where the majority of resources are sent.”

Increasing the pace and scale of implementing conservation practices such as cover crops, drainage water management structures, grass waterways and wetlands, among others, are part of the plan. Soil testing every three years to ensure nutrients are applied at agronomic levels is integral.

Water monitoring stations located on the Maumee River and other waterways is crucial to success, officials say.

Hines estimates annual phosphorous loadings to waterways average about 1 to 1 ½ pounds per acre. The state’s

goal can be met by reducing loadings by a half-pound, he contends.

Studies have shown that taking historically unprofitable acres out of production and putting them in conservation practices like wetlands could help meet the goal, Schlichter contends. Other experts say holding back more water on the land by increasing organic matter and/or adding water management control structures will do it.

ODA officials say voluntary conservation measures are on the rise.

They include conservation tillage and cover crops that capture nutrients and improve organic matter. The number of drainage management structures have skyrocketed from a half-dozen to more than 1,000 since 2010.

“Farmers are great stewards of the land and we have great producers in Ohio,” Hines says.

Legislative action

The Ohio Legislature passed a pair of mandates to prevent nutrient runoff.

Senate Bill 150 requires anyone who applies fertilizer to more than 50 acres for agriculture production to undergo education and certification by ODA. The law, passed just prior to the Toledo water crisis, went into effect in October of 2014.

The idea is to inform applicators about the state’s water quality issues, provide the latest information about application methods, agronomic rates and research concerning nutrient runoff.

“It’s simply to explain to folks what they can do to help improve water quality and their bottom line,” Schlichter says.

Initially, some farmers were apprehensive. Schlichter recalls attending the first certification class and overhearing a farmer say he’ll just return home and continue doing the same thing.

“I called him out and said I hope you don’t do that. We can’t afford it,” he says. “Agriculture is in the crosshairs. A lot of people think it’s completely ag’s fault.”

About 16,500 farmers were certified by the end of May, according to ODA statistics. The deadline to take the 3-hour course is the end of September.

Failure to do so could result in fines

Farmers in Ohio are proactive in using cover crops.

Host groups and invite people to your farms regularly. Show them what you are doing and steps being taken to improve water quality. Show them you care.

People get to see it’s just dad and I, we’re not ‘Big Ag.’”

ANTHONY STATELER McComb, Ohio farmer

and/or being charged with a misdemeanor offense.

“The vast majority of attendees say they hear something that’s helpful,” Schlichter says.

Certification is required every three years. The cost is $30, though a person is not required to pay if they already have a valid commercial or private pesticide license.

Farmer Anthony Stateler of McComb, Ohio, took the class this spring.

“I don’t know of anyone who was truly against it,” he says. “I learned quite bit.”

Besides the education component, the law encourages producers to adopt nutrient management plans, allows ODA to better track fertilizer sales and distribution and provide Ohio’s Department of Nature Resources the authority to repurpose funds for additional best management practice installation.

A voluntary Ohio Agricultural Stewardship Verification program started in May. ODA officials expect the pilot

KARL GEBHARDT

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency deputy director for water resources:

project, currently in two counties, to spread statewide soon. It certifies that farmers are protecting farmland and natural resources by implementing best management practices.

“I think farmers are willing and making great strides,” Schlichter says.

“I think farmers are willing and making great strides,” Schlichter says.

In April of 2015, the Legislature passed a law that prohibits the spreading of manure and commercial fertilizers with phosphorus and nitrogen on frozen, snow-covered or saturated ground in the Western Lake Erie Basin.

It also bans manure application if the forecast calls for a 50 percent chance of a half-inch of precipitation over 24 hours. Commercial fertilizer can’t be applied if an inch of rain is forecast over 12 hours.

“As for the manure rule, we pretty much already did it,” Stateler says. “It wasn’t unreasonable.”

A new online tool called the Ohio Applicator Forecast is available to assist farmers and commercial applicators. It’s

designed to help identify times when the potential for nutrient loss is low. ODA partnered with the National Weather Service to develop the app.

Terry McClure, Ohio Soybean Council chairman, says no farmer likes regulations but the certification and application laws are “reasonable.” He grows 4,000 acres of soybeans, corn and wheat and markets 18,000 pigs a year near Grover Hill, Ohio.

Farmers and ag groups were willing to consider and accept sciencebased regulations to improve water quality, McClure says. If not onerous, unacceptable statutes were likely such as one-size-fits-all fertilizer and conservation mandates.

“We codified good practices for the 1 percent of people who weren’t doing it right,” McClure says. “It showed society we’ll do our part. It has paid us back in spades by being proactive.”

Not all farmers like the approach.

Charles Wildman, a grain and pig farmer from South Charleston, Ohio, thinks the state prematurely passed regulations.

“I’m skeptical of the moves made to improve water quality before all the research and data was collected to learn how best to solve the problem,” Wildman says. “I’m in favor of farmers reducing nutrient movement and erosion (voluntarily).”

So far Ohio EPA has refused to declare the Western Lake Erie Basin impaired, despite calls from environmental groups and two lawsuits to do so. That would likely trigger more regulations on point and nonpoint sources.

“We think what we have in place is working, but it won’t be a quick fix. It will take years,” Hines says.

I would encourage all (stakeholders) to work together. There needs to be collaboration; find common ground if you can. We work closely with The Nature Conservancy who works closely with agriculture. There is a time when voluntary and regulatory efforts are needed because the results aren’t what the public is demanding.”

ACTION! A

plan is in place. Rules are set.

Agriculture leaders say it’s show time.

Kirk Merritt, Ohio Soybean Council and Ohio Soybean Association executive director, says the moment has come to find out if collaborative efforts to improve water quality will pay off. He’s betting they will.

“It’s time to let those regulations and the multitude of voluntary practices work,” says Merritt, noting the association would resist additional mandates.

Ohio’s soybean producers are participating in research projects, studies and implementing conservation practices statewide. They’re spending millions in checkoff funds and their own dollars to do it.

“Every farmer should be allowed to do what’s right to maintain the nutrients and productivity of the land,” Merritt adds. “We can achieve the (40 percent phosphorus reduction) goal without sacrificing food production. Farmers understand there’s a water quality problem and they’re working hard to solve it.”

On-farm research

The poster in John Fulton’s office at The Ohio State University (OSU) stood out like a giddy fisherman pulling in a

PARTNERSHIPS TAKE CENTER STAGE TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY trophy walleye on Lake Erie — OSU On Farm Research: Nutrient Stewardship for Cleaner Water.

Fulton and a host of OSU and U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) researchers and environmentalists are collaboratively working with farmers to curb nutrient runoff.

“Like in Iowa, there’s no silver bullet to improve water quality,” says Fulton, Ph.D., an associate professor specializing in precision agriculture and automation. “What are the practices that help? What makes sense and keeps people in business?”

Libby Dayton, Ph.D., OSU soil scientist, is spearheading research to revise the Ohio Phosphorus Risk Index.

In conjunction with USDA’s research arm, Dayton is seeking to identify how much phosphorus is leaving farm fields and why. That information paired with weather data will help farmers select tailored agronomic and conservation practices to help keep phosphorus in the field and out of Lake Erie.

Steve Culman, Ph.D., OSU soil fertility specialist, is leading the charge to update the Tri-State Fertility Guide.

It provides farmers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana recommendations to avoid applying phosphorus and other fertilizer beyond crop needs, which minimizes runoff.

Carrie Vollmar-Sanders (left), and Jessica D’Ambrosio of The Nature Conservatory discuss water quality efforts in Ohio.

“We’re doing the work … to see how we are doing acre-by-acre to achieve the (40 percent) goal,” Dayton says.

Twenty-nine fields statewide are part of Dayton’s study. Fourteen are in the Western Lake Erie Basin, including two owned by Terry McClure, Ohio Soybean Council chairman of Grover Hill, Ohio.

A sound nutrient management strategy on farms is critical.

On-farm research can fine-tune that. Timing and adaptiveness of nitrogen and phosphorus is something farmers have to think about.”

JOHN FULTON, PH.D.

The Ohio State University associate professor in the Ag and Biological Engineering Department

The council is the largest funder of Dayton’s work, which helped secure a $1 million federal grant.

Monitoring equipment is installed at McClure’s farm to measure rain events, along with surface and subsurface nutrient runoff. Participating farmers provide tillage, rotation, agronomic, conservation and fertilizer records, among other information.

McClure says preliminary data shows his agronomic and conservation practices are working. He plants cover crops, grows soybeans, corn and wheat in a three-year rotation, takes soil grid samples and split applies nutrients (commercial and manure) per soil fertility needs. He also has lots of grass buffer strips.

“We’re living by the 4 Rs for nutrients (right time, right rate, right place, right source),” McClure says. “We are below the agronomic level in this area on phosphate.”

Data indicates Ohio farmers are making progress reducing phosphorus runoff, Dayton says. But more work and research is needed. Cover crops, no-till, nutrient incorporation and water management structures greatly aid in phosphorus retention, she says.

In four years, about 14,000 runoff samples have been collected. In longterm no-till fields, phosphorus loss is

far less than a half-pound per acre. EPA leaders contend the state can achieve its 40 percent reduction goal if every farm field can reach this level.

Fertilizer sales are trending down, Dayton says. About 2 million data points dating back to the 1990s indicates 88 percent of Ohio counties have significant downward trending phosphorus soil test values, she says.

“It shows farmers are taking this situation seriously, paying attention to soil tests and they’re sensitive of fertilizer applications,” Dayton concludes.

Demonstration farm

The Ohio Farm Bureau (OFB) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service teamed to form the Blanchard River Demonstration Farm Network. It’s part of the Farm Bureau’s Water Quality Action Plan, a comprehensive initiative to help farmers proactively improve and protect water quality while maintaining viable farming practices.

Three farms in the Blanchard River watershed, part of the Western Lake Erie Basin, are voluntarily participating in the first-of-its-kind project. The $1-million-dollar, five-year initiative runs through 2020.

“We’re showcasing innovative conservation practices to improve water

Iowa can do this. I think since we had a diverse set of stakeholders talking about this from the beginning — what they could do and what research was needed. That helped the conversation remain positive.”

CARRIE VOLLMER-SANDERS The Nature Conservancy North America nutrient strategy manager

quality without having a negative effect on the bottom line,” says Aaron Heilers, project manager. “We’re focusing on what leaves the land in the field, edgeof-field and in the stream.”

The farms will serve as models to share new conservation techniques and practices with farmers, land managers, the media and public.

Duane and Anthony Stateler of McComb, Ohio, jumped at the chance to participate. The father and son grow 600 acres of soybeans, corn and wheat and own a swine wean-to-finish operation, which includes three 2,400-head buildings.

As avid conservationists, the Statelers say they want to do their part to improve water in the Buckeye State.

“We’re stewards of the land. That’s what we claim,” Anthony Stateler says.

“If we’re not doing everything we can, there’s an issue.”

The elder Stateler remembers the polluted Cuyahoga River catching fire decades ago. He says farmers stepped up to mitigate water pollution then and they need to do it again to clean up Lake Erie.

“We feel what we’re doing is good,” he says. “I’m not saying we’re doing things perfect, but I hope to find out and do it better.”

The Stateler’s project includes about 250 acres. They’re focusing on managing nutrients, variable rate application, cover crops, alternative cropping rotations, drainage water management and intensive soil testing.

The farmers will also test a new tile water treatment system called a phosphorus removal bed. Water from tile lines is diverted into an edge-offield structure filled with material such steel slag or byproducts of drinking water residuals like alum to absorb phosphorus.

“We’re getting the scientific data on practices. That way farmers know if they’re going to spend money on something it will make a difference,” Heilers says.

The Nature Conservancy is working with the OFB on the demonstration farms, just one of several efforts the conservation group is taking part in to help farmers voluntarily improve water quality.

One practice being studied is the two-stage ditch. Basically, it’s an ag drainage ditch with a secondary level or bench several feet wide planted with vegetation to slow down and filter water.

Jessica D’Ambrosio, director of the conservancy’s Western Lake Erie Basin Agriculture Project, describes the practice as a ditch-in-a-ditch.

Studies from Purdue and Notre Dame universities show nitrate reductions of 5-25 percent. Phosphorus removal is still being determined.

“People all over the country are interested in this idea. It’s ideal for flat, drained landscapes and Iowa has a lot of that,” D’Ambrosio says. “It’s very promising.”

Carrie Vollmer-Sanders, nutrient strategy manager for The Nature Conservancy, says she continually hears within the environmental community and from others that voluntary efforts don’t work and regulation is the only way to solve problems.

She disagrees. Farmers throughout

Ohio and the Midwest will go above and beyond to improve water quality, test conservation practices and install them when the data shows they work.

“If you think about regulation, it’s setting a benchmark that people need to meet,” Vollmer-Sanders says.

“If you do a voluntary program that’s embraced, people often do more than the minimum.”

Put the Statelers in that camp. The family embraces conservation work.

They’ve installed 17 drainage water management control structures.

“We feel the biggest bang for the buck in nutrient management is water control,” says Kevin King, USDA Agricultural Research Service research leader. “If we can control the water, we think we can control the issue.”

Anthony says there’s too much at stake not to improve water quality and soil health.

“It’s really about farm preservation,” Anthony, a fifth-generation farmer, says.

“I plan on being here a long time with the kids — the sixth generation.”

I believe voluntary measures will always be the best. Farmers are more than willing to adopt practices that are scientifically based.”

LIBBY DAYTON, PH.D.

The Ohio State University soil scientist

A navigational map of Lake Erie lays on a table in Paul Pacholski’s fishing charter boat.

The average depth in the western basin of Lake Erie is only 24 feet deep.

FROM THE FIELD:

WHAT IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR COVER CROPS?

By Scott Nelson

E

stimates are that 625,000 cover crop acres were planted in the fall of 2016, up from 500,000 acres the year before. One question farmers often ask is what is the return on investment (ROI) for cover crops?

This is a difficult question to answer because every farm has unique soils and cropping systems. Furthermore, many studies on the long-term yield impacts of cover crops are in their infancy. Despite this current lack of knowledge, there are many known cover crop benefits that can affect ROI. The following highlights what currently is known regarding cover crops.

Reduction of soil erosion

On average, Iowa farms lose six tons of soil to erosion per acre per year. This loss of topsoil has dramatic consequences for future productivity.

Estimates on the value of top soil loss ranges from $7-20 an acre per year. This does not factor in the costs of lost land

value to erosion, which can range from this field reduced soil loss to 1.1 tons an 3 to 7 percent. acre in ISA estimates. Thus, the value Cover crops are an excellent practice of cover crops on erosion control alone to reduce wind and water erosion by ranged from $21-60 an acre depending providing cover and improved soil upon the value placed on lost topsoil. structure during the five to six-month Any calculation on ROI must fallow period in Iowa. consider the benefit of erosion control An interesting case study on the on future productivity. value of cover crops in reducing soil Effect on weeds erosion is found in an University research Iowa Soybean Association has shown well-managed (ISA) On-Farm NetworkÂŽ cover crops are equal to trial. In this study, the herbicides in the control On-Farm Network is of winter weeds such examining the long-term as marestail, henbit and benefits of cover crops on field pennycress. The soil health on a field with effects of cover crops on slope ranges from 2 to 15 Scott Nelson summer weeds is less percent. clear and depends upon Due to the extreme threat of soil loss in this field, the farmer management strategies. Research from the University of Missouri indicates no-tills a corn and soybean rotation.

Soil loss estimates for this field in no-till some suppression of summer weeds with cereal rye, but not equal to are 4.1 tons an acre as estimated by herbicide applications. Farmers need RUSSEL2. Inclusion of cover crops in

to evaluate the cost of cover crops compared to their herbicide application costs.

Soil compaction

Cover crops have been shown to alleviate compaction, but this reduction depends upon the species and management practices. Broadleaf cover crops with a deep tap root, such as radishes, have been shown to be equal to deep ripping, but these require a longer growing season in the fall and need to be seeded into the cash crop.

The improved soil health associated with cover crops creates an environment that is more stable for heavy equipment; although the ultimate solution to soil compaction is controlled traffic.

Soil water

ISA studies have shown soil under cover crops is drier in the spring. This can create situations conducive to

earlier and more favorable planting. Per ISA research, fields planted to cover crops have more soil water during the summer months. Due to improved soil structure, cover crops allow fields to absorb more rainfall and reduce runoff compared to non-cover crop fields. In years of summer drought this increase in soil water could lead to yield benefits for fields with cover crops.

Reduced nitrogen loss

It is estimated cover crops will reduce nitrate loading into the Mississippi River by 20 percent. Cover crops contribute to the state’s nutrient loss reduction strategy by scavenging and sequestering an average of 40 lbs nitrogen per acre that would have been lost to production.

Yield benefits

The On-Farm Network has measured yield responses to cover crops at 100

Figure 1. The yield advantage for cover crops vs. no cover crop for corn in On-Farm Network research.

locations across Iowa. In corn, the yield responses range from negative to positive with a small average yield improvement (Figure 1). In soybeans, cover crops have shown a small advantage with large variation in response across locations (Figure 2).

Reasons for the large yield variation in response to cover crops likely depended upon the experience of the farmer with cover crops and management such as time of termination, stand establishment and cover crop species in the trial.

ISA Research continues to conduct research on the profitability of cover crops. Cover crops have a clear and tangible benefit in reducing erosion and improving soil water. However, many of these benefits such as building organic matter and reducing compaction take time and multiple years of cover cropping. Cover cropping should be considered a long-term investment into your farms.

Figure 2. The yield advantage for cover crops vs. no cover crops for soybeans in On-Farm Network research.

UNCOVERING THE POTENTIAL OF COVER CROPS

By Michelle Jones

C

over crops have begun to blanket the countryside in recent years, but are they making a difference in water quality? Research results say yes.

In 2016, the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) Environmental Programs and Services (EPS) team looked at water quality data from fields with cover crops across the state and compared it to data from fields without cover crops. The analysis included different crops and management techniques, but separated by cover versus no cover. The dataset included 917 water samples from 117 fields

The long-term benefits far outweigh the cost.

No one is writing you a check for the cost of the rye grain.

I think eventually that ground will be way ahead of everybody else’s. ” —ARVIN VOS,

soybean and corn farmer from Pella, Iowa

without cover crops and 538 water samples from 63 fields with cover crops.

The results are in

Water monitoring data show fields with cover crops have approximately 29 percent lower nitrate concentration on average versus fields without cover, which supports the science in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. This translated to 40 percent fewer pounds of nitrate leaving fields with cover crops from April through August.

“We’re saving those nutrients in the field and preventing them from leaching

out through the tile lines,” says Adam Kiel, ISA operations manager of water resources. “Even more important is the most significant reductions occurs early in the year — April, May and June — which is the time of year we see the most nutrient loss.

“So not only are we seeing a good reduction in terms of concentration and pounds lost, but also we’re seeing it during the time of year when we most need it.”

Kiel says farmers want to see the data from their own fields and area, because it reinforces the practices

work locally. One farmer participating in ISA’s water monitoring program is Arvin Vos, a corn and soybean farmer from Pella. Vos has planted cover crops on all his 2,700 acres for the past four years.

Vos’s water monitoring data stands out. His average nitrate concentrations ranging from 3.3-8 mg/L (a mg/L is about one drop in 10 gallons of water) This compares to the statewide average of 15 mg/L. “All my nitrate results were very low — way lower than the South Skunk River which is about a mile away from where ISA is monitoring my tile outlets,” Vos says. “I’m very excited with the results coming out of the tile monitoring. If that’s the case all over the place, then that’s just tremendous.”

Additional benefits equal greater value

In addition to the water quality benefits of cover crops, Kiel and Vos say cover crops offer benefits to the farmer that other water quality practices may not.

For Vos, cover crops provide additional erosion control. Although he’s no-tilled corn and soybeans since 1993 and built terraces, Vos still experienced some erosion on steep hills until he planted cover crops.

“With this rye grain it’s really eliminated — I wouldn’t say it’s zero — but it’s stopped a lot of water,” Vos says. “I know the water is going down in the ground, because it’s not ending up by the intakes.”

In addition to erosion control, Vos has noticed improved weed suppression and expects to build his organic matter. He hopes to raise organic matter on his fields by onetenth each year.

“The long-term benefits far outweigh the cost,” Vos says. “No one is writing you a check for the cost of the rye grain. I think eventually that ground will be way ahead of everybody else’s.”

COVER CROP FACTS Planting cover crops for the first time can be a daunting task. Here are some quick tips from Iowa Learning Farms about getting started.

Seed

Farmers have several choices when it comes to cover crop seed. Prior to selecting seed, farmers should identify their goals for the cover crops. Will the cover crops be use for forage, to reduce weeds, to leave residue or another reason? The goals will impact seed choice. Another consideration is whether the crop is a winter-hardy or winter-kill variety. The winter-hardy varieties need to be terminated in the spring whereas the cold weather should terminate the winter-kill varieties. The Midwest Cover Crop Council has a Cover Crop Decision Tool on its website (http://mccc.msu.edu/).

Farmers can enter their location, cash crop, drainage information and goals to identify the best options to meet their needs.

• Winter-hardy: winter cereal rye, winter wheat and winter triticale • Winter-kill: oats, spring wheat, spring triticale, radish, turnip, mustard, crimson clover

ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 Planting

Planting is dependent on the location, seed type and seeding equipment. Iowa Learning Farms divides the state into three zones with different planting windows dependent upon location and winter hardiness of the selected cover crop (see map).

Latest planting date for optimal cover crop benefits:

Winter-hardy • Zone 1 — October 21 • Zone 2 — October 28 • Zone 3 — November 5 Winter-kill • Zone 1 — September 9 • Zone 2 — September 16 • Zone 3 — September 23 A variety of methods are available to seed cover crops, although the most popular in Iowa are drilling and aerial/ surface seeding.

• Drill — provides uniform seed depth and typically a more consistent stand • Aerial/High clearance sprayer (overseeding) — allows for earlier application and covers larger areas in a shorter amount of time

Termination

The timing of termination depends on the cash crops farmers intend to plant next. Farmers planting corn should terminate cover crops two weeks prior to planting. For fields going into soybeans, farmers can terminate near or directly following soybean planting. Termination methods include: • Herbicide • Mowing, chopping or roller crimpers • Tillage Farmers interested in trying cover crops on their operation can sign-up for multi-year cover crop trials and precision seeding cover crop trials through the ISA On-Farm Network and EPS teams.

To learn more about the return on investment from cover crops read “From the field: What is the return on investment for cover crops?” on pages 26-27 in this issue of the Iowa Soybean Review.

HARVARD REQUESTS

ISA WATER QUALITY EXPERTISE AT SENATE BRIEFING

By Easton Kuboushek

I

owa Soybean Association’s (ISA) expertise in watershed planning recently made its way to Washington, D.C., recently.

During a briefing organized by Attorney Jamie Konopacky of the Harvard Environmental Policy Initiative, Adam Kiel joined three expert panelists to discuss a new watershed planning GIS tool and databases, and examples of watershed planning. Staff from ten U.S. Senate offices attended the briefing. It is expected that the offices in attendance will play a key role in developing conservation policy in the next farm bill.

“You can have all the tools and technology in the world,” says Kiel, operations manager of water resources for ISA Environmental Programs and Services (EPS). “But if you don’t involve farmers in the conversation, it’s not going to go very far.”

Kiel’s expertise was requested

by Jamie Konopacky, fellow at the Harvard Environmental Policy Initiative.

Konopacky serves as the point person on watershed policy for the Initiative.

He works to incorporate watershed planning concepts from successful small-scale watershed projects on the ground and into sound local, state and federal policies.

“We identified an opportunity to incorporate more of a small-scale (HUC 12) watershed planning approach in federal conservation programs. We thought it was important to educate the congressional staff about new technology, successful projects and the coordination between the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) and the people implementing these successful projects,” says Konopacky. “In the lead up to the next farm bill, this information will help congressional staff explore opportunities to incorporate a smallscale watershed planning approach in the RCPP (Regional Conservation Partnership Program) and other conservation programs.”

Kiel was joined on a panel by Mark Tomer and Dave James with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service

(ARS). Also presenting was Dean Krehbiel, Kansas NRCS state resource conservationist. These panelists discussed the ARS’s new watershed planning tool and databases and how Kansas NRCS has worked on successful small-scale watershed planning projects.

They hope to stay engaged in similar efforts moving forward.

“I think the offices walked away with a better understanding of all three topics and are better equipped to have more in-depth conversations about how to catalyze additional successful small-scale watershed planning projects like those that ISA is working on,” Konopacky says.

Understanding the technology

The technology featured in the briefing was the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) developed by Tomer and James and Sarah Porter with USDA ARS. The program is used frequently and successfully by ISA EPS to outline

You can have all the tools and technology in the world. But if you don’t involve farmers in the conversation, it’s not going to go very far.”

—ADAM KIEL

operations manager of water resources, ISA Environmental Program and Services

menus of practices that farmers could use to develop and implement watershed plans.

“We wanted to make the case that this isn’t just a practice here or a practice there — these are highly integrated initiatives and directly connected to the farm bill,” says Kiel. “We’re hopeful they drew the connection that these programs exist.

Now, how do we better connect them with plans like this where farmers are coming together to develop goals for their watershed, but the resources aren’t quite there yet?”

Kiel has already received follow-up requests from congressional staff to plug into the work in Iowa, specifically the RCPP project in Cedar Rapids.

In the coming months, Konopacky will have additional conversations with congressional offices and other stakeholders on the benefits of taking a small-scale watershed approach when implementing conservation practices aimed at improving water quality.

How farmers can engage

“As important as it is for congress to involve farmers, it’s equally, if not more important, that farmers participate in these programs,” Kiel says. “Without participation, it’s tough to showcase and justify that these approaches work.

“We can talk about how great it is, but at the end of the day, if we don’t get farmer participation in the planning and implementation, it’s all for naught.”

There are several ways farmers can get involved in watershed planning and conservation. Here’s a short list to make things simple: 1. Contact Adam at 515.334.1022 akiel@iasoybeans.com 2. Attend a field day or watershed meeting in your area 3. Learn as much as you can on iasoybeans.com 4. Attend the ISA Farmer Research Conference Feb. 6-7, 2018 “Any way you can engage in the conversation is worthwhile and important,” Kiel says. “The key is to take action, even small, and align with the work that’s already happening in your watershed.”

When it comes to weed resistance, we’ve got you covered.

THE INDUSTRY LEADER When it comes to protecting yield in today’s farming environment, Beck’s is committed to the success of farmers. We believe that quality products are of utmost importance in the face of resistant weeds, which is why we continue to offer a variety of choices to control yield robbing, glyphosate resistant weeds. It’s not just about managing weed resistance now; it’s about managing it for future generations. And with multiple technologies available, there is only one company that can offer the right product for the right field, regardless of where it comes from.

BecksHybrids.com | 800.937.2325 LibertyLink® and the Water Droplet Design (reg,d) are trademarks of Bayer. Glyphosate herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Dicamba herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to dicamba.

Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® is a trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Not all dicamba Formulations are approved for in-crop use in all states.