Gen AI in Business - Global Trends Report 2024.pdf
Sed 2 farm site and study design
1. Understanding Nutrient & Sediment Loss at Soaring Eagle Dairy - 2 Farm, Site and Study Design Dennis Frame and Eric Cooley UW Extension/Discovery Farms
2. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) Soaring Eagle Dairy is located 5 miles southeast of Newton or approximately 7 miles northwest of the village of Cleveland in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The dairy is owned by Jim and Sandie Fitzgerald; their three daughters, Kelly Goehring, Julie Maurer and Stacy Fitzgerald; and one son-in-law, Brian Goehring.
3. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) Since 1997 the farm has undergone several additional expansions, including a transition barn, another freestall barn and expanding the parlor to a double 16. The farm’s primary agricultural product is milk, with a small portion of the product base coming from the sale of cull cows.
4.
5. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) The farm is located in the Point Creek subwatershed and the Lake Michigan watershed. Land surrounding SED is mostly used for agricultural purposes, nearest residence is approximately 500 feet to the northwest.
6.
7. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) Approximately 1,120 acres of owned and rented cropland Applies nutrients in accordance with an approved phosphorus-based Nutrient Management Plan
8. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) Cropland is devoted to growing corn and alfalfa, both harvested as silage and stored in bunker silos. The typical crop rotation is two years of corn silage and three to four years of alfalfa.
9. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) Soil conditions and pH values are optimum for alfalfa production. The climate in northeastern Wisconsin includes an annual precipitation of 31 inches and a mean annual temperature of 45 degrees F.
10. Soaring Eagle Dairy (SED) Manure from all of the barns flows via a flume to a sand settling area. Sand is reused. The farm has at least 12 months of liquid storage, which are typically emptied once a year, during the fall.
11. Farm and site selection The selection criteria for this site included a strong emphasis on monitoring a relatively small watershed, so that the water quality data could be compared to data gathered from individual field sites.
12. Farm and site selection This was done in order to determine the accuracy of using field data to estimate losses on a watershed scale.
13. Farm and site selection Potential monitoring sites were evaluated based on the following: Watershed size Percent of cropland acres within the watershed managed by the cooperating farm Is the land representative of the local area, and does it provide getaway conditions Affect on the current farming practices Access to the site
14. Farm and site selection An ideal site would have all the land that contributes water into the monitoring equipment under the control of the cooperating producer in addition to a watershed size that was larger than 20 acres. While this is ideal, in the real world this rarely happens for larger, multi-field sites.
15. Farm and site selection There were several challenges to site selection for the small watershed farm. Many of the sites were very large, and the tillable land within these watersheds was operated by a number of different producers.
16.
17. Farm and site selection Existing Manitowoc County data showed that the 262 acre subwatershed located across the road from the facilities offered what appeared to be the best location for a multi-field study.
18. Farm and site selection This site had good field road access and was reasonably close to the highway. >70% of the land flowing into this intermittent stream was owned or rented by SED. The remaining 30% of the tillable acres were managed by just one other producer.
19.
20. Farm and site selection The site was selected to evaluate runoff in a slightly larger watershed and determine if our understanding of losses from a field site could be extrapolated to a larger scale.
21. Equipment installation The installation of surface water monitoring equipment began in late July 2004. The site was difficult to install because of the high amounts of soil moisture contained in and around the intermittent stream.
22. Equipment installation The waterway had inadequate getaway conditions due to the small slope (almost flat) downstream from the flume. Getaway condition refers to anything that prohibits water movement through and away from the flume or may increase the potential for water to pool in or near the flume.
23. Equipment installation We found inadequate getaway conditions to be a common landscape condition in Manitowoc County. An ideal monitoring site has adequate slope away from the equipment, allowing rapid water removal.
24. Equipment installation The installation was completed in late October 2004. First runoff event occurred in early December 2004. Equipment installation and sampling is outlined in SED – 3.
25. Surface water monitoring Data collection at SED began in December of 2004 and was conducted until October 26, 2006.
26.
27. There are six briefs available on SED (2 page summaries of the factsheets).
