Bedding and within-pen location effects on feedlot pen runoff quality using a rainfall simulator

Soluble salts, nutrients, and pathogenic bacteria in feedlot-pen runoff have the potential to cause pollution of the environment. A 2-yr study (1998-1999) was conducted at a beef cattle (Bos taurus) feedlot in southern Alberta, Canada, to determine the effect of bedding material [barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) straw versus wood chips] and within-pen location on the chemical and bacterial properties of pen-floor runoff. Runoff was generated with a portable rainfall simulator and analyzed for chemical content (nitrogen [N], phosphorus [P], soluble salts, electrical conductivity [EC], sodium adsorption ratio [SAR], dissolved oxygen [DO], and pH) and populations of three groups of bacteria (Escherichia coli, total coliforms, total aerobic heterotrophs at 27 degrees C) in 1998 and 1999. Bedding had a significant (P < or = 0.05) effect on NH4-N concentration and load in 1999, SO4 load in 1998, SO4 concentration and load in 1999, and total coliforms in both years; where these three variables were higher in wood than straw pens. Location had a significant effect on EC and concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), Na, K, SO4, and Cl in 1998, and total coliforms in both years. These seven variables were higher at the bedding pack than pen floor location, indicating that bedding packs were major reservoirs of TKN, soluble salts, and total coliforms. Significantly higher dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP), total P, and NH4-N concentrations and loads at the bedding pack location in wood pens in 1998, and a similar trend for TKN concentration in 1999, indicated that this bedding-location treatment was a greater source of nutrients to runoff than the other three bedding-location treatments. Bedding, location, and their interaction may therefore be a potential tool to manage nutrients, soluble salts, and bacteria in feedlot runoff.     

Threatened and Endangered Species: At What Cost? The Corps of Engineers Looks at Expenditures and Priorities

Current political conditions, primarily budgetary uncertainty, and the related reluctance to make funding commitments for future generations, have raised questions about the costs of conservation and environmental protection that have not previously been asked. As Federal investments are scrutinized and budgets become ever more constrained, the costs associated with environmental requirements could begin to be of greater importance and to influence decisions on Federal projects. In response to concerns about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) spending under the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) (ESA), a limited investigation was performed to determine the accuracy of reported Corps expenditures. The investigation showed that, for particular groups of species, actual conservation costs for threatened and endangered species may be twice the amounts previously reported in the annual ESA expenditure reporting to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In light of this finding, the Corps has sought a means to provide more accurate and consistent reporting of expenditures for addressing threatened and endangered species. A Species Costs Template (template) has been developed to identify the types and magnitude of costs related to the ESA and to counteract the impediments (legal, institutional, and practical) to underreporting costs. The template will be used by the Corps for reporting ESA costs beginning with Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) (reported in January 2006). Five broad categories of expenditures (effects determination costs, ESA protection and conservation costs, equipment costs, opportunity costs, and other species costs) are identified by the template.     

Evaluating farm performance using agri-environmental indicators: recent experiences for nitrogen management in The Netherlands

Intensive agriculture, characterized by high inputs, has serious implications on the environment. Monitoring and evaluation of projects aiming at designing, testing and applying more sustainable practices require instruments to asses agronomic as well as environmental performance. Guidelines for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) or Good Farming Practice (GFP) define sustainable practices but give limited insight into their environmental performance. Agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) provide information on environmental as well as agronomic performance, which allows them to serve as analytical instruments in research and provide thresholds for legislation purposes. Effective AEIs are quantifiable and scientifically sound, relevant, acceptable to target groups, easy to interpret and cost-effective. This paper discusses application of four AEIs for nitrogen (N) management in three Dutch research projects: 'De Marke', 'Cows and Opportunities' and 'Farming with a future'. 'De Marke' applied Nitrogen Surplus and Groundwater Nitrate Concentration in the design and testing of environmentally sound dairy systems. 'Cows and Opportunities', testing and disseminating dairy systems designed at 'De Marke', mainly applied Nitrogen Surplus, while 'Farming with a future' used Nitrogen Surplus, Groundwater Nitrate Concentration and Residual Mineral Soil Nitrogen to support arable farmers in complying with Dutch legislation (MINAS). Nitrogen Surplus is quantifiable, appealing and easy to interpret, but lacks scientific soundness or a good relationship with groundwater quality. Nitrogen Use Efficiency is sensitive to changes in management, while Residual Mineral Soil Nitrogen is appealing and cheap, but has difficulties in scaling. Groundwater Nitrate Concentration lacks clear rules for sampling, is labor consuming, expensive and mainly used in combination with other indicators. AEIs enhanced improvements in N management by facilitating (i) definition of project goals, (ii) design of desired systems, (iii) evaluation of applied systems and (iv) improving effective communication. AEI applications in other countries show a similar pattern as found in The Netherlands. Limitations to AEI application relate to inconsistencies between different indicators, heterogeneity of soil characteristics and linkages of N, carbon and water management. AEIs should be applied in an integrated evaluation, at a scale that reflects the farm's spatial variability. Simple AEIs like Nitrogen Surplus should be supported by other indicators and/or model calculations. The paper concludes that AEIs proved their value in design, implementation and testing of farming systems, but they should be used with care, always keeping in mind that indicators are simplifications of complex and variable processes.     

Ripping Improves Tree Survival and Growth on Unused Reclaimed Mined Lands

There is renewed interest in re-establishing trees on 0.6 million ha of mining-disturbed lands in the Appalachian mountains of Eastern United States. Many coal-mined lands reclaimed to meet requirements of US federal law have thick herbaceous vegetation and compacted soils which impede tree establishment. Mitigation practices were applied on three mine sites and evaluated for success in enabling planted trees to become established. Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids × Populus trichocarpa), and mixed Appalachian hardwoods were established using weed control only and weed control with subsoil ripping. Trees were measured in October of 2008 after 5 years of growth. Subsoil ripping increased mixed hardwood survival from 43 to 71 %, hybrid poplar biomass index from 1.51 to 8.97 Mg ha^?1, and Eastern white pine biomass index from 0.10 to 0.32 Mg ha^?1. When restoring trees to unused mined sites, subsoil ripping can aid survival and growth to an extent that will result in a valuable forest.