The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: Bridging the Gap Between Station Research, the Producer, and the Consumer

J. POSNER [1],  L. CUNNINGHAM [2],  J. DOLL [1],  J. HALL [3],  D. MUELLER [4],  T. MULDER [1], R. SAXBY [5],  AND A. WOOD [6]

ABSTRACT

The growing public debate on the impact of agriculture on the environment presents new challenges to the agricultural community.  Not only is there little agreement on how to measure the environmental effects of agriculture, but in a polarized community there are few forums available for open discussion of these issues.  In addition, the adoption of practices that may have proven, long‑term positive effects, may not be possible in the current system which is dominated by short‑term economic concerns.

To address these issues, a coalition of interested farmers, researchers (State and non‑Governmental), and extension agents was formed at two sites in southern Wisconsin in 1989.  A cropping systems trial was designed that compares six different agricultural land management systems.  The systems range from high‑input continuous corn to intensive rotational grazing.  In the short‑term (4‑6 years), the trial will quantify some of the costs of adopting alternative production systems.  In the longer term (12‑16 years), the trial will identify the economic and environmental sustainability of each system.  The group anticipates, that the results of comparing production strategies would highlight "trade‑offs" rather than identify a "winner", so the debate engendered by the trial would be as important as the results themselves.

Therefore the group decided that the project should serve both as a source of research information on farming practices, as well as an agent to draw the community together in a common quest for a prosperous and environmentally sound agricultural sector.  Out of this effort to "close the gap" between research, producers, and the larger community, was born the concept of "Learning Centers" and the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST).  Toward achieving these goals, three types of field activities have been initiated: 1) a core cropping systems trial; 2) component‑specific satellite trials and environmental monitoring; and 3) on‑farm demonstration research and field surveys.  The accompanying educational program has focused on expanding the circle of producers that come to the Learning Centers for information, as well as attracting a new, non‑farm audience to the Centers.  To accomplish this, a wider range of technologies are being discussed at field days, field days for urban groups have been organized, and educational modules for students are under development.  It is felt that gradually these Centers will achieve the status of important, impartial, local sources of information on agro‑ecologically sound farming practices.   The combination of different occupations and political outlooks of the coalition has resulted in two county teams that are in unique positions to facilitate and guide the debate on the future directions of Wisconsin Agriculture.

I. INTRODUCTION

The growing public interest in the impact of agriculture on the environment presents new challenges to the agricultural community (Papendick et al. 1986).  For example, there is little agreement on how to measure the impact of agricultural systems on the environment.  Secondly, the issues of agricultural sustainability have polarized the community, making it difficult to find a neutral forum for open discussion (Youngberg, 1987), and finally, it is not clear that practices that may have long‑term positive environmental effects can be easily adopted by farmers in an economic system dominated by short‑term concerns (Dabbert and Madden 1986).  At its most extreme, the popular debate has pitted organic farmers against a cartel of agribuisness interests and the Land Grant Universities.  While one group sees the other as the agents of destruction of the rural environment, the other views its critics as modern‑day Luddites attempting to sabotage the most successful food production system ever developed.  On one side, testimonials appearing in popular farm magazines are considered "proof" that low input systems are better; for the other side, thirty‑five years of research data has shown conclusively that high input systems are both profitable and sustainable.

Initially, to address the issue of agricultural sustainability, a group of researchers decided to establish a long‑term trial investigating both the benefits and limitations of alternative production strategies.  It was felt however, that the development of sustainable land use systems was not only a research question, but also a political issue.  It was decided then, that the project should serve both as a source of research information on farming practices, as well as an agent to draw the community together in a common quest for a prosperous and environmentally sound agricultural sector.  These reflections on how to "close the gap" between research, producers, and the larger community greatly widened the scope of the trial and led to the inclusion of county extension personnel, a non‑profit organic farming research organization (The Michael Fields Agricultural Institute) and, most importantly, farmers themselves.  The concept of "Learning Centers" rather than simply "research trial" evolved from the first meetings of this expanded group.  It was decided that the Centers would comprise a cluster of activities, research and educational, that would be conducted both on‑site and on‑farm.  The clientele for these Centers would be the entire community, not just the agricultural sector.  Thus was born the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST) project.

This paper will discuss the first three years of the coalition's activities.  The team's organization will be described in Section II, in light of the three objectives: community control, clear impartiality, and high research standards.  Section III consists of a review of the on‑going research/demonstration program at the Learning Centers.

Emanating outward, this consists of the core rotation experiment, satellite trials and environmental monitoring, and on‑farm trials and  community surveys.  Section IV focuses on two of the objectives of the educational program: 1) expanding the audience of producers coming to the Centers; and 2) addressing an audience new to production agriculture.  In closing (Section V), we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses observed during this initial phase of the project.

II. TEAM ORGANIZATION

Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of the evolving organization of the coalition.  The Learning Centers are the two primary units in the project.  One Center is located in southeastern Wisconsin on the county farm at Walworth County (Lakeland Agricultural Complex) and the other, near Madison, at the University research farm in Columbia County (Arlington Research Station).  Physically the Centers are 60 to 100 acre fields where the core rotation experiment and satellite trials are being conducted.  In addition to agronomic reasons (soil type, rainfall, dominant cropping systems), these two sites were selected because of both farm superintendent's commitment to increasing the interaction of their institution with the local community.  In both cases, a County Committee of local citizens was constituted to manage the local Learning Center.  The County Agri‑business Agent was made committee chairman and selected three farmers and one high school Ag. Instructor to be members.  Completing the eight‑person committee are two researchers at each site.  A special effort was made to select farmers well respected in the community but with differing production strategies.  Each County Committee is autonomous and charged with managing all the activities at its Learning Center.  Their goal is to develop these sites into local sources of information on sound farming practices and forums for community debate.  In 1991 the project received a grant from the Kellogg Foundation and each committee now has its own budget.

Coordination and monitoring of all research activities is the task of the Steering Committee.  Here the presence of the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute agronomist is particularly important since he brings to the discussion a somewhat different agenda than the extension agents and University researchers.  This committee is made up of members from each County Committee helping to assure that research activities are integrated into each Learning Center's educational program.  An umbrella group for these committees is the WICST Advisory Board.  This group meets twice a year, and consists primarily of senior Extension Specialists and State Agency representatives.  They are both a quality check for the research conducted and an important user‑group for the information being generated at the Learning Centers.  They will ultimately make the results from the Learning Centers available state‑wide in their own training and outreach programs.

III. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

A. Establishing the Cropping Systems Experiment

The core of the agronomic sustainability argument is that increased biological diversity permits farming with fewer chemical inputs (Parr et al. 1983; Altieri 1984; Harwood 1984)).  Therefore the team wanted to design an experiment with a range of crop rotations, but one that would serve the needs of different members of the agricultural community.  An informal survey was conducted in the winter of 1989 and the results indicated the following:

a. Producers: primarily interested in yields, variable costs, labor and machinery requirements, and risks engendered by the alternative systems.  They expressed interest in "systems" analysis and would be more confident if the results came from field‑sized plots.

b. Agribusiness: primarily interested in the economics of input and machinery use and their effects on the environment.  They would want only Best Management Practices (BMP) applied.

c. Extension: primarily interested in good economic and environmental data that could be used in extension educational programs, as well as the possibility of developing educational  modules for new producers and youth (Future Farmers of America, elementry and high school students).

d. Policy Makers: interested in the interface between rural agriculture and the urban voter (e.g., food quality, agriculture and water quality), as well as the profitability of the agricultural sector in general.

e. Researchers: concerned with both the validity of the measurements (sampling procedures) and their interpretation.  The concerns of this group played a major role in the decisions to: 1) hold a uniformity year; 2) establish repetitions at each site; and, 3) select a full spectrum of rotations (e.g., continuous corn at one extreme, rotational grazing at the other).                             

Two themes dominated the discussion on defining the rotations for the core experiment.  One impulse was agro‑ecological and promoted focusing on underlying biological processes in agriculture, while the other, was more production‑oriented and wanted to compare a range of systems that would be feasible in today's market.

The WICST Advisory Board decided to construct the treatments to test the agro‑ecological hypothesis that increasing rotation complexity would permit less reliance on external inputs.  It was agreed to compare high external input systems (low plant diversity) with medium and low‑input (high plant diversity) systems.  The treatments would represent complete rotational strategies.  The alternative approach of looking at specific agronomic components (e.g., tillage options, weed control methods, sources of nutrients) within a limited number of rotations was rejected.  It was felt that the unique goal of measuring the productivity, profitability and environmental impact of different production systems, in collaboration with the farming community, required a comparison of entire system strategies, not just production techniques.

From the production viewpoint, came the decision to identify two different producer clients: cash grain and dairy farmers.  This decision was based on the belief that over the next 20 years there would be more and more agricultural specialization.  Cash grain production without access to manure or leguminous sod plow‑down was expected to increase.  By the same token, more and more dairy farms were expected to increase their stocking rates and therefore their need for quality forage and sound manure management plans.  Within each rotation, only high levels of management would be used, again based on the assumption that poor managers would be forced to abandon farming in the future.

The resulting treatment design was a factorial with three levels of biodiversity (or levels of external inputs), and two types of enterprises (cash grain and dairy), for a total of six rotations (see Table 1).  As can be seen in Table 2, the rotations represent a wide range of input levels, expected output levels and costs per acre (WICST First Report 1992).  For example, in continuous corn (R₁) while the anticipated output is fifty percent higher than in the low input cash grain system (R₃), the required energy (or cash) input is more than three hundred percent higher.

The Advisory Board projected that two types of analysis would be conducted with the rotation experiment data.  In the short‑run (4‑6 years), the focus of the analysis would be economic and would quantify some of the costs (foregone production) and benefits (lower variable costs) of adopting alternative production systems.  The Board realized that it was crucial that the County Committees be judged as "honest brokers" for this analysis to be useful.  It was particularly advantageous here to be working on a county farm where the labor and machinery complement were more similar to commercial farms than the University research station.  In addition, the farmer members of the County Committees met with the project economists to design the economic analysis format to be used on the trial (Klemme and Saupe, 1992).  The second type of analysis would take place after the trial had run for 12 to 16 years.  Based on the longer series of production and environmental monitoring data, the questions of the comparative sustainability of each system would be addressed.

Due to the decision to have field‑sized plots and the design which included 14 treatments (number of phases in the 6 rotations, see table 3) it became obvious that the trial would cover a large area.  Therefore in the summer of 1989, a uniformity year was conducted and both trial sites were planted to corn.  Intensive soil sampling took place and at harvest, a yield map was made.  This permitted efficient blocking of the trial.  It was decided that plots would be 0.83a at the Walworth County site (LAC) and 0.7a at the Columbia County (ARS) site and each would have four repetitions (Posner et al. 1990).

B. Satellite Trials and Environmental Monitoring

Satellite trials were initiated for two reasons: 1) to permit a continual upgrading of the agronomic practices used on the core rotation experiment; and, 2) to help farmers identify specific technologies that they could use on their farms.  During the first two years of the trial, a number of research activities have been initiated, funded primarily by Wisconsin State Agencies (Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection; Department of Natural Resources), research programs themselves, and recently by the Kellogg Foundation.  Table 4a lists the satellite projects and 4b the environmental monitoring projects.

 Several of the satellite trials have focused on alternative weed control methods including; 1) reduced herbicide rates; 2) mechanical weed control strategies; and, 3) the use of alleleopathy to suppress weed growth.  Preliminary results with corn and soybeans indicate that at least two rotary hoeings and two cultivations will be necessary if mechanically weeded fields are to produce approximately equal yields to those receiving recommended herbicide rates (Mulder and Doll, 1991).  Another issue addressed with satellite trials has been the screening of green manure species, looking at alternative establishment methods, and estimating their fertilizer replacement value.  It appears that spring seeded red clover in small grains and summer seeded hairy vetch after small grains can both contain above 125 lbs of nitrogen/a by the fall (Stute and Posner, 1992).  These trials complement the cropping systems trial as they make available to farmers current information on alternative production strategies.     

 A number of monitoring studies have also been initiated (Table 4b) and most are focusing on the impact of the different production systems on the biotic and abiotic components of the soil.  Litter‑dwelling arthropods, earthworms, nematodes, and weed seeds are being monitored, as well as changes in soil fertility, and physical characteristics (e.g., water stable aggregates, bulk density) as a function of crop rotation.  Additional studies are looking at rhyzosphere flora under continuous and rotated corn as well as a more general effort to define the microbiological components of soil health.  While the results from the satellite trials are already being highlighted during field days, the results of the environmental monitoring are still too preliminary to exploit directly.  Rather, we  are using them in the educational program to show visitors how the data is collected and to discuss with them the agro‑ecological principles underpinning the measurements.  For example, we expect a more varied and numerous fauna (e.g., earthworms, arthropods) in the systems that don't use chemicals, and include nitrogen‑rich plant residues.  These organisms play an important role in residue breakdown and nutrient cycling (House and Parmelee 1985).

C. On‑farm Demonstrations and Field Surveys

 Three types of research activities are taking place outside of the Learning Centers: 1) farmer‑initiated demonstration projects funded by the County Committee; 2) on‑farm research projects funded by outside sources; and 3) a community survey.  The demonstration trials have been designed by farmers and the results will be featured during field days and winter meetings.  The outside funded on‑farm projects include a case study of a dairy in transition to organic farming (Posner and Hall, 1992), and a network of farmers testing green manure technologies in small grains and processing crops (Mallory and Posner, 1992).  The case study complements the research/demonstration trials well, as it is a unique source of information on the effects of adopting a low input production strategy on whole‑farm finances and labor use.  The replicated on‑farm trials with green manures will furnish sufficient data for an extension publication.  As with the  demonstration trials, the findings from these more formal research efforts also feed into the Center‑based field days and education program.

In addition to the considerable amount of effort going into developing production technologies and environmental monitoring, the project is conducting research on local community members knowledge base, attitudes, and perceptions of others with different production philosophies.  A field survey, to be conducted twice at a four year interval, has been through the pre‑test phase (Bacaltchuk, 1992).  Fifty active members of the agricultural community (producers, educators, input suppliers, agency representatives) in each of the two counties will be interviewed.  They will serve, not only as "subjects" in the survey, but also as "outside auditors" to the project.  Our intention is to invite these people to participate in the WICST activities (field days, educational programs), and see if four years later, we have achieved our goals of increasing their understanding about the impact of agriculture on the environment, as well as providing them with the opportunity to change their perceptions about other members of the agricultural community.  Specific questions about how to improve the project, during the second cycle of interviews, will also be asked.

IV. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

The educational program is still at a stage of developing public awareness of the existance of the project as the Learning Centers are being established.  To date, the primary field activities have been organized tours, field days, small group discussions and one‑on‑one exchanges.  A special effort has been made to introduce the project to the local community and visits have been organized, for example, with the Audubon Society, State Agency representatives, student groups, agricultural advocacy groups (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; National Farmers Organization), and community business leaders (input dealers, crop consultants).  In each case the objective has been to introduce the concepts of agro‑ecology and explain the project's greater goal‑ that the Learning Centers will serve as a forum for the debate on what direction agriculture should take in the twenty‑first century.

Field days have been oriented around production questions.  Technologies that have been highlighted to date include, rotational grazing, green manuring, aerial seeding of wheat over soybeans, mechanical weed control, and reduced herbicide rates on corn and soybeans.  Two improved approaches taken by the project are including farmers as presenters at field days, and abandoning the "tour" format for an "a la carte" system with shuttle buses.  In this latter program, presenters stay at their stations (i.e., rotational grazing plots; green manure plow‑down plots) and participants visit and discuss issues at their own pace.  The basic premise is to allow the event participants to be in control, which fosters an atmosphere much more conducive to interaction and a personal feeling of involvement.

 In keeping with the Learning Center concept, the project is also developing educational modules with local Elementary and Middle Schools.  In the case of the former, an "Agriculture Awareness" unit has been designed by the Walworth County Extension Agent and five fourth grade teachers.  It is anticipated that this unit, which culminates in a visit to the Learning Center, will be made available to all the county schools.  At the Middle School level (6th and 7th grades) two             teachers are designing a lab experiment that shows the effect different types of fertilizer additions have on the quality of water leaching through a soil column.  In conjunction with the lab experiment, a third teacher is developing a unit in social studies discussing how agricultural practices affected ancient civilizations (salinization in Mesopotamia, erosion in Central America).  In addition to the work already initiated, each of the research programs at the Learning Centers have  an educational component.  It is anticipated that over the next two years a number of additional units will be  developed.

V. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

The WICST project was initiated three and a half years ago.  During that time it has grown both in breadth and depth, allowing coalition members to learn to work and develop new ideas together.  During the first summer, corn was grown on the two trial sites (the uniformity year), so coalition activities were at a minimum.  In year two, only some of the rotation plots were started, so there was time to begin planning the satellite trials.  In year three, the team was able to continue the core experiment and satellite trials, as well as initiate on‑farm trials.  During the past six months, new initiatives with area teachers have begun.  The practice of not taking on new responsibilities until old ones have become routine, has slowed progress but helped to strengthen the team.

The coalition is made up of people with different professions and philosophies.  The mix of producers, educators (extension agents, VoAg instructors), farm superintendents, and researchers is making it possible for the Learning Centers to reach their potential and at the same time provide a unique opportunity for professional development of the participants.  While general discussion precedes every action, work is then delegated.  Field management at the Learning Centers is obviously in the hands of the farm superintendents, field days and educational programs are managed by the extension agents, and research activities are coordinated by the Michael Fields and University agronomists.  Everyone is included in the educational and on‑farm demonstration programs.  Enriching this mix of professions is the different production philosophies of the team members.  All proposed satellite trials, environmental monitoring studies, and on‑farm demonstrations must be approved by the County Committees.  In each case this process has resulted in an improved proposal, more relevant to local production concerns and with an increased educational component.                 

While the project is off to a good start, there are no illusions about the challenges that lie ahead.  To some members of the community for example, "Sustainable Agriculture" is equivalent to only "sustaining themselves" and they want much more from farming, while to others it is a route to salvation.  To the majority however, the term is unfamiliar.  It will take time for the Learning Centers to earn a reputation as a local source of pertinant, impartial information.  The Centers are nevertheless, in a unique position to close the gap between researchers, producers and consumers and to help chart agriculture's future in Wisconsin.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altieri, M. A. 1984.  Diversification of agricultural landscapes‑A vital element for pest control in sustainable agriculture. Pages 166‑184 in T. C. Edens, C. Fridgen, and S. Battenfield, ed., Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems: A Conference Proceeding. East Lansing, MI.: Michigan State University Press.

Bacaltchuk, B. 1992.  Wisconsin integrated cropping systems trial: An evaluation strategy. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation proposal. Agricultural Journalism Department, University of Wisconsin‑Madison.

Dabbert, S. and P. Madden. 1986.  The transition to organic agriculture: A multi‑year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. Alternative Agriculture 1 (3):99‑107.

Harwood, R. 1984.  The integration efficiencies of cropping systems. Pages 64‑75 in T. C. Edens, C. Fridgen, and S. Battenfield, ed., Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems: A Conference Proceeding. East Lansing, MI.: Michigan State University Press.

 House, G. J. and R. W. Parmelee. 1985.  Comparison of soil arthropods and earthworms from conventional and no‑tillage agroecosystems. Soil tillage Research 5: 351‑360.

Klemme, R. and W. Saupe. 1992.  Appendix VIII‑ Making the economic analysis of the WICST useful. Pages 116‑119 in The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: First Report (1989‑1991). Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin‑Madison.

Mallory, E. and J. Posner. 1992.  Adding a cover crop to cash grain rotations in southern Wisconsin :First quarterly report.  Presented to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Unpublished report. Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin‑Madison.

Mulder, T. and J. Doll. 1991.  Best management practices for corn weed control. American society of Agronomy Annual Meetings, Oct. 27‑Nov. 1, Denver, CO.  Abstracts p 155.

Papendick, R. I., L. F. Elliot, and R. B. Dahlgren. 1986.  Environmental consequences of modern production agriculture: How can alternative agriculture address these issues and concerns?. Alternative Agriculture 1 (1): 3‑11.

Parr, J. F. ,R. I. Papendick, and I. G. Youngberg. 1983.  Organic farming in the United States: Principles and perspectives. Agro‑Ecosystems 8:183‑201.

Posner, J. L., M. D. Casler, K. McSweeney, and D. Savory. 1990. Conducting "real world" agronomic research on‑station, planning the Wisconsin cropping systems trial. Invited paper at American Society of Agronomy Annual Meetings, Oct. 21‑26, San Antonio, Tx. Abstracts p 29

Posner, J. L. and J. Hall. 1992.  The Krusenbaum Report (1990 and 1991) submitted to the North‑Central Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Education (SARE) Committee. Unpublished report. Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin‑Madison.

Stute, J. and J. L. Posner. 1992. Legume covercrops as an N source for corn in a two year oat‑corn rotation. American Society of Agronomy Annual Meetings, Oct. 21‑26, Minneapolis, Mn. Agronomy Abstracts.

The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: First Report (1989‑1991). 1992. Unpublished project report. Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin‑Madison. 119pp

Youngberg, I. G. 1987.  Moving from yesterday's agricultural technology: Alternative farming systems in perspective. Pages 53‑63 in D. Hadwger and W. Browne, ed., Public Policy and Agricultural Technology: Adversity Despite Achievement. New York: St. Martin's Press.

 Table 1. Description of the crop rotations in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial.

Cash Grain Rotations:  These rotations are required to produce a cash crop each year and have no access to manure.  Farm size was estimated at 500 acres and the equipment was dimensioned accordingly (e.g., 6 row planter).

                 R₁ Continuous corn for grain.  Cereal monocropping will require the addition of substantial amounts of inputs to maintain soil fertility and control weeds.  Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be employed.

                 R₂ Drilled soybean‑corn.  A more complex rotation than the first, this rotation will benefit from reduced nitrogen inputs and soil insecticides.  Weeds will be controlled chemically.  Best Management Practices (BMP's) are to be employed in this two year rotation.

                 R₃ Row soybeans/winter wheat‑wheat/red clover‑corn.  Corn is planted only one year in three in this rotation.  The use of a green manure crop, in addition to soybeans, will limit the need for additional nitrogen.   Phosphorous and potassium will be mined from the soil since no fertilizer will be applied.  All weed control will be done mechanically, but it is expected that the vegetative cover supplied by the winter small grain and red clover for 18 months of this 36 month rotation will help keep weed pressures low.

Dairy Rotations:  These rotations are required to produce quality forage, and receive the equivalent of 10 ton/a/yr of manure.  This rate is based on a stocking density of one cow plus replacement per three tillable acres.  In the two haying systems, the manure is concentrated in the fall of the final sod year and the fall of the corn year.  In the grazing system, the manure will be deposited directly on the plots.  Farm size was estimated at 250 acres and the equipment dimensioned accordingly (e.g., 4 row planter).

                 R₄ "Green gold" alfalfa rotation (a‑a‑a^*‑c^*).  This rotation does not use a companion crop to establish the alfalfa but rather a herbicide.  An intensive cutting schedule (4x‑5x/yr) and top dressing with potassium fertilizer should result in excellent yields of high quality hay.  In the forth year, the stand is plowed under and corn is grown using BMP's.  Twenty tons of dairy manure will be added to the system at the two points indicated by the asteriks.

                 R₅ "Rapid turnaround" alfalfa rotation (o/a‑a^*‑c^*).  In this system the interaction between legumes and grasses is increased.  The alfalfa is companion planted with oats which removes the need for a seeding year herbicide.  Also, there is only one hay year, reducing the probability of quackgrass infestation.  The corn year is conducted without herbicide or fertilizer.  Fifteen tons of dairy manure is added to the system at the two points indicated by the asteriks.

                 R₆ "Intensive grazing" (brome/orchard/red clover).  This treatment has two 400 pound heifers on each plot for approximately 150 days/year.  Paddock production, complemented with fed hay and concentrate will focus on maintaining an average 1.8 lb/day weight gain.  The simultaneous occurrence of grasses, legumes, and animals on the plots, makes this the most diverse rotation of the six.  It is anticipated that the pasture will be renovated with red clover every three years.

Table 2.  Soil Characteristics at the Trial Site.

                                                                                                Area of                       Percent             Mean depth            Mean depth                                    Yield potential²             

   Mapping                    Mapping            Drainage              similar soils                experimental              to till                   to mottles             Corn      Soybean       Wheat      Alfalfa

    Unit                            symbol                 class               MLRA 95 B¹                     Area                      (in)                          (in)                   bu/a          bu/a            bu/a        t dm/a

A. Lakeland Agricultural Complex

   Griswold                        Gw A                somewhat           137,625                          63                         35                           20                     150           50               45             5.1

   Mottled Subsoil                                       poorly

                                                                    drained

   Pella                               Ph                      poorly                 138,965                         32                         54                           12                     150           50                --             4.0

                                                                    drained

   Griswold                        Gw B                well                                                              5                         10                           36                     115           38               42             4.4

                                                                    drained

                                                                                                460,609

B. Arlington Research Station

   Plano                              Pn A                  well                                                          100                         55                           34                     160           53               56             5.8

                                                                    drained

¹  Calculated by D. Roberts, SCS, Beaver Dam.

²  Soil Conservation Service, 1990 "Productivity of Wisconsin Soils" mimeo.

Table 3. Treatment array in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial.

Year

Rot    Tmt  1989   1990   1991   1992   1993   1994   1995   1996   1997   1998

ation  No.

R1     1  C*          C           C         C            C           C           C           C            C           C

________________________________________________________________________________

R2     2  C*          Sb         C         Sb          C           Sb         C           Sb          C           Sb

       3     C*          C*         Sb       C            Sb         C           Sb         C            Sb         C

________________________________________________________________________________

       4     C*          Sb         W/cl     C            Sb         W/cl      C           Sb          W/cl      C

R3     5  C*          C*         Sb       W/cl        C           Sb         W/cl      C            Sb         W/cl

       6     C*          C*         C*        Sb          W/cl      C           Sb         W/cl        C           Sb

_________________________________________________________________________________

       7     C*          a           a          a             C           a           a           a             C           a

       8     C*          C*         a          a             a           C           a           a             C           C

R4

       9     C*          C*         C*        a             a           a           C           a             a           a

      10    C*          C*         C*        C*           a           a           a           C            a           a

_________________________________________________________________________________

      11    C*          o/a        a          C            o/a        a           C           o/a          a           C

R5    12 C*          C*         o/a       a             C           o/a        a           C            o/a        a

      13    C*          C*         C*        o/a          a           C           o/a        a             C           o/a

_________________________________________________________________________________

R6    14 C*          past      P         P            P           P           P           P            P           P

 ________________________________________________________________________________

       uniformity

         year    ‑‑staggered start‑‑‑

                 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ initial cycle ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

                          ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 2nd cycle ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

                                            ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 3rd cycle ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

C*     background corn

W/cl   wheat and red clover

a      sole seeded alfalfa and alfalfa hay years

o/a    oats companion seeded with alfalfa

past   orchard‑bromegrass‑red clover pasture

Table 4. List of satellite trials and environmental monitoring studies on the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial.

A. Satellite Trials

               Reduced herbicide rate trials for corn and soybeans.

               Mechanical weed control systems for corn.

               Alleleopathic effects of winter rye in soybean weed control.

               Mechanical guidance systems for weed control in soybeans.

               Timing of aerial seeding of wheat in soybean studies.

               Screening of green manure crops in cash grain systems.

               Alternative methods of summer seeding green manure crops.

               Primary tillage alternatives for a corn‑soybean rotation.

B. Environmental Monitoring Studies

               Earthworm densities on the cropping systems trial

               Evolution of weed seed numbers as a function of crop rotation.

               Leaf hopper dynamics in sole and companion seeded alfalfa.

               Soil fertility and phosphorous and potassium nutrient budgets as a

               function of crop rotation.

               Fall nitrate levels under alternative corn‑based cropping systems.

               Breakthrough times and groundwater monitoring on WICST.

               Census of litter‑dwelling arthropods under corn in different cropping

               systems

               Census of nematodes under corn in different cropping systems.

               Biological and physical parameters of soil health.

               Corn root health as a function of rotation.

1. Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI. 53706.

2. Agri‑business, UW‑Extension, Walworth Co., Elkhorn, WI. 53121.

3. Agronomist, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, East Troy, WI. 53120.

4. Superintendent, Arlington Research Station, Arlington, WI. 53911.

5. Crop and Livestock Agent, UW‑Extension, Columbia Co., Portage, WI. 53901.

6. Superintendent, Lakeland Agricultural Complex, Box 1007, Elkhorn WI. 53121.

Home | Who we are | Research | Publications | Links | Site map | Contact us

University of Wisconsin-Madison
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
If you have any difficulty accessing this page, please contact our web master.

Site hosted by UW-Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems