Dollars from page I
the groundwater.

A key part of the “energy planta-
tion” part of the research is to
develop planting and harvesting
techniques that use standard farm and
forestry equipment.

Other Tree Planting Efforts

A number of farmers responded to
a Successful Farming Magazine Farm
ReLeaf survey and described other
tree planting efforts along creeks and
rivers.

For example, William Graff of
Middletown, Illinois, simply quit
mowing a riverbottom area, allowing
cottonwood and willow trees to
become established. “The trees are
excellent for stopping scour erosion
and slowing the water when the river
floods,” he reported.

Other farmers have planted grass
filter strips for a combination of
conservation and crop production
benefits. Dave Salomon, Churubusco,
Indiana, planted 30-foot grass filter
strips totalling 16 acres along drainage
ditches to improve the water quality
of cropland runoff and to provide
places to park trucks during harvest.
Brush control along the drainage
ditches is easier now that these areas
are in grass, he says.

New Ideas From Research
Filter strips are getting increased
attention for production of alternative
crops and enterprises. New research
and demonstration projects include a
mix of traditional and experimental

ideas, including:

Timber production. lowa State
University foresters are experimenting
with plantings that combine high-value
hardwoods, such as walnut and oak,
with grasses and fast-growing tree
species.

Horticulture products. Shrubs grown
on filter strip areas can provide
products for the floral industry,
according to Brian Miller, a Purdue
University extension wildlife specialist.

Miller is working with shrub
species which yield branches that are
valuable for their attractive bark color
and growth habits, including ninebark,
red-osier dogwood, nanking cherry,
and serviceberry. Some grow espe-
cially well in moist soils, such as
corkscrew willow and pussywillow.
Shrub plantings may provide an
economic return within two to three
years after establishment, Miller
believes.

Livestock forage. Purdue University
forage specialist Keith Johnson is
testing several forage species for use
on filter strips, including smooth
bromegrass, reed canarygrass, and
fescue—all in combimatien with
clovers.

Even for conventional com and
soybean farmers, cash crop production
of high-quality forage from filter strips
is possible, according to Johnson.
“There are people in north and central
Indiana who are doing this right
now,” he says.

Energy plantations. At Ron Risdal’s
farm in Iowa, a forestry team from
Towa State University is testing a
variety of fast-growing trees that can
be planted, managed, and harvested
with standard farm equipment.

In the system, the trees are har-
vested for energy production in four
to six years or left longer to produce
small dimension lumber. Harvested in
winter, species such as hybrid poplar
and silver maple vigorously resprout
in spring.

Source: Successful Farming Magazine, February,
1992; copyright Meredith Corporation

Where Trees Come From

According to a survey conducted by the USDA Forest Service and the
American Association of Nurserymen, more than 100 million trees are
produced annually by private nurseries for landscape purposes. Thi:

ts about 80 percent of all new landscape trees each year. Garden
centers distribute most of these trees (34 percent), followed by landscape
contractors (22 percent), wholesalers (20 percent), general
(16 percent), municipalities (4 percent), and others (4 percent). Broadleaf
and coniferous evergreens are the most popular type of tree, representing
37 percent of the total, followed by deciduous shade trees (31 percent),
deciduous flowering trees (24 percent), and fruit or nut trees (8 percent).

This

merchandisers

Source: Arbor Day, May/June, 1993

Windbreaks from page 3
have a positive NPV.

In addition to the benefits received
from increased yields, the value of
wind erosion control must be added to
the economic analysis. As a soil
erodes, its productivity is decreased
due to the loss of fine soil particles
containing organic matter and nutri-
ents. In many cases, these losses are
made up by the addition of fertilizer,
which increases crop production costs.
By controlling wind erosion, wind-
breaks limit long term losses in soil
productivity and reduces the need for
of these losses from wind erosion is
an added economic benefit following
the windbreak investment. Over the
life of a windbreak, wind erosion
control can increase the NPV of a
windbreak significantly.

Other benefits flow from wind-
breaks. These inchide energy conserva-
tion, snow control, livestock protection,
wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. Mea-
suring these types of benefits in the
economic analysis of windbreaks is
difficult. Dollar value is much harder
to assess and perhaps is best left to
the individual. From a societal point
of view, resource preservation for
future generations is important and
thus investments that conserve natural
resources for future productivity should
be encouraged.

If our world were one where wind
was only warm and gentle breezes,
there would be no need for wind-
breaks. However, people, livestock,
soils, crops, and wildlife know that
this is not true. That's why windbreaks
play such a vital economic and
environmental role in our society.

Great Plains from page I

GPI partners continue to reach out
to new groups that may want to know
about or be involved in the Great
Plains Initiative. Parmers met again in
May to discuss outcomes of the
symposium, develop next year’s
working plan, and prepare a report for
the Westem Govemors’ Association
that was given at its annual meeting
in June.

For more information regarding
GPI, contact Jo Clark or Patsy
Goodman at the Western Govemors’
Association at (303) 623-9378.



 Spotligl ht On Success | Colorado

Cold Water Fishery in Eastern Colorado Will Benefit from Riparian

Demonstration Area

Editors note: The Agroforestry Center is working with
numerous cooperators throughout the Great Plains to
establish demonstrations of needed agroforestry practices
under local conditions. This article illustrates the value the
demonstrations will have to cooperators and landowners.

The only cold water fishery in easter Colorado main-
tains a consistent flow throughout the year. Approximately
15 miles southwest of Wray, the spring-fed North Fork of
the Republican River originates.

Landowner Genova Deterding of Wray, agreed to work
with the Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Division
of Wildlife, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Yuma

A plum thicket planted adjacent to the river will enhance wildlife habitat.

County Soil Conservation District, and the Center for
Semiarid Agroforestry (CSA) to reestablish riparian vegeta-
tion along the river on a portion of her land.

The river has been periodically stocked with trout in the
past. However, its quality as a fishery has declined accord-
ing to landowners, local natural resource professionals, and
field observations. One of the most visible factors impact-
ing the habitat is the degradation of vegetation and bank
stability adjacent to the river channel. The main cause of
this is livestock activity.

Approximately 600 feet of river channel and an adjacent
four acres will be excluded from grazing. Once significant
vegetation is reestablished, low intensity grazing will be
introduced. As grazing continues on downstream pastures,
the impact of unmanaged grazing on the riparian zone
should be noticeably demonstrated. Phil Schwolert, Colorado
State Forest Service Assistant Staff Forester, feels that

4

livestock exclusion and managed grazing will provide
significant benefit to the riparian areas. Vegetation in the
fenced area has already begun to recover. The planted
material is meant to provide additional wildlife habitat.

Planted vegetation along the river consists of willow,
cottonwood, American plum, and Rocky Mountain juniper.
Once established the trees and shrubs will provide fish
cover, reduced water temperature, wildlife habitat, and
stream bank stabilization.

The site has great potential. It will not only serve as a
demonstration site for the Colorado State Forest Service and
CSA but it will show that livestock exclusion and managed
grazing can benefit both riparian
resources and landowners. Schwolert
plans to take photos each year to
document progress. He added that
he’s “encouraged about the future of
the project, especially since it’s the
first riparian demonstration site to be
established by the Forest Service in
the eastern plains.”

Alva Deterding, Genova's son,
would like to open the property up
as a recreational area sometime in
the future. It will be perfect for
camping, fishing, and hunting. Using
the property in this way will also
provide an added source of income
for Deterding.

Watch for more stories on demon-
stration and application projects in
future issues of Inside Agroforestry.

cE = ea Se
Vegetation has already begun to reestablish on eroded banks this spring
since livestock have been fenced out.



5

Filter strips help to reduce the level of sediment, crop nutrients, pesticides, and other chemicals introduced
into our surface water resources. Both wildlife and people benefit as a result of improved water quality.

Dollars From Filter Strips

Some farmers are finding there’s a
good alternative to hanging the planter
out over a streambank.

Trees and shrubs planted for pro-
tective cover along streams can filter
chemicals and sediment from cropland
tunoff, stabilize stream banks, provide
wildlife habitat, and serve as field
borders.

Adding Up The Benefits

A team that includes farmer Ron
Risdal, Story County, Iowa officials,
and a group of Iowa State University
researchers are studying how filter
strips can be managed as part of a
farm routine. Besides looking at the
environmental benefits of filter strips,
the group is also working to develop
economic enterprises that can compen-
sate farmers for the loss of land taken
from crop production.

The half-mile-long planting along a
creek on the Risdal farm includes
high-value hardwood species and fast-
growing trees that can be harvested
early for biofuel production. A strip
of switchgrass in the filter strip could

be utilized as a forage or processed to
provide energy.

The planting is 66 feet wide and is
testing several species of fast-growing
trees on the farm. The five rows
closest to the creek are poplar or
green ash, or a silver maple-black
walnut combination. The next two
rows of shrubs are red-osier dogwood
and ninebark. The outside edge of the
filter strip is a 24-foot wide switch-
grass planting. The cover is designed
to filter large quantities of surface
water, and the tree roots take up
Nutrients that could be leached into
——__—_____—— Sec Dollars on page 5

This _[ssue

roforestry

USDA Forest Service, Lincoln, Nebraska

Summer, 1993

Great Plains Initiative
Solves Problems

Federal, state, and local government
employees, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, and landowners have come
together to find solutions to some of
the environmental problems facing the
Great Plains.

Initiated in 1991, the Great Plains
Initiative (GPT) began as an effort to
safeguard the habitats of birds that
migrate between Mexico, Canada, and
the United States along the Central
Flyway. Since that time, GPI has
evolved into an innovative manage-
ment strategy geared toward ensuring
future ecological protection and
economic growth on the Great Plains
through voluntary, bottom-up problem
solving. It is a cooperative effort to
protect declining species and the
habitats that they rely on for survival
— before they reach endangered
status. The Initiative intends to
demonstrate, through cooperation rather
than conflict, that economic and
environmental interests are compatible.

The Great Plains Initiative working
group met in February to discuss
current efforts and future strategy. A
symposium was held in April that
brought together scientists and other
stakeholders to share current social,
economic, and ecological information
and to recommend solutions to the
region’s problems. Questionnaire-based
inventories of related projects under-
way in the Great Plains are currently
being analyzed to determine successful
efforts, productive methods and
techniques for management, and
potential pitfalls.
See Great Plains on page 5

TM@ Message from the manager...page 2

TM@ The economics of field windbreaks...page 3

®@ A new riparian demonstration area in Colorado...page 4

® Upcoming events you won't want to miss...page 6


Message From the Manager

focus energy and talent on a particular problem or need.
Conceptually, a Center should be integrated, be research-
driven, have a strong technology transfer and applications
component, and emphasize cooperative, partnership
efforts. These are all attributes that most people would
agree that we need more of. A Center is an excellent
way to make it all happen because it achieves its
mission through cooperation. The basic formula to create
a cooperative or partnership effort is to identify a need
or opportunity within the Center’s subject area, identify
appropriate cooperators and working partners, develop a
proposal, obtain the needed resources, and carry out the
work together. The credit goes to the team; the Center
is only the catalyst that helps make it happen.

The Center approach is ideally suited for agroforestry.
Agroforestry is a single subject area but has a broad
context where it can be applied. The need and opportu-
nity for agroforestry practices are almost overwhelming
when you give some thought to our definition of agro-
forestry: working trees in agroecosystems to provide tree
products and at the same time protect, conserve, diver-

A column of important events and programs
as reported by CSA Program Manager Bill Rietveld

What Is a "Center"?

A “Center” is one of the best mechanisms we have to _sify, and sustain vital economic, environmental, commu-

nity, and natural resources.
There is clear need for cooperation on fundamental

"The credit goes to the team;
the Center is only the catalyst that helped
make it happen."

long-term research to develop genetically improved multi-
purpose trees, as well as applied research and
applications projects to get the right tree in the right
place for the right purpose. Several multidisciplinary team
efforts have been organized since the Agroforestry Center
was implemented 18 months ago. Other teams and
partnerships are being formed. These will be featured in
future issues of Inside Agroforestry and in presentations
at various meetings.

Tree Pest Group Reformed

By Dr. Judy Pasek
USFS Rapid City Service Center, Forest Health
Management

The Great Plains Tree Pest Work-
shop (GPTPW) was established in
April, 1993 during a meeting in
Lincoln, Nebraska, attended by exten-
sion, regulatory, research, and pest
management personnel. The primary
purpose of GPTPW is to provide
information exchange among Great
Plains practitioners and researchers
concerning forest pest management
and tree health. This exchange will
facilitate the distribution of current
information on management of com-
mon Great Plains insect problems to -
Tesource professionals who then

transfer the information to landowners.

This new independent organization
will fill the void left by the dechar-
tered Pest Management Task Force of
the Great Plains Agricultural Council,
Forestry Committee.

2

The day and a half meeting drew
20 attendees from six states. Partici-
pants provided information on various
pest problems, projects, research, and
concems. Specific topics included:
pine tip moth impact and distribution
in the northem Great Plains; exotic
pest situations (gypsy moth, Japariese
beetle, and pine shoot beetle); research
on screening of elm hybrids and
poplar for insect, disease, or drought
resistance; Forest Inventory and
Analysis survey plans for North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Kansas; and creation of a regional
biological control project.

Ttems identified for further action
included: assembling a slide set that
portrays herbicide damage to a variety
of tree and shrub hosts; compiling
information about important herbicide/

host combinations; developing a list of
needs and priorities for biocontrol
work on trees in the Great Plains; and
updating an organizational mailing list.

If you would like to be added to
the GPTPW mailing list and receive
meeting minutes and announcements,
please send your name, address, and
phone number to: Carol Bell, USDA
Forest Service, Northem Region, P.O.
Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59801.
Questions pertaining to the GPTPW
organization can be directed to execu-
tive board members: Dr. Judy Pasek,
Past Chairperson, USFS, Rapid City,
SD, (605) 394-1960; Dr. Bill Jacobi,
Chairperson, Colorado State University,
(303) 491-6927; or Carol Bell, Secre-
tary/Treasurer, (406) 329-3428. The
next meeting is scheduled for spring,
1994 in Colorado.



Just How Economical Are Field Windbreaks Anyway?

By Jim Brandle
Associate Professor of Forestry, Windbreak
Research, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

When gusts of wind blow across
the plains, people aren't the only ones
who run for cover. Crops and animals
also welcome shelter and protection
from winter's biting blasts.

Luckily, some clever person devel-
oped the concept of windbreaks. Early
settlers on the Great Plains planted
both residential and farmstead wind-
breaks. Although the earliest plantings
were prompted by a general desire for
a forested landscape like those left
behind, these pioneers soon realized
that tree plantings did indeed protect
their farmsteads from unflagging
winds.

The status of today's agriculture
emphasizes the need not only to
protect farms and ranches from harsh
winds of the Great Plains but to
develop efficient and environmentally
sound production systems. For these
systems to be successful, one must
consider the relationship between input
and final production. Field windbreaks
can increase crop yields, increase
production efficiency for the producer,
and enhance environmental quality for
the benefit of society.

More specifically, windbreaks in an
agricultural setting reduce abrasion by
windblown soil and reduce risks
associated with drought. They improve
crop water-use efficiency, distribution
of irrigation water, and overall irriga-
tion efficiency. Windbreaks enhance
natural controls of crop insects,
provide wildlife habitat, and increase
biological diversity.

To accommodate modem farming
methods and equipment, narrow one-
and two-row field windbreaks have
been designed. These windbreaks,
when properly located, can provide
complete protection of a field while
utilizing as little as 5.5 percent of the
land area.

Research indicates that windbreaks
multiply wheat yields by an average of
15 percent; corn yields by 12 percent;
and soybean yields by 13 percent (see
Table 1). But, two questions remain:
Are windbreaks a sound economic
investment? Can the benefits of
increased crop yields and decreased
wind erosion compensate for the land
dedicated to windbreaks?

Economic profitability of windbreak
investments must be based on various
costs and benefits over time. Costs

and benefits include the value of
foregone production resulting from
land taken out of production. They
also consider anticipated yield in-
creases, the period for windbreak
maturation, and any alterations in the
cost of crop production due to the
windbreak.

The following research data uses a
net present value (NPV) of income
method to assess the economic viabil-
ity of a windbreak system. NPV
expresses the value of a windbreak
investment at some time in the future
in today's dollars.

Windbreak establishment costs vary

depending on local site conditions.
Landowners can spend as litle as
$0.286 per tree when using a 50
percent cost-share program which then
increases the net present value of the
investment. Typical establishment costs
run about $0.571 per tree but can be
as high as $2.28 per tree depending
on local conditions. However, analyses
indicate that these additional costs
have minimal effect on the break-even
yield level. Furthermore, a producer
could spend as much as $4.56 per
tree (enough to cover the cost of a
drip irrigation system) and still need
only a 10 percent yield increase to
——______—- See Windbreaks on page 5

Table 1: Relative Crop Response to Shelter
a

Source: J.Kort, Windbreak Symposium, 1986

Crop **Number of Field-Years Percent Increase
Spring Wheat 190 8
Winter Wheat 131 23
Barley 30 25
Oats 48 6
Com 209 12
Soybeans 17 13

**Field-Years - Number of fields sampled over number of years. Example: One field sampled over a
10 year period is 10 field-years and 10 fields sampled over one year period is also 10 field-years.

A field windbreak improves crop water-use efficiency, distribution of irrigation water, natural controls of crop

insects, provides wildlife habitat, and increases biological diversity.

3