Agroforestry

Windbreaks are by far the most common agroforestry 

practice in the U.S. But, as you will read in this issue, 

windbreaks are utilized in many uncommon ways.

see SOUTH CAROLINA on page 7

Spring 2003

Inside 

3

BELIEVE IT OR NOT:

REASONS FOR

NOT PLANTING

WINDBREAKS

Windbreaks

transform South

Carolina county

IT’S IN

THE

GROUND

MULTI-TASKING IN 5 MASSACHUSSETTS

6

Bruce Wight

NAC NRCS Agroforester 

Lincoln, Nebraska

Clouds of dust and blowing soil are usually associated with the Great Plains Dust

Bowl of the 1930's and not the coastal plain

of South Carolina. However, the mid-1960's

saw significant dust storms on the sandy

soils in Marlboro County in northeastern

South Carolina. "In the past, this area was

considered a garden spot with above average

land values and cotton growers who won

production contests. But, homeowners started complaining about the 'dust and grit' in

their houses and damage to their paint from

sandblasting," according to 'Bunny'

Anderson, District Conservationist (retired)

with the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS). The blowing soil was also

damaging the cotton crop.

This map, circa 1967, details the Hebron

Community-wide windbreak plan.

Approximately 55 landowners set pine

windbreaks to protect 3500 acres.

National

Agroforestry

Center

[
These windbreaks primarily are installed for the

following purposes:

• Field protection

• Farmstead and Feedlot protection

• Screens (Primarily for dairies - system also 

installed for odor control)

• Living snowfences (Primarily for roadway 

protection)

One notable living snowfence is being installed

along Interstate 84 east of Burley, Idaho in the spring

of 2003. This new 2.1-mile living snowfence is replacing the living snowfence windbreak installed years

earlier to protect this highway from blowing

snow in the winter and blowing dust during

spring periods.

Windbreak applications are

widespread and varied

NAC Director’s Corner

A commentary on the status of agroforestry by NAC Director, Dr. Greg Ruark

2 Inside Agroforestry | Spring 2003

I

n the United States, windbreaks have been recognized for

their ability to help control soil erosion since the Dust Bowl

days of the 1930s. Today, windbreaks are still commonly planted and maintained on agricultural lands in the Central and Great

Plains. What is less obvious is how widespread their application

has become nationally. This issue of Inside Agroforestry highlights

some of these examples. In the Southeast, windbreaks are being

used in a coordinated fashion in one county to control wind

erosion of sandy soils and protect crops and homes from being

sandblasted. In the Northwest, "living snowfences" are being

used to keep roads, communities, and farmyards free of drifting

snow. In the Northeast, many types of specialty forest products

are being grown in association with windbreak plantings. In

Puerto Rico, windbreaks have been shown to improve pollination efforts by honey bees that would otherwise struggle against

strong winds. In Hawaii, most agricultural crops need protection

from the prevailing trade winds that constantly challenge the

islands. Although windbreaks frequently provide multiple benefits, there are situations, like native grasslands, where tree planting may not be appropriate. Consequently, we asked a grassland

ecologist to discuss situations when tree planting needs to be

carefully thought out and, in fact, may not always be a

good thing.

Idaho has an aggressive technology transfer program including training (commonly one-day sessions)

and the development of technical information to

ensure proper planning and installation of windbreak

systems.

According to the NRCS reporting system (PRMS)

in the past three years, Idaho has been averaging

approximately 265,000 feet (50 miles) of windbreak

annually.

Most windbreaks being installed in Idaho involve

cost-share under the continuous signup of the

Conservation Reserve Program. Other cost sharing

opportunities are also utilized through the EQIP and

WHIP programs. 

Growing training program, 

growing windbreaks

Dan Ogle

NRCS Plant Materials Specialist 

Boise, Idaho Here, a living

snowfence (lower left 

corner of photo) keeps

snow from drifting

over the primary

access highway to a

community, which

increases driving 

safety and lowers snow

removal costs. Living

snowfences can also be

designed to 

distribute snow evenly

across a field, 

increasing available

spring soil moisture.

Idaho has been 

averaging approximately

265,000 feet (50 miles) of

windbreak annually.

“

”
Spring 2003 | Inside Agroforestry 3

Dr. David Wedin

Associate Professor of Natural Resources

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Why not to plant trees

To many people, tree planting is an inherently good activity.

In a speech given in 1900, the famous Nebraska botanist Charles

Bessey said, “We have to preach the crusade of filling up this state

with trees, and to do that we must plant trees, and plant trees, and

plant trees”. Why should we plant trees? A common answer is

“Why not?! It’s the right thing to do”. As a grassland ecologist, I

will play the role of scrooge and skeptic. Here are some reasons

not to plant trees: 

Unintended microclimate impacts. You may have the bitter

cold days of January in mind when designing a windbreak for a

livestock operation, but the increased heat load of still air and high

humidity on livestock in a feedlot surrounded by trees in August

may be more costly than winter cold. Know prevailing wind directions. Do they differ by season? Other unintended consequences

of overly dense or poorly placed plantings may include

early frosts, deep snowbanks, wet spring soils, etc.

Riparian messes. Once mature, trees along stream

banks may fall into streams, disrupting water flow and creating maintenance headaches. It may be better to plant

shrubs along streams, with trees set far enough back

from the bank to prevent problems.

Evapotranspiration. There are well-documented cases in semi-arid regions (for example,

Australia and South Africa) where extensive

plantings of aggressive exotic tree species have

significantly decreased local and regional water

tables. In the American Southwest, the expansion of tamarisk along streams has led to

decreased stream flow. These cases generally

involve intentional or unintentional afforestation, where the land cover of an entire landscape has been altered in an increasingly waterscarce world. Will the types of practices used

in agroforestry, such as riparian forest buffers,

have a hidden “cost” in terms of lost water on

some sites? 

Soil impoverishment. A recent soils textbook has a chapter entitled “how forests attack soils”. It is well documented

that conifers, pines in particular, can alter soil properties compared

to grasslands and deciduous woodlands. Responses can include

decreased soil organic matter, decreased pH, and the leaching of

base cations such as calcium. Most of the “trees are bad for soils”

examples come from afforestation with conifers. Are these cases

relevant to agroforestry plantings, which are usually very limited in

size? Should soil health issues be addressed when planning agroforestry practices? 

Destroyed grassland habitat. Many agroforestry practices

create woody edges in otherwise open landscapes, and, as a result,

change how wildlife use that landscape. In an intensively farmed

and wildlife-impoverished landscape, the increase in “edge”

wildlife species, such as cottontail rabbits and deer, associated with

windbreaks are seen as positive. However, edge wildlife species

also include infamous nest predators including foxes, raccoons,

skunks, opossums, jays and crows. One group of wildlife that does

not appear to benefit from agroforestry practices is obligate grassland species, particularly birds, but also mammals and insects, that

require large intact blocks of open habitat. As one who is passionate about protecting grassland biodiversity, do I object to all agroforestry practices? No. It depends on landscape context. Here in

Southeast Nebraska there are only a few areas remaining where

large blocks of open grassland exist (>640 acres). The area has

largely been converted to human habitat: row crop agriculture and

urban development. Tree planting and agroforestry practices in

these situations should probably be tailored primarily to economic

and aesthetic needs.

Invasive trees and shrubs. An Oklahoma study estimates that

over 9 million acres have been taken over by expanding juniper

species. In other cases, non-native shrubs such as multiflora rose,

buckthorn and various honeysuckles have expanded into native

woodlands and choked out the native understory. If these species

are used in an agroforestry project, their invasive nature will

cause them to spread and cause problems elsewhere on the

landscape. 

Loss of open landscapes. I have discussed the need to

maintain open landscapes in particular regions where

native grassland biodiversity is threatened. On the

other hand, an “open” landscape may be desirable on

aesthetic and cultural grounds. The introduction of

conifer plantations into the vast, heather-covered

moors of Scotland, northern England and Wales

is frowned upon by many as breaking up historically and culturally important vistas. Do similar

historically open landscapes exist in the US (for

example, Civil War battlefields). Is this even a

priority in our young, ever-changing American

landscape?

* * *

Perhaps, I have reinforced a point already emphasized

many times. Any agroforestry project should incorporate a well

thought-out plan that takes into consideration both negative,

as well as positive, consequences. Is the project cost-effective? Will

it have the desired outcomes for the landowner? Could the project

have significant negative hydrologic or soils impacts? Will it use

appropriate plant materials and not aggravate problems with invasive plants? Will it enhance the natural biodiversity of the area, or

might it, in some situations, further threaten imperiled plant, animal or insect species that require open habitats? And finally, will

the project be detrimental to the surrounding landscape either economically or aesthetically? If those questions can be

addressed for a tree-skeptic like me, it’s probably a great

project.

[
etable growers, are planting only in-field

windbreaks.

“Tropic Coral” tall erythrina (Erythrina

variegata) is a rapidly growing, columnar,

leguminous tree that can reach a height of

40 feet in approximately four years from an

unrooted cutting. It is popular with farmers

and it is basically a low elevation tree. It

does well from sea level to 1,000 feet but

grows best below 500 feet. The sterile

hybrids of sorghum-sudangrass and forage

sorghum (Sorghum spp.) are widely used as

in-field windbreaks. They grow 6 to 7 feet

tall in about two months and are adapted

from sea level to approximately 3,000 feet.

If cut back to a height of 12 inches each

year, fertilized and irrigated, as needed, they

will last for about three years. They can be

replanted as often as needed.

Windbreak needs expressed by growers,

extension agents, and others include trees

with a growth habit similar to Tropic Coral

that will grow at higher elevations. Crops

are grown up to approximately 4,000 feet in

Hawaii. There is also increasing interest in

native species if they are wind tolerant, easily established, and reasonably fast growing

native plants can be found. Other growers,

especially those with small farms, prefer

windbreaks that have multiple uses.

Examples of these are neem (Azadirachta

indica) which contains the natural insecticide azadirachtin and “Santa Catarina Prata”

dwarf Brazilian banana (Musa balbisiana)

that produces a commercial quality

dessert banana.

Hawaii is located in the high tropics

where the trade winds blow 250 days or

more each year. These winds are from the

northeast and average 8 to 20 miles per

hour with occasional gusts of over 40 miles

per hour. Storm winds may blow from

other directions at any season, but most

often in the winter. Gusts from these winds

may reach 80 miles per hour, causing considerable damage to agricultural crops.

The need for windbreaks has increased

in recent years with the conversion of many

acres of agricultural land from sugar cane

and pineapple to vegetable and hybrid corn

seed crops. Sugar cane and pineapple can be

produced successfully without windbreaks

but most other crops cannot. Other crops

grown in Hawaii that benefit from windbreaks include ornamentals, coffee,

bananas, papayas, macadamia nuts, various

tree fruits and high value hardwoods.

Windbreaks are also planted to protect livestock, farmsteads and urban areas.

In the past, farmers planted ironwoods

(Casuarina spp.), eucalypts (Eucalyptus

spp.), Cook and Norfolk Island pines

(Araucaria spp.) and other tall trees. While

these are still planted mainly on property

and boundary lines as primary windbreaks,

the current trend favors species with a more

compact, upright growth habit that takes up

less space and grow rapidly for in-field

windbreaks. Some farmers, especially vegBob Joy

NRCS Plant Materials Specialist 

Hoolehua, Hawaii

Even an island paradise

needs wind protection.

“Tropic Coral,” right, 

protects valuable 

vegetable crops.

Hawaiian windbreaks

Daniel G. Pesante, Ph.D.

College of Agriculture 

University of Puerto Rico

Honey 

bees: 

Wind speed 

affects pollination

Honey bees reduce flight activity

when they encounter wind speeds of 9-

12 miles per hour and stop flying at

wind speeds of 27 mph and above.

When high wind conditions coincide

with the flowering of a particular crop

which requires the incorporation of

honey bees for pollination, a significant reduction in seed, fruit or vegetable set may result, especially when

high wind conditions persist. This is

principally the result of a reduction or cessation in foraging

events. High winds not only

inhibit or reduce flight activity

but have the potential of

reducing pollen grain viability

due to desiccation, further reducing

pollination effectiveness. 

Proper selection and placement

of wind barrier type in or around a

given crop will significantly reduce

wind speed and eddy formation

allowing honey bees to better forage

and pollinate. Wind barriers may help

extend the foraging effort per unit time

by allowing honey bees to forage for

more time in favorable field conditions.

Wind barriers in combination with adequate irrigation practices will increase

humidity conditions below and around

the plant. Depending on plant size and

type of growth this may create a favorable micro-climate conducive to prolonging pollen grain viability, which in

turn further increases the probabilities

of adequate seed, fruit or vegetable set

and growth.

Editor’s note: Keep an eye out for

Dr. Pesante’s new book on bees,

wind and wind barriers. The book

is in final revision and

will be released in

Spanish.

4 Inside Agroforestry | Spring 2003
Spring 2003 | Inside Agroforestry 5

Productive conservation

Growing specialty forest products in windbreaks

“I have extreme difficulty, especially in

spring and fall, with row covers, plastic

mulches, signs and other mobile objects

being blown around by the wind. I’ve also

noticed damage to young vegetable plants

from the wind,” stated Jeremy BarkerPlotkin. Due to these problems, Jeremy

began exploring different alternatives to

reduce the wind impacts, and he settled on

applying a multi-purpose windbreak. “With

this project, I hoped to find some species

that provided some economic, amenity, or

other types of benefits besides merely providing shelter from the wind,” added

Barker-Plotkin.

Jeremy Barker-Plotkin’s Simple Gifts

Farm is an eleven-acre parcel of land he

rents from the New England Small Farm

Institute (NESFI) located in central

Massachusetts. He raises mixed vegetables

and has been certified organic by the

Northeast Organic Farmer’s Association

since 2000. The long, skinny 10-acre vegetable field is oriented from west-northwest

to east-southeast and is about 1000 feet

long. The problem wind comes primarily

from the west. Jeremy planted the windbreak along the windward edge of the field,

using a three-row design along the short

side of the field and two-row design parallel

to the long side. The windbreak site was

prepared in 2000 and the trees and shrubs

planted in 2001.

The outside row is composed of several

shrub species to form a dense screen to

block the low-level wind. The shrubs were

selected for interesting fruit, low maintenance, and minimal pest pressure. “The

fruit fall into two categories: potential for

commercial harvest or for ‘grazing’ or recreational harvest which adds a site amenity

for visitors, but which does not offer direct

commercial benefit,” commented BarkerPlotkin. The shrubs included juneberry,

Manchurian apricot, bush cherry, American

plum, currants, josta berries, hazelberts, and

basket willow for potential commercial use.

Elderberry and edible honeysuckle were

also added specifically for “grazing” value.

The second row is comprised of tall trees

to provide greater field protection. This is

also a mixed-species row that combines

quick growth for protection and long-term

product potential. Hybrid poplars were

used for quick protection while black walnut, pawpaw, persimmon, and mulberry will

provide a potential commercial products.

The trees were planted on a ten-foot spacing with two hybrid poplars for every one

slower-growing tree. “The hybrid poplars

did grow astonishingly quickly – they are at

least 15 feet tall by the end of the first season,” said Jeremy.

The third row on the short side of the

field is an orchard row. This row included

Asian pear trees at a 15-foot spacing with

four gooseberries planted between the

pears. According to Jeremy, this row will

add some higher value fruit trees as well as

provide some additional wind protection.

Since Jeremy wanted to try a different

approach with his windbreak design, he

applied to the Sustainable Agriculture

Research and Education (SARE) producer

grant program and was awarded a grant to

support his innovative approach. Jeremy

received technical support and input for the

project from Eric Toensmeier and Kathy

Ruhf of NESFI, Lisa Krall, USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service, and the

USDA National Agroforestry Center. The

grant requires him to document the project

and provide the results both to SARE and

his peers in the area. To date he has documented his costs to establish the windbreak,

but it is too early to determine the economic value since the trees and shrubs have not

started bearing fruit. Jeremy commented,

“Establishment costs of a windbreak planting can vary widely depending on the

intended side benefits of the windbreak

planting. Hybrid poplars can provide a very

economical windbreak at pennies per foot.

Adding diversity, value, and longevity to a

tree row with walnuts, pawpaws, and persimmons still keeps the total cost under a

dollar per foot.” 

To share his multi-purpose windbreak

approach to others, Jeremy hosted two

farm tours in 2002 including the Northeast

Organic Farming Association’s (NOFA)

Summer Conference and part of the

University of Massachusetts Extension

Twilight Tour series. He hopes to have the

NOFA tour each season.

“The hope is that if the windbreak can

provide enough economic value to offset

the cost of planting, then wind protection is

free or at least cheaper than otherwise,” concluded Barker-Plotkin.

Bruce Wight

NAC NRCS Agroforester 

Lincoln, Nebraska

The hybrid poplars 

did grow astonishingly 

quickly – they are at least

15 feet tall by the end of

the first season.

“

”

Barker-Plotkin has chosen shrubs that create a dense windbreak, create income producing

fruit, and keep visitors coming back. Seen here are American plum, juneberry, and currants.

Photographs courtesy USDA NRCS. Additional information on productive conservation

and agroforestry can be found in publications at www.unl.edu/nac.pubs.html/#other

Juneberries protect

wind-sensitive plants.
The plan of work included every detail

from identifying snowdrift locations on

state highways of Lincoln, County, to

planting and follow-up public education. 

One site was selected due to its high visibility and most importantly, because of a

cooperative landowner/farmer, Bill

Reinbold. The living snowfence is located

in his cropland, 150 feet windward of the

highway. Bill participated throughout the

project, using his equipment for site preparation, and provided valuable assistance

during the day of planting.

WDFW provided the tractor, tree

planter, and fabric mulch machine and individuals from NRCS, WDOT, NAC, WSU

Extension and Lincoln County

Conservation District participated in planting the trees and installing the fabric mulch.

The Pullman, WA NRCS Plant Material

Center manager helped prepare the planting site and seeded a low growing bunch

April 1, 2003 was a great day for conservation tree planting in the state of

Washington. The first interagency living

snowfence was planted adjacent to state

highway 25, about 14 miles north of

Davenport, WA. The two 850-foot twin

row Rocky Mountain juniper plantings will

prevent snowdrifts along this section of a

highly traveled highway. This was a cooperative project between the USDA National

Agroforestry Center (NAC), NRCS,

Lincoln County Conservation District, and

landowner, Bill Reinbold. 

This interagency project began in

January 2002, with an information/education meeting coordinated by NAC, NRCS

and Washington State University (WSU)

Extension. In attendance were also personnel from Conservation Districts,

Washington State Department of

Transportation (WDOT), and Washington

State Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW). From this meeting an interagency working group was formed to develop a plan of work. 

grass between the twin row sets, which are

about 35 feet apart. Superior juniper

seedlings were grown in 20 cubic inch containers by the University of Idaho Forest

Research Nursery. The site is in a 16-inch

precipitation zone and the juniper will grow

well without supplemental water due to

good site preparation and the use of fabric

mulch for moisture conservation. The living snowfence should be fully functional in

catching and holding snow within 5-7

years.

This "planning to planting" effort could

not have been done without interagency

cooperation and commitment. 

The NRCS Davenport field office staff

did an excellent job of keeping the plan of

work on schedule. Another key effort

involved public information professionals

during the entire "planning to planting"

process. Regional TV stations and

local/regional newspapers were there to

cover the planting. In 2-3 years public

information signs will be located near the

living snowfence to inform passing

motorists. 

In a few years, WSU Extension will feature this living snowfence at a regional living snowfence workshop, to educate interagency personnel and landowners on

living snowfence benefits, planning,

design, and establishment.

6 Inside Agroforestry | Spring 2003

Planning to planting

Washington State interagency living snowfence project

Gary Kuhn

NAC NRCS Agroforester 

Spokane, Washington

This effort could not 

have been done without

interagency cooperation

and commitment.

Photos show the various steps in site 

preparation, planting, and fabric mulch

installation.

“

”
the local paper. The big wall map used at that

first church supper remained posted at the

church for several years to follow the progress

of the windbreak plantings. Of the 55 farmers

identified in the beginning, only four did not

initially sign on to the project, but after some

more encouragement from their neighbors,

they eventually joined too.

Almost 40 years later, this South Carolina

community windbreak network is still going

strong. A couple of windbreaks have been

removed due to changes in farm operations

like the addition of irrigation. Conservation

cover crops like winter pea and conservation

tillage have been added to the conservation

tool kit, but the windbreaks still stand as the

backbone. In addition to less soil erosion and

crop damage, the wildlife have benefited, too.

By adding some additional shrub and herbaceous cover next to the windbreaks at the

field edges, quail habitat has improved as well

as deer, rabbits and dove. Local residents have

also commented that the windbreaks have

"beautified the county." Bunny Anderson

commented, "The key to the success of this

project was how the community

worked together so neighbors' efforts

benefited each other."

Spring 2003 | Inside Agroforestry 7

Anderson and local soil conservation leaders decided to initiate a community-wide

effort to address this resource problem.

About 55 farmers were identified in a 3500-

acre area in central Marlboro County. They

started by holding a chicken supper at a local

community church and inviting farmers from

the area. One of the local landowners chaired

the meeting following the supper to discuss

the soil erosion concerns. The soil conservation staff had a large map of the area posted

on the wall and discussed how windbreaks

could be used to help reduce some of the

blowing soil. The soil loss was estimated at

four to seven tons per acre per year. One

landowner in the neighborhood had planted a

windbreak about fifteen years earlier, and it

was used an example. Several people in the

audience commented that they weren't going

to "chase" their soil anymore. 

The meeting was followed by extensive

local publicity including articles in the newspaper and on the radio. Since the project stood

to benefit the entire community, many people

helped the conservationists promote the program. For example, a local storeowner was an

aggressive salesman for the project and

"talked it up" to many of his customers. The

county road department promoted the project

to help reduce the sediment in the road ditches. They also liked the side benefit of keeping

the farmers from actually farming into the

road right-of-way. The farmers also helped

sell the idea to their neighbors. 

Windbreaks were planted mostly along the

field edges and property lines. The initial

design consisted of four rows of primarily

loblolly pine and some longleaf pine. By

changing the plant spacing and adding shrubs,

the original design was gradually modified to

one and two-row designs. Over the next

twenty years, the local soil conservationists

worked with the NRCS Plant Materials Center

in Americus, Georgia to try different plant

species such as cherry laurel, privet, crabapple,

and other species to add greater diversity.

When planting began, local timber companies provided tree seedlings and planting

equipment. The cooperation from these companies was instrumental in the success of the

project especially for situations where the

landowners could not afford the seedlings or

did not have the necessary equipment. Often

the windbreaks were planted in strips of rye to

help protect the young seedlings. Rye strips

were also used as wind strips between the tree

windbreaks to help reduce the blowing soil

until the trees had a chance to grow. 

As the planting progressed, the publicity

continued with pictures of each farmer with

their newly planted windbreak published in

South Carolina

continued from page one

Clarence Helms, conservationist technician,

observing a 31/2 foot bank of sand deposited

by wind erosion on a farm near Clio, South

Carolina (circa Spring 1967). Photographs

courtesy B.W Anderson. 

Landowners 

weren’t going to ‘chase’ 

their soil anymore.

“

”

What was planted:

Species: Primarily loblolly pine, and some long leaf pine

Configuration: Started out using a four-row design, then adjusted to one- and tworow design by changing the plant spacing and adding shrubs underneath.

Benefits:

Improved crops; less erosion and dust, more wildlife; enhanced aesthetics

Problems encountered:

Weed control; insects; disease
National Agroforestry Center

East Campus-UNL

Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0822

PRSRT STD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

USDA — FS

PERMIT NO G-40

June 7-8, 2003

Income Opportunities from Field and 

Forest. Rural Action Forestry. Ohio. 

Contact: Cynthia Brunty, 

cynthiab@ruralaction.org, or 

www.ruralaction.org.

June 17-19, 2003

Fourth Annual 1890 University Faculty 

Training Workshop in Agroforestry: 

Community Applications. Alabama A&M 

University, Normal, AL. 

June 22-25, 2003

Eighth North American Agroforestry 

Conference. Corvallis, OR. Contact: Steve 

Sharrow, Steven.H.Sharrow@orst.edu, 

or www.missouri.edu/~afta/

8thconference.htm

July 26-30, 2003

Soil and Water Conservation Society's 

58th Annual Conference. Spokane, WA. 

Contact: Nancy Herselius, (515) 289-

2331 extension 17, nancyh@swcs.org

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

September 21-28, 2003

XII World Forestry Congress.

Quebec City, Quebec. Contact: Jean-Louis 

Kérouac, Phone: (418) 694-2424, Fax: 

(418) 694-9922, sec-gen@wfc2003.org, 

or www.wfc2003.org

June 27-July 2, 2004

1st World Congress of Agroforestry. 

Orlando, FL. Contact: P.K. Nair, (352) 

846-0880, pknair@ufl.edu, or

www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/wca/

Agroforestry | Spring 2003 Inside

Upcoming Events

Inside Agroforestry is published quarterly by the 

USDA National Agroforestry Center. 

Phone: 402-437-5178; Fax: 402-437-5712.

Greg Ruark, NAC Director ext. 27

Michele Schoeneberger, FS Research Lead ext. 21

Rich Straight, FS Lead Agroforester ext. 24

Bruce Wight, NRCS Lead Agroforester ext. 36

Kimberly Stuhr, TT Specialist/IA Editor ext. 13

Ryan Dee, TT Assistant ext. 14

Mike Majeski, FS Agroforester

St. Paul, MN phone: 651-649-5240

Jim Robinson, NRCS Agroforester 

Fort Worth, TX phone: 817-509-3215

Gary Kuhn, NRCS Agroforester 

Spokane, WA phone: 509-358-7946

www.unl.edu/nac

The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) is a partnership of the Forest Service, Research & Development

(Rocky Mountain Research Station) and State & Private Forestry and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

NAC’s purpose is to accelerate the development and application of agroforestry technologies to attain more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable land-use systems. To accomplish its mission, NAC interacts with

a national network of partners and cooperators to conduct research, develop technologies and tools, establish

demonstrations, and provide useful information to natural resource professionals.

USDA policy prohibits discrimination because of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or handicapping condition. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any USDA-related activity should immediately contact the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

Opinions expressed in Inside Agroforestry are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the policy of the

USDA Forest Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Mission Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Rocky Mountain Research Station